quote: Original post by Diodor
1) Goal: Don''t kill the newbie.

It is desirable in every game to provide the newbie with a somewhat gentle learning curve. However, I think this game is so sufficiently unconventional as to render this point moot. Why? It is conceivable for a newbie to come in with an idea so revolutionary as to, almost overnight, gain a huge amount of global influence. I can''t substantiate this with examples, but there is the distinct theoretical possibility...

That said, I find the means you suggest interesting. The idea of the player being like some form of resource - increasing economic output, etc - begs the questions "how?" and "why?" It also doesn''t safeguard the newbie. More importantly, however, the low level human machinery of production is abstracted; this game''s primary currencies are power and influence. If the player comes in as a member of the overall social elite (college grad, professional, etc), then his/her actions likely have little to no direct effect on the resources you mention.

Similarly, I disagree with the idea of limiting a player''s production means. The only limiting factors to a player''s production should be money and logistical difficulties. If player X has three factories, then there is a need for communication and coordination of operations between the factories; there is more than likely a division of processing between the factories, so there''s a need for transportation between the three factories; and player X is neither sufficiently wealthy nor independent to coordinate his/her primary business and provide all these services (indirect factors of production). The larger an entity grows, the more maintenance is needed. A new player can always provide maintenance or some other necessary service for existing players (who are caught up with larger issues). This has the beneficial effect of giving the new player an in on what some of the issues in conducting business at the scale of player X are.

An ever-expanding frontier is unrealistic, both from the game point of view and the game creator/maintainer point of view. Opportunities will always exist, but the nature of opportunities change. New entrants to the market will have to accept that. but along with unique/new challenges come unique/new rewards.

The ideas on bases are only useful for military personnel. I know that I, for one, will almost definitely never play this game as a member of the military. The comparative long-term reward potential is just too low (best I can get is usually Chief-Of-Staff or some Secretary of ... position).

quote: 2) Cooperation. From the (in-game) moral point of view, the average player is a cross between Genghis Han and Hitler. The game rules must ensure the dominance of the cooperating players against the chaotic ones so the game doesn''t degenerate into a feudal chaos.

Rather than having the game intrinsically guard against the victory of chaos, let human nature proove the timeless maxim "there is no honor among thieves." Chaotic entities are often swallowed by their chaos (while overly structured ones are swallowed by their eventual hedonism).

quote: 3) Negotiation as opposed to direct conflict.

Absolutely. Noone should ever want to go to war or want to remain at war except as a long-term strategic weapon (say, economically depleting the enemy such that the economy collapses).

quote: 4) Intelligence. Knowing the intentions or capabilities of a player should be vital for profitable negotiations.

Again, I think this is an excellent observation. Allow me just one small modification to the above quote: "Knowing the apparent intentions..."

quote: 5) Globalization. Events that affect all players are needed to keep the game world from breaking in separate unrelated games.

Very astute observation. These events should sometimes be predictable (imminent flooding, seasonal bad weather) and sometimes completely unexpected. The player responses to these events, and the events themselves, can sometimes serve to completely alter the balance of power.

quote: 6) Personal power.

I need more information of what you mean by this, particularly when considering all the possible avenues of player entry and advancement. I know I''ve said more than once that this game deals in power and influence (which are to a large extent synonymous here), but what exactly do you mean by "power"?

quote: 7) Historic meaning. If done right, this game should allow scenarios that mimic various historic events. Total wars, revolutions, dictatorships, democracies, corruption, chaos, perhaps even a Cold War.

Such events should be predicated by the actions of players - socio-political participants.

quote: Original post by thelurch
Think of it as a more complex version of chess, where each player enters with a set number of pieces, but when a piece is captured it is not necesarily destroyed but rather now belongs to the person who captured it. So you don''t improve in the game by increasing your characters ''Stats'' but rather by becoming better at the manipulation of pieces.

Excellent analogy!

quote:
I think geography(Spacegraphy? ) could be used to many advantages in the game. For instance if newplayers are always placed on the outskirts of the settlement then they will always be surrounded by players with similar resource levels and it will make it much harder for a group of powerful players to gang together on the weak guys, becuase they will first have to get through ranks of others of similar power.

I dislike the "outskirts of the settlement" idea because I think a game like this is very mobile; while every player has a location called "home", it doesn''t necessarily have any production or military capacity (a player could simply be a resident citizen in a country run by another group of players). Besides, powerful players stand to gain little from new/weak players; the media would eventually cover said actions (except in a police state) which would result in censure and severe loss to the powerful players; and more often than not powerful players won''t even notice the existence of the new/weak players.

quote: I also imagine that the game should be slow. By that I mean a player shouldn''t log off and go to bed while all is well one night only to wake up the next morning and find out that his whole empire has been crushed!! I think one of the best ways to implement this is by controlling the powers of transportation. For instance it might take up to twenty or more hours to actually move troops from one end of the universe to the other.

Even on earth, actions take time. And since it is more than likely that a single player won''t have carte blanche command over an entire nation/empire, decisions considered mutually beneficial must be reached by all governing participants, which adds the delays of democratic deliberation.

Caution: Everything in this post is strictly IMHO

Cocerning visual represention, While functionally a very basic representation is sufficient, Ask yourself a question, 'What will the picture on the box be?'.
My point? The more impressive the visuals the more likely more players will be attracted. If it can look better, then it should.


Oluseyi,
You sound like you are imagining the game world as a single currently existing nation to which players will add themselves. I guess what I had in mind was a more 'Lord of the flies'-like scenario. Where there are a group of tiny communities, each headed by one player and each with the capacity to produce basic resources and grow. Organisation will emerge becuase it is necessary, but it will emerge in all shapes and sizes. And by defualt a multitude of nations will spring up almost instantaenously. There could possibly be one or two established nations at the beginning, to give players who prefer entering into organised systems somewhere to start, but I think that issue of chaos should be preserved and constant.

At this point though it seems Oluseyi is a very different type of player from me and a lot of my following comments stem from that. So let me first say that I think your ideas sound really good and most of the points I'm making is not to push out any of those ideas out but to intregrate them with slightly more 'aggesive' elements.

First this is beginning to sound more and more like SimCity/Railroad Tycoon and every other management sim out there rolled into one and given massive multiplayer capabilities. I'm not saying it's redundant (in fact I think it will be extremely refreshing) It's just that it then falls under my major critique of such games... Boredom...eventually.
Without some sort of constant threat and/or struggle for survival... a point will be reached where there's really no point in continuing. Like watching a fishtank, at first extremely intruiging but soon becoming 'just nice'. This may not be true for some gamers, but I feel it will be true for most. Hence the elements of chaos I mentioned above. These should almost always provide some kind of threat and natural or unnatural disasters can always spice things up a bit.

quote:
I dislike the "outskirts of the settlement" idea because I think a game like this is very mobile

I see your point, but then perhaps the player could just sell his holdings and invest in less tangible assets. or in asets elsewhere. Part of my camp idea is to give each player some sort of resource at the beginning of the game which is generic enough for him to translate it into anything he wants (including an army ). Of course, they could just be given money

quote:
The ideas on bases are only useful for military personnel. I know that I, for one, will almost definitely never play this game as a member of the military. The comparative long-term reward potential is just too low (best I can get is usually Chief-Of-Staff or some Secretary of ... position).

You are a Nigerian and you still believe this?
footnote: Nigeria just recently ended nearly 20 years of military rule
Military ability plays an undeniable role in almost all politics and power structures

Also 'bases' can be translated 'small villages', not necessarily aggressive but providing both manpower and natural resources.

quote:
For example, I could come in as a MS International Relations graduate planning to run for local office and climb the political ladder, but a chance meeting presented me with the opportunity to serve as a peace maker which vaulted me to the forefront of international significance. After attainin international acclaim and renown, I may then decide to marry an international news correspondent, become a house husband and write books while working part-time at the prestigious nearby Political Science institute.

Intruiging...! (fishtank )
I tend to agree with the Genghis Khan/Hitler comparison made by Diodor and so seriously doubt that anyone will make the decisions you've mentioned.
That said though, I think for this game to work to work well, the possibility for the scenario you've described above has to be available. In any group of settlements that has established a country and captured that elusive (in game terms) peacefull life, all sorts of proffesions and personal decisions should become possible.

In truth what we are discussing will be more of a sand box implemented on such a low level that an unbelievably wide variety of choices will be available, and the gameplay itself will be totally dependent on the whims of the players and the oppurtunity he is given, not by the game but by the players around him

Oh, that reminds me of something else. While I strongly support that contracts between players should be absorbed as game elements, I don't believe any effort should be made by the game to enforce it. Quite simply, If a player goes around breaking contracts no one will trust him. (other players might even gang up together to teach him a lesson!)

Also it can also be possible for nations organisations etc to be able to register themselves with the game in such a way that a new player about the enter in given the option of joining any one of these player formed communities as well as whatever default starting arrangement has been made. And terms of joining can also be set so that, say player A decides to join a player set up country, then whatever resources (if any) that would have been given to him can automatically belong to the country (for instance in a communist state) Or perhaps a monetary award could be taken from the countries coffers and given to each citizen (unemployment bonus) etc.


And everybody seems to be overlooking the 'Intergalactic' part of the machinations. I had a story idea, something has destroyed the home planet but everyone was evacuated on cryogenic pods programmed to find suitable landing sites. Everytime a player joins his pod has just landed and he was the captain of that particular pod and is now leading his crew on to a new life.
Hmm, on second thought this might not fit in with the idea of players joining already established nations.


Wow! long post. My mouth's gone dry

[edited by - thelurch on November 2, 2002 6:14:38 PM]

First of all - graphics aren''t relevant. They are relevant in terms of a product, but they aren''t relevant to figuring out how to build a game like this.

Now, some ideas...

The game universe (before players enter) is divided into computer governed dominions. These dominions are vary in structure, but are generally deemed interdependent upon each other. Think of Earth as a dominion. It is self sustaining, and has no relationship with anything else out there.

There are two kinds of dominions in the game: computer governed dominions and player governed dominions.

Any dominion offers the potential to provide revenue (in the form of taxes), troops, raw resources (commodities), and land. It is assumed that dominions offer other resources, but players cannot take advantage of them.

A player entering the game can begin by attempting to procure some of the resources within any dominion. This means a player can begin play by attempting to procure land, troops, resources, or money from a computer governed dominion, or a player governed dominion.

A new player begins with little. They have some money (perhaps the equivalent of a million dollars in today''s terms). One strategy they might pursue is to procure some land in a dominion and setup a business which will make more money. Note: a player could buy land in a player governed dominion and the players which govern that dominion could be oblivious to the new player''s actions. This is analogous to the fact that any person high in office generally isn''t interested in every little two bit business that sets up shop within their nation.

Another note: computer governed dominions are the mere starting foundation of the game. Interacting with the computer driven economy is not what the game is about. It merely provides the kickstarting foundation necessary to for players to establish roots.

If a player starts a business, the way to make money at it is provide goods or services to the economies of other players.

Let''s assume that a business could possibly do any of the following: mine for resources and sell raw materials, manufacture goods, or provide services. Other businesses will need raw materials to manufacture goods. Service providers will require manufactured goods (possibly). Most any business or government requires service.

Here''s an example: A player enters the game and sets up shop to manufacture satelites. Another player sets up shop, buys the satelites and runs a service providing information. Another player subscribes to this service. The subcribing player utilizes the data to locate land that is rich in resources and sells this information to governments looking for land ripe with resources. This is how players climb the ladder of power and influence. You could almost say that more important than the money they are generating from the business is the contacts they develop with other players that are in power.

Of course, there are other ways as well. By buying ''ad time'' with those players who run media, they can campaign to become well known.

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
First of all - graphics aren''t relevant. They are relevant in terms of a product, but they aren''t relevant to figuring out how to build a game like this.

In a game based on information flow the presentation of information is pretty important. Graphics in terms of cool looking 3D stuff isn''t important, but the interface is. There needs to be something like an IM client or IRC client that let''s players have conversations in realtime, and that isn''t really there in PBEM or webbased games (even though it could be added.)

It just doesn''t matter. Figure out the game, and along the way, figure out the options and what information to present, and when you''re all done, figure out the graphics.

quote: Original post by thelurch
Cocerning visual represention, While functionally a very basic representation is sufficient, Ask yourself a question, ''What will the picture on the box be?''.

I never discuss "game design at large" from a commercial standpoint. In fact, I have zero interest in commercial games/gaming (as a producer; I have some measure of interest as a consumer), so my ideas tend to disregard this entirely.

quote: Oluseyi,
You sound like you are imagining the game world as a single currently existing nation to which players will add themselves.

Yes, this dates back to the original thread where one of the ideas emphasized was that the players wouldn''t necessarily be political peers (ie, all heads of nation/state/community) but rather would fit into a global (galactic) social infrastructure in a fashion very analogous to real life.

quote: At this point though it seems Oluseyi is a very different type of player from me and a lot of my following comments stem from that.

You''re probably right about that too. I''m less interested in "games" with victory conditions that must be beat, etc, and more interested in "toys" and "sandboxes" that let me tinker and play with parameters and explore possibilities, which is why I have been advocating much more open-ended structure and gameplay.

Thank you for the compliments, though. I think your ideas are also very good; it''s simply a difference of approach. Since this is a discussion, I think we can incorporate most points of view and perhaps discuss the specifics of a base implementation (most generic set of features) upon which more targeted designs can be implemented.

quote: ...It''s just that it then falls under my major critique of such games... Boredom...eventually.
Without some sort of constant threat and/or struggle for survival... a point will be reached where there''s really no point in continuing.

Do you think that entities competing in the business world today - even highly successful entities - get bored? If they do, what do you think they do? In business (which, along with politics I consider to be fertile "analogy nurseries" for this concept) a company that has stagnated and can neither expand nor differentiate needs to repurpose. Apple repurposed a few years ago (with the return of Jobs from exile), and look at how well they''ve done since. IBM repurposed years ago, and are repurposing again. What forces all these companies to repurpose, though?

Change.

The game world isn''t static. The actions of other players along with global events can cause almost overnight shifts of economic and political power; how can you get bored when you need to keep an eye on a multitude of circling vultures and determine which will strike first?

quote:
The comparative long-term reward potential is just too low (best I can get is usually Chief-Of-Staff or some Secretary of ... position).

You are a Nigerian and you still believe this?

ROFL! I like this guy!

You''re absolutely right that military ability plays a major role in politics, but primarily in international politics once an internal system has been established and approved as agreeable to all. Either way, I would play as military personnel. I may interact with military forces - even directly giving orders (say, as commander-in-chief), but I have such urban and refined preferences... combat, guts and glory are somewhat overrated to me.

quote: footnote: Nigeria just recently ended nearly 20 years of military rule

Yep. We''ve got presidential elections next year (that''s right; i''s been 4 years already).

quote: In truth what we are discussing will be more of a sand box implemented on such a low level that an unbelievably wide variety of choices will be available, and the gameplay itself will be totally dependent on the whims of the players and the oppurtunity he is given, not by the game but by the players around him.

Precisely!

quote: Oh, that reminds me of something else. While I strongly support that contracts between players should be absorbed as game elements, I don''t believe any effort should be made by the game to enforce it.

Agreed. The whole objective of making private communication between players possible was to avoid trying to enforce bans on "unsanctioned" communication.

quote: Also it can also be possible for nations organisations etc to be able to register themselves with the game in such a way that a new player about the enter in given the option of joining any one of these player formed communities as well as whatever default starting arrangement has been made.

Yes, I had hinted at that (virtually stated it implicitly), but you made it very plain and clear. I absolutely concur.

quote:
Original post by Oluseyi

It is desirable in every game to provide the newbie with a somewhat gentle learning curve. However, I think this game is so sufficiently unconventional as to render this point moot. Why? It is conceivable for a newbie to come in with an idea so revolutionary as to, almost overnight, gain a huge amount of global influence. I can''t substantiate this with examples, but there is the distinct theoretical possibility...

Or some bully may just kill the newby for the hell of it. In all exponential growth games late entering players (or players that suffered severe defeats) don''t stand a chance since their resources are always orders of magnitude behind the remaining players.

quote:
That said, I find the means you suggest interesting. The idea of the player being like some form of resource - increasing economic output, etc - begs the questions "how?" and "why?" It also doesn''t safeguard the newbie. More importantly, however, the low level human machinery of production is abstracted; this game''s primary currencies are power and influence. If the player comes in as a member of the overall social elite (college grad, professional, etc), then his/her actions likely have little to no direct effect on the resources you mention.

If players are resources, even if they enter late in the game the already established players will embrace them into their power structure rather than just wipe them out. Maybe they have some unique crafts, maybe they come with certain unique artifacts. What''s more, if a newbie is accepted in a certain structure, his newfound allies will be interesting in teaching the newbie how to best exploit his abilities (Artifact for instance is very newbie friendly - since alliances are required to win, there are always a few players directly interested in helping the newbie out).

quote:
Similarly, I disagree with the idea of limiting a player''s production means. The only limiting factors to a player''s production should be money and logistical difficulties. If player X has three factories, then there is a need for communication and coordination of operations between the factories; there is more than likely a division of processing between the factories, so there''s a need for transportation between the three factories; and player X is neither sufficiently wealthy nor independent to coordinate his/her primary business and provide all these services (indirect factors of production). The larger an entity grows, the more maintenance is needed. A new player can always provide maintenance or some other necessary service for existing players (who are caught up with larger issues). This has the beneficial effect of giving the new player an in on what some of the issues in conducting business at the scale of player X are.

I wouldn''t like that the only limit on a player''s military and economic means should be the time the player puts in micro-managing these assets. MOO for instance was so annoying in this respect. I can take care of 10 planets and have fun, taking care of 1000 is boring. Besides, this game is about politics, and the time a player spends micro-managing should be limited and evenly divided between players.

But the most significant reason for limiting the production means is that it really encourages cooperation in a very similar fashion to real history. The limit on the direct control a player has over the world forces him to use indirect control (through other players). If a player can at most control a star system or a planet, he''ll be forced to use other players to exploit the rest of the planets he has indirect control of (ie. can defend/destroy with his military forces). If the size of the military of a player is limited (say by the population on the planet the player controls), he is forced to allow other allied players build military forces. There is a balance of power current strategy games don''t have. There can be no cooperation between a player who owns 50 worlds and a player who owns just one, especially if wiping out the small player leaves one player owning 51 worlds.

Still, these limits don''t need to make all players equal. In the case of the oneplanet / player limit, more powerful players will get larger, richer and better placed worlds.

quote:
An ever-expanding frontier is unrealistic, both from the game point of view and the game creator/maintainer point of view. Opportunities will always exist, but the nature of opportunities change. New entrants to the market will have to accept that. but along with unique/new challenges come unique/new rewards.

If every player can control at most one planet, there is no harm if the universe is huge. Transport costs balance the richness and lack of conflict in the outter rim. Isolation is (generally) more of a hindrance than a benefit so players are forced to bundle together. The expanding frontier is just a secondary effect of an increasing number of players to the world.

quote:
Rather than having the game intrinsically guard against the victory of chaos, let human nature proove the timeless maxim "there is no honor among thieves." Chaotic entities are often swallowed by their chaos (while overly structured ones are swallowed by their eventual hedonism).

The game mechanics must insure that chaotic entities will end-up in ruin, dominated by the ordered entities.

quote:
I need more information of what you mean by this, particularly when considering all the possible avenues of player entry and advancement. I know I''ve said more than once that this game deals in power and influence (which are to a large extent synonymous here), but what exactly do you mean by "power"?

I meant direct physical power, defined by the forces a player has direct control of through the game interface. As opposed to indirect power, which is defined by the influence a player has over other players. The point I was making, which I explained in detail with the Death Star example was that while the physical power of a player should be limited by maintenance costs (which are limited by the limited production means of a player), this limit can be increased a lot if other players contribute to paying this maintenance costs.

quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
ROFL! I like this guy!

The feeling is mutual.
I can't wait for this game to be released so that my army can conquer whatever nation you choose to take up residence in and impose martial law that will prevent any retired ex-lawyers with wives who write books from owning fishtanks


On to other issues

quote:
by Diodor
Or some bully may just kill the newby for the hell of it. In all exponential growth games late entering players (or players that suffered severe defeats) don't stand a chance since their resources are always orders of magnitude behind the remaining players.

In that case one way of preventing that would be to make sure the game does not foster exponential growth. A simplification of the solution would be to increase the maintenance of resources as they grow (e.g. excessively rich players get a 70% or more tax) but I think this problem will be highly unnecessary due to my next point.

quote:
I can take care of 10 planets and have fun, taking care of 1000 is boring.

That is exactly the point! Therefore any player who is trying to grow into a superpower MUST either hire other players (the newbie in question) to take care of the details for him OR be ready to make the commitment of personally making sure that each one of his 3000 reporters have enough ink and paper to finish thier articles.

quote:
The game mechanics must insure that chaotic entities will end-up in ruin, dominated by the ordered entities.

I don't think that will be appreciated by many 'chaotic' players. The truth is in almost any system there is a form of chaos that can actually thrive (don't ask for examples, ...I'm sleepy) And it can be very frustrating to keep trying, for instance to become a master criminal, or a warmonger or even a genocidal maniac, only to find out that the only reason you are failing, is not becuase your plans weren't perfect but becuase the game simply doesn't allow it!

Sort of like walls in platformers.
The very first (and almost the only) problem Edge magazine had with Mario Sunshine was that the world had an edge. i.e. a line you couldn't cross simply becuase you werent allowed to. As opposed to Mario 64 where you could easily go through the whole game without ever reaching the 'edge of the universe'. (I definitely never found one).
In my opinion this feeling of freedom is totally essential in any 'sandbox' simmulation and so I am totally against any sentence that has the word 'limit' in it.

quote:
Oluseyi Again
I think we can incorporate most points of view and perhaps discuss the specifics of a base implementation (most generic set of features) upon which more targeted designs can be implemented

Bishop has already given more definition to the starting conditions which render 'bases' a moot point giving merging the positive parts of both the aggresive and peaceful idea.

quote:
The game universe (before players enter) is divided into computer governed dominions. These dominions are vary in structure, but are generally deemed interdependent upon each other. Think of Earth as a dominion. It is self sustaining, and has no relationship with anything else out there.


A new player begins with little. They have some money (perhaps the equivalent of a million dollars in today's terms). One strategy they might pursue is to procure some land in a dominion and setup a business which will make more money.

Therefore, a player could either enter and begin providing a service or a product for the citizens of one of these dominions (or the dominions themselves), and any player looking for direct political power will have to win power from one of the Computer governors (one way or another).

I'm assuming some of the differences in computer controlled dominions will be having different types of
government systems (Democratic, Theocratic, Military, Soveriegn)

Although, it might be beneficial if we have only two or three intergalactic superpowers(a la America, Russia) these should have systems in place to encourage thier own preferred brand of order, (police, taxes, etc.) This will provide a relatively safe place for players with peaceful objectives (Unless thier objective is to help a small nation rise out of obscurity or something something similar of course)
Then they should be lots more weaker powers ranging from small nations to self governing villages.

Hmmm, I wonder if a million dollars is enough to hire a band of mercenaries and sieze control of a small village...

[edited by - thelurch on November 3, 2002 4:12:03 PM]: Just correcting gramatical errors and html syntax (both times)

[edited by - thelurch on November 3, 2002 4:24:08 PM]

quote: Original post by thelurch
Therefore, a player could either enter and begin providing a service or a product for the citizens of one of these dominions or the dominions themselves, and any player looking for direct political power will have to win power from one of the Computer governors (one way or another.).

But that''s not what I''m saying. You have reduced it to a business sim or an RTS. There is minimal to no business relationship with computer controlled dominions. The sole purpose of the game providing computer controlled dominions is to provide players with initial resources to exploit - land, raw materials, troops, workers, etc.

Players exploit these resources to control, refine, and trade with other players.