Adding a political system

[Preypacer]

By limiting what people can and can't do in the game takes away a lot of fun you could have. No, we won't let you do that just do your monotonous leves. No, you can't do that just do monotonous dungeons. Hey, guys what do you want to do leves, dungeons, NMs again? Bottom line, it is something different to do, sort of like a minigame, but much much much more ambitious than the super fun mini game of parley.

Oh come on already, can we please stop with the fake argument of, "They should implement "x". And if they don't, then they're limiting players' options".

For one, it implies a false dichotomy. SE has other activities and game systems planned that are going to be added to the game over time. Those are options that will become available to players that will ensure their choices of things to do aren't "limited".

It's like some kind of pre-emptive guilt-trip tactic some people use to get their way. It's like a child telling their parents, "If you don't give me the new bike I want, then you want to ruin my Christmas".

If something is a good, solid idea, it stands on its own merit. People don't need to be "convinced" or guilt-tripped into accepting it.

On that note...

Dyne, with some of the things you're saying in defense of your idea, I can tell you two things off the bat:

1. The arguments and ideas you've put forth so far for such a system would likely do more to guarantee it won't happen than anyone else's counter-arguments could; not to mention how impractical or out-of-place it would be in the current setting.
2. You clearly haven't thought the idea through, beyond "it would be cool to be able to rule a city and have an influence over how other players experience it". You've indicated this yourself with your remark about how "the devs could work out the details later".

It's on par with someone writing up a few paragraphs about a game they'd like to play, sending it off to a game developer and saying "Hey, this is my game idea. Please make it. Lots of people will like it, because I think it's a good idea".

You want the system simply because you want the system, and that's about the extent of it, and "let someone else figure out how to make it work".

Wonderful.

[Dyne]

Oh come on already, can we please stop with the fake argument of, "They should implement "x". And if they don't, then they're limiting players' options".

For one, it implies a false dichotomy. SE has other activities and game systems planned that are going to be added to the game over time. Those are options that will become available to players that will ensure their choices of things to do aren't "limited".

It's like some kind of pre-emptive guilt-trip tactic some people use to get their way. It's like a child telling their parents, "If you don't give me the new bike I want, then you want to ruin my Christmas".

Dyne, with some of the things you're saying in defense of your idea, I can tell you two things off the bat:

1. The arguments and ideas you've put forth so far for such a system would likely do more to guarantee it won't happen than anyone else's counter-arguments could; not to mention how impractical or out-of-place it would be in the current setting.
2. You clearly haven't thought the idea through, beyond "it would be cool to be able to rule a city and have an influence over how other players experience it". You've indicated this yourself with your remark about how "the devs could work out the details later".

It's on par with someone writing up a few paragraphs about a game they'd like to play, sending it off to a game developer and saying "Hey, this is my game idea. Please make it. Lots of people will like it, because I think it's a good idea".

You want the system simply because you want the system, and that's about the extent of it, and "let someone else figure out how to make it work".

Wonderful.

Limiting what you can and cannot do does take away some fun in the game. For example, the stamina bar. I also mentioned this as a future plan. Not I want it now! Now! Now! Now!
Think of the forefathers of America when they were coming up with the ideas for the Constitution. Did one person come up with everything or did they argue it to death? Just because I don't have all the details now doesn't mean the idea is dead.

[weeble]

i was mainly talking to Preypacer ... u all have your right to your opinions on it, but i find craping on him for not mathmatically writing out the creation of man is just stupid.

also it usually the other foot that creates reasons to not implement things ...not the other way around, an idea is an idea. it's the excuses for not putting it in that are usually absurd or one way open ended

[Preypacer]

Limiting what you can and cannot do does take away some fun in the game. For example, the stamina bar. I also mentioned this as a future plan. Not I want it now! Now! Now! Now!
Think of the forefathers of America when they were coming up with the ideas for the Constitution. Did one person come up with everything or did they argue it to death? Just because I don't have all the details now doesn't mean the idea is dead.

So, basically you're still doing exactly what I said in the last post... "If they don't implement this idea, then they're limiting my gameplay".

Well, hell.. If we're gonna go that route... I want SE to allow me to build a rocketship and fly to the moon you see in the Eorzean sky where I can build an entire city of my own and then charge people to come live there... If SE doesn't do this - eventually, I'm not saying "now!" - then they are limiting my gameplay.

I'm using hyperbole there - deliberate exaggeration - but it makes the point.

The point is, anyone can start a thread proposing a pet idea they like, and then pre-emptively accuse SE of "limiting their gameplay" if it's not implemented.

Basically, anyone can come up with any idea they would personally like to see... and then play the victim card by claiming "I'm being limited!" if the developers don't go for it.

You develop an idea... actually put some thought into it, much more than you've clearly bothered to do... and put it out there. If it's a good, solid idea that seems well thought out, well detailed and seems to make at least a moderate attempt at avoiding potential conflicts with other game systems (that one can know of) and still come out looking solid... You've got something.

To say, however, "I think we should be able to do this... I don't know how it would be done. That's up to the developers to figure out" is just plain lazy. Why should anyone get behind an idea you clearly can't even be bothered to think about beyond "hey I want to rule a city in Eorzea and be able to build statues of myself for all to see". Or was the idea for you to propse the end result, and let others fill in the blanks? Again... lazy.

Next... are you seriously comparing the Declaration of Independence - a very real document, written by very real people that would determine the way very real people would live their very real lives for untold decades into a very real future - with "being able to rule a city in a video game for a few weeks 'cause I think it'd be cool"? Really? Forgetting all the myriad reality-versus-fantasy elements that make the analogy completely and utterly ridiculous, you seriously see a valid comparison there? Seriously?

That's a rhetorical question. Obviously you see a connection and, obviously, think it's a really solid one. It isn't. The founding fathers weren't discussing how to govern the virtual lives of their digital avatars in a fictitious world in a video game.

/facepalm

Just because you "don't have all the details now" means you put very little thought into it and are basically looking for someone else to take the end result you think would be really cool, fill in the details and make it happen. You want SE to set aside unknown man-hours and unknown sums of money to develop a complete system out of you "thinking it would be really cool to control a city so you can control how people play the game and even build a statue of yourself in the middle of town".

I ask again, why should anyone get behind someone whose entire approach to suggesting a new game system entails citing a few dubious "benefits" of controlling a city, but has put absolutely zero thought into the details, complications or long-term ramifications of it being done in the first place.

And, let's just say... very hypothetically... that SE did somehow see your suggestion as a good idea, and implemented it in a way they felt would best suit the game... only it's nothing like what you had in mind. You can't do the things you imagined being able to. What would you do then? Bash them for "getting it all wrong"? How could you? After all, you left it to "others to figure out how to make it work", right? You gave them no specific details or anything resembling a plan or strategy for implementation. You basically said "Hey, SE, I want to be able to control cities and build statues of myself in the middle of them, set the rules so only lalafell can enter and any other race is attacked on sight by guards... Make it happen".

My advice: Find a game to play that already allows players to siege and control cities and influence the game world and those playing in it. Lineage 2 has this. TERA will have this. Anarchy Online has this. Perfect World has this. There's a number of them that do, and all of them are designed and developed, from the ground up, to support that kind of gameplay. FFXIV has not been.

[Dyne]

So, basically you're still doing exactly what I said in the last post... "If they don't implement this idea, then they're limiting my gameplay".

Well, hell.. If we're gonna go that route... I want SE to allow me to build a rocketship and fly to the moon you see in the Eorzean sky where I can build an entire city of my own and then charge people to come live there... If SE doesn't do this - eventually, I'm not saying "now!" - then they are limiting my gameplay.

I'm using hyperbole there - deliberate exaggeration - but it makes the point.

The point is, anyone can start a thread proposing a pet idea they like, and then pre-emptively accuse SE of "limiting their gameplay" if it's not implemented.

Basically, anyone can come up with any idea they would personally like to see... and then play the victim card by claiming "I'm being limited!" if the developers don't go for it.

You develop an idea... actually put some thought into it, much more than you've clearly bothered to do... and put it out there. If it's a good, solid idea that seems well thought out, well detailed and seems to make at least a moderate attempt at avoiding potential conflicts with other game systems (that one can know of) and still come out looking solid... You've got something.

To say, however, "I think we should be able to do this... I don't know how it would be done. That's up to the developers to figure out" is just plain lazy. Why should anyone get behind an idea you clearly can't even be bothered to think about beyond "hey I want to rule a city in Eorzea and be able to build statues of myself for all to see". Or was the idea for you to propse the end result, and let others fill in the blanks? Again... lazy.

Next... are you seriously comparing the Declaration of Independence - a very real document, written by very real people that would determine the way very real people would live their very real lives for untold decades into a very real future - with "being able to rule a city in a video game for a few weeks 'cause I think it'd be cool"? Really? Forgetting all the myriad reality-versus-fantasy elements that make the analogy completely and utterly ridiculous, you seriously see a valid comparison there? Seriously?

That's a rhetorical question. Obviously you see a connection and, obviously, think it's a really solid one. It isn't. The founding fathers weren't discussing how to govern the virtual lives of their digital avatars in a fictitious world in a video game.

/facepalm

Just because you "don't have all the details now" means you put very little thought into it and are basically looking for someone else to take the end result you think would be really cool, fill in the details and make it happen. You want SE to set aside unknown man-hours and unknown sums of money to develop a complete system out of you "thinking it would be really cool to control a city so you can control how people play the game and even build a statue of yourself in the middle of town".

I ask again, why should anyone get behind someone whose entire approach to suggesting a new game system entails citing a few dubious "benefits" of controlling a city, but has put absolutely zero thought into the details, complications or long-term ramifications of it being done in the first place.

And, let's just say... very hypothetically... that SE did somehow see your suggestion as a good idea, and implemented it in a way they felt would best suit the game... only it's nothing like what you had in mind. You can't do the things you imagined being able to. What would you do then? Bash them for "getting it all wrong"? How could you? After all, you left it to "others to figure out how to make it work", right? You gave them no specific details or anything resembling a plan or strategy for implementation. You basically said "Hey, SE, I want to be able to control cities and build statues of myself in the middle of them, set the rules so only lalafell can enter and any other race is attacked on sight by guards... Make it happen".

My advice: Find a game to play that already allows players to siege and control cities and influence the game world and those playing in it. Lineage 2 has this. TERA will have this. Anarchy Online has this. Perfect World has this. There's a number of them that do, and all of them are designed and developed, from the ground up, to support that kind of gameplay. FFXIV has not been.

Ummm... I don't work for SE and SE doesn't pay me, so why should I make a detail plan on how to do things. I am not paid to create the game for them. I am merely a player posting my idea, it is up to them to run with it if they like it. Oh, btw, I do have plans to play Tera when it comes out if this game is still crappy.

[Dyne]

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