I created a thread about a year ago about creating a game based on world domination and the political infrastructure a player would need to build up to win. The main problem was that of players emailing one another, preventing a third party from intercepting discussions amongst two collaborating players. The premise was to allow the players to design their own political hierarchies amongst themselves. The whole notion of resource was transplanted from a physical thing to a more abstract thing, often being other players or the information other players create. If such an idea could be fleshed out, and then played against an intergalactic backdrop, where players control entire federations, colonies, governments, etc., I believe this could be very interesting. To start thinking like this though, I would ask that you throw out all of your traditional values and expectations with regard to an online multiplayer game. Forget about graphics. Yes, the game would be graphical, but that isn't relevant. Forget about unit manipulation. Yes, the game would have units within its simulation, but the game isn't about manipulating units. Forget about gameplay revolving around things which you can touch in the physical world. This might be things like tanks, factories, troops, pipelines, fortresses, spaceships, etc. Yes, such things would probably exist in the game, but they are not necessarily things which are represented in the traditional sense that you might expect. Things which comprise the stock elements of the game are communication and information, both of which are always unique, and never prebuilt by the game. This is because each piece of information is actually a unique and real piece of information created by players. Information is not tokenized into a statistical abstraction with gameplay attributes. Rather, it stays in its original form. An example of information might be: The city of Haroona has been leveled. A massive armada of cruisers are in orbit above. The above information is not created by the program. It is created by a player. It could be true. It could be false. It becomes an element of gameplay as soon as it is communicated to another player. That other player might be a trusted player. That information might be intercepted by any group of other players. Regarding more physical resources. Let's look at some mundane ones: fuel stations, armies, ships, spy equipment, etc. These things either produce physical changes in the Universe, or collect information. Whomever controls these things has leverage. But note that just because these things are creating changes or collecting information, that does not mean that other players are aware of those changes or that collected information. In order for that to happen, players have to develop the hierarchy of players which comprise the infrastructure of the communication channels to make effective decisions. If a testbed were to be built to try out these ideas, what methods would be fruitful to adopt first? What would a mini-prototype be comprised of? How would some of the difficult issues be tackled? [edited by - bishop_pass on October 26, 2002 2:22:54 AM]

It''s a very neat idea but there''s one thing I don''t get. If the goal of each player is to dominate the world and be at the top of the political hierarchy, why would anyone ever trust another player? You know ahead of time about each player''s ultimate personal agenda, and achieving that agenda ultimately means he/she wants to be above you. I see that there would be short-term trust, but in the long term, wouldn''t _everyone_ be out to get you?

quote: Original post by beantas
It''s a very neat idea but there''s one thing I don''t get. If the goal of each player is to dominate the world and be at the top of the political hierarchy, why would anyone ever trust another player?

Because you''ll never get close to being there without being a part of a larger hierarchy composed of other players which is based on cooperation and trust and greed. Kind of like the real world, eh?

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
Because you''ll never get close to being there without being a part of a larger hierarchy composed of other players which is based on cooperation and trust and greed. Kind of like the real world, eh?

I see. Very cool. But how will players interact with the actual universe (other than via player communication) if there is no unit manipulation? Will commands be abstracted to the point of "Attack this city with army" or "Send spy to that city"?

I guess I should probably read the earlier thread but I can''t without a forum search But so far it seems like there''s a lot of preliminary design left to do before any sort of prototype is coded. A game of this kind of scope seems like it needs a fairly detailed design doc.

The other thread was Online game idea - politics & conquest.

quote: Original post by beantas
But so far it seems like there''s a lot of preliminary design left to do before any sort of prototype is coded. A game of this kind of scope seems like it needs a fairly detailed design doc.

Whatever. Put whatever labels you want on the design process.

quote: Original post by Diodor
The other thread was Online game idea - politics & conquest.

Thanks Diodor. I lost the thread, and as we know, the search isn''t working.

quote: Original post by beantas
But how will players interact with the actual universe (other than via player communication) if there is no unit manipulation? Will commands be abstracted to the point of "Attack this city with army" or "Send spy to that city"?

In the real world, ninety percent of large scale stuff actually gets done because a chain of command and infrasturcture is setup to enable large scale things to happen. The movers and shakers don''t press physical buttons, drive tanks, lay pipelines, etc. And they don''t move chits on a map to make those things happen either. But that''s what we see in games. What really happens is hierarchies and infrastructures are built based on communication (truth and lies) between people jockeying for power.

Whoops! Sorry for my ignorant questions. Reading that thread answered most of them.

So why did the thread stop? And did you guys make any other progress that isn''t shown in that thread?

without SOMETHING to manipulate, this "game" is merely a chat room (well, also some private messages). there has to be some way of doing something, not just talking about it with other "players"...