The way I see it (I could be wrong, I dont have to much info on this) is that most automated ranking systems suck one way or the other. Democracy isnt working, cause the few guys who know what theire doing are outvoted. I''m proposing (it could have been done, I dont know) a feudal ranking system. The absolute monarch, descendent of the Gods, chooses by his own will some dukes that have great powers. Those choose earls with medium powers, etc. This system would work, provided that the monarch is doing things right. The dukes would be quite competent (the monarch chose wisely), AND they''ll try to make good decisions (decisions that the monarch will like) to keep their jobs. The corruption that would result from this will only make things interesting. Say a peasant is ill treated by his earl. He can go to the duke and complain. But unless he has a good point, he risks haveing both the earl and duke angry at him, meaning these complains will be rare, and generally have a real basis. And lots of game stories could arise. Quests to find objects that would please your superior / killing your superiors enemies / finding evidence to prove your superior wrong in front of his superior (like trying to convince another fearfull peasant to testify in the dukes face that the earl was stealing from you). Now for a fun example of this system. I''m thinking we can test it right here in the design corner. A point based system. Good ideas get more points. Ok, so the forum monarch (hey MadKeithV, can we crown you ? ) can give points to anyone, but more importantly, can choose some dukes he can trust will make good decisions. These dukes can also give as many points as they wish to anyone. But if they abuse their mandate (which I''m sure they wont), they''ll lose the dukedom (and Keith will have their heads). As for us regular peasants, for each two points we recieve, we can give someone one point.

Sounds like fun...

how about the downside? abuse of power? voting away someones points?

and to be honest, i dont want this (gamedev) to be a feudal system... i dont really know any of the people here and generally wouldn´t like to have to trust in someone´s opinion (especially someone over the internet). Nothing against any of you personally, I just dont know you that well.

It would work great for MMORPGs though, as the topmost levels would probably be controlled by the admins themselves.

One thing we always lacked in my UO shard Seer days, was a written "Government System" that players could use as a guideline when dealing out justice (dealing with RP''d murderers, thieves, or even running a tax or fealty system).

It sounds harsh, I know, to have such a hard-coded system of government in an online game (especially since many players may fear other powermongering players), and so I would want to present to the players, more of a set of "Guidelines". For example, a list of things that could be done in a mediaeval feudal system, and how to enforce law if necessary (given that the game system has the ability to let players enforce laws).

Interesting topic though... more on this later.



MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.org

I sort of like the ideea of guidelines. It can provide some generally accepted standards that most players are interested in supporting. A law system. And if you set in that law system the conditions needed to modify the law, the systems flaws might eventually get solved on their own.

But you cannot _make_ the players do something you want them to unless you apply some kind of force on them. If all the players find the guidelines bothersome, they simply wont obey them (especially the newbies).

You cannot expect your players to follow certain style, use certain language (old english, klingon, etc.), or simply role-play without a proper reward punishment system.

My point is that such a system can never be hard-coded. You have to make the players be the themselves judges of how certain actions fit the game. You have to make them interested in making the right decision (or everything will degenerate into chaos). A feudal system like I proposed might do this.

Of course, this system has to fit the game very closely. Say, if you have a world with religion, there is no reason why the _pray_ action wouldnt send a typed message to a player god. Have the higher god position reserved for yourself, and give player gods instructions as to what they can or cannot do. Now they are motivated to follow them. And they can pass this instructions to player priests to player paladins etc.



As for gamedev. Gamedev is a sort of dictatorship anyways. Moderators have almost unlimited powers (delete, close, etc.). That this system works so well, with virtually no power abuses, and very seldom use of force, keeping order in the ranks of the 17000 gamedev members should prove my point.

Some ranking system would definetely be usefull, more so as the number of topics grow. Just for easily finding the most interesting long forgotten topics. I''d even be happy if only the moderators were allowed to vote.

Btw, what happened to the last gamedev ranking system ? I''ve read some posts implying there was once one, but it went wrong...

The last ranking system GameDev had was based on the number of posts. People started abusing it big-time, posting one-liners just to increase their count, or in some extreme cases even starting threads with hundreds of their own messages and then deleting them. The abuse of the system got so bad that it was ruining threads and even entire forums (the lounge back then was even more of a hell than it is now)

As for moderatorship/dictatorship... I admit that I''m VERY hard-lined when it comes to moderating. It''s the only way that works, because the internet is such an anarchic medium. The people that witnessed the Landfish/Niphty wars in here probably understand the background behind all that .
But I hope everyone thinks I''m fair when you''re sticking to the rules.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.