The Mana World Forums

i like the voting for the ruler of the kingdom but i think elven and his "crew" should keep tabs on people and the good tasks that they do. say they are big on helping people and things like that. then the top 3 or 5 people will be put on a voting list and the things that they have done and people should vote and maybe not get armor but like a sword dedicated to them. and of course they would be the ruler of that kingdom...that should be good enough!!!

A legitimate source of power in multiplayer games should be administrators and moderators/game masters, we should ask players for opinions in voting etc., but we shouldn't have any so said "player rulers of kingdom", it always goes in wrong direction.

Regards.

I agree with Platyna. Players are bound to go corrupt.

a little amount of politics might make the game interesting. but the community should have posibilities to get rid of an unfair ruler and everyone should be able to become ruler himself. either on the democratic way (voting for someone else) or on the archaic way (defeat him and his supporters in a battle).

but this is a completely different topic.

In any game I have ever seen this implemented it leads to idiotic popularity contests, "buying votes", flattery and general indoctrination on behalf of power hungry persons who wish for some additional privileges which is spread within the game, forums, mailing lists, channels etc. We have about 20 players online now, but when the project grows bigger this may become a major problem and source of conflicts within the community.

Regards.

So basically, you think a government feature will make the game seem more like reality?

One way you could prevent this is if different players could "rate" other players, kind of like on eBay or XBox 360 Live. Good or nice players could get higher ratings from the players they help, or who see them help others, while bad players will get negative ratings.

Also, I remember reading a paper on ancient Latin governmental systems, and although I do not remember the exact specifics, one aspect of their system went like this:
* In times of crisis, the council would elect a temporary dictator, who will basically rule every aspect of the country for a limited amount of time, such as 2 years.
* At the end of this time period, the council would review the dictator's performance. If it was dissatisfactory or unfair, he would be executed. But if they ruled well, they would become a member of the council, and would be one of the first choices for dictatorship later on.

Maybe a system like this could be implemented in the game?

BTW, I'll try to look up more specific information on this system if someone wants me too.

Digital Tsukasa wrote:One way you could prevent this is if different players could "rate" other players, kind of like on eBay or XBox 360 Live. Good or nice players could get higher ratings from the players they help, or who see them help others, while bad players will get negative ratings.

Ragnarok Online had that. For about a week. Then they deactivated it. Why? Good ratings were sold on the street while bad ratings were used to blackmail people.

...
Then perhaps the admins could provide "voting licenses" to people who seem trustworthy, and only allow them to cast votes. I realize there are a lot of problems with this, but it could be a start in the right direction.

No offence, but don't you think admins (who are usually developers of multiplayer games) has nothing more to do than hunt political talents? Developers are for developing, they shouldn't be forced to involve into community who-with-who-where-and-why because they are supposed to actually work for the game code/graphics/music etc. which consumes alot of their time, moderators are generally to keep order and has to be objective, how they are supposed to be supportive towards particular persons? Same goes to game masters. Powerful establishments does no good to the real life world, so how can they do any good to a MMORPG? Admins and particular persons chosen by them are decidents, if admins needs an advice they has quite a few ways to receive it from players - such as forum polls and IRC meetings where all the players has the same right to express their opinions and cast a vote, establishments are completly unnecessary. If someone wants to develop a leader character they may establish a role playing group, a guild (in the future) etc. enjoyable things. The question is: What we may acquire with such establishments which we may not without them?

Regards.

Do what RO did, Raise the EXP and item rates by 2x for 2 weeks for the alpha/beta players. Then lower it and start advertising again

My dream and vision includes politics in TMW. A long story (draft) short:

Different countries should have a different method for choosing the political elite (they should have some influence, for example the possibility to set taxes, tariffs and such and how to spend the public money, possibly even to decide about alliances, treaties and war and peace on the longer run). One country could have a democratic voting system once a week, one might have a weekly pvp tournament and in some country it could simply be about who has the most money in cash at the beginning of each week (or once per month or so).

Quite possibly this would be far too simple and not a good idea, but I'd really like to see politics in the finished product.

One thing we have to keep in mind is with big games in-game things are always sold for real money. Beit items, characters, GP... or characters that have a powerful position. Or even votes.
I'm just saying we should think about this.

Don't you dare sell your character to Microsoft! Or we will nuke your city of Tulimshar!