Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 12:52:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Taxes. Tribute. Protection Money. 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Taxes. Tribute. Protection Money.  (Read 3298 times)
Big Gulp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3275


on: February 21, 2007, 07:00:04 PM

Reading the latest PVP thread over at Scott's blog someone mentioned that EVE lacks an important thing:  civilians.  Everyone is expected to fight in that game, and if you don't you get chewed the hell up.  Now I consider a lot of that to be the fact that EVE just doesn't have much to do in the way of PVE once you outgrow the newbie sectors.  However, given a game with the same kind of depth of economy, and with a meaningful PVE game wouldn't it be possible to integrate the two by making PVE guilds pay taxes to the PVP guilds from their "realm" for protecting them from the other wolves?

I really, really like the cutthroat nature of EVE, but I'd also like to see it done more realistically.  In the real world nations aren't just composed of predatory killers, there are more or less peaceful civilians who pay the state (in whatever form it may take) to protect them.  Shouldn't this also be possible in an online gaming context?
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8306


Reply #1 on: February 21, 2007, 09:16:09 PM

This already happens in EVE, exactly as you describe it. Most Major alliances have civilian populations, players that more or less rent the space of the controlling alliance and do nothing more then Mine, Rat and run missions. Even within the alliances themselves, there are many corporations that have little to no combat impact and are there purely in a industrial and revenue generating role. Arguably, most of EVE falls under this category. If you take a gander at the EVE map on EVE-O, you can see a clear as day example of this with Band of Brothers space. BoB controls an area *far* wider then their alliance could occupy, let alone utilize effectively. Most of their space is run on a day to day basis by friendly allied alliances, which enforce BoB policy in the region and protect the numerous tenet/renter corps in the region. The Renters get to Rat/Mine/etc, the Allied alliances get to do the same and get added benefits that come from territorial control and management and BoB gets considerable revenue from space that would otherwise be unusable to BoB alone.

BoB = Government and Military
Allies = Police and PublicWorks
Renters = Civilians

You can find similar situations in any of the large allied powers in 0.0. There was(is) also ISS, which is probably as close to an actual corporation as you'll find in EVE.


The thing EVE lacks is mechanical flags to prevent the actual PvE Civilians from being killed by PvP'ers... and EVE doesn't want them. Even in the highest security systems of 1.0, you can still be dropped and podded if someone wants do kill you badly enough and that is how the EVE Dev's like it.


and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #2 on: February 27, 2007, 09:20:43 AM

I don't think this topic got enough play, of course putting it in GDD was probably killed it before it started.

2 related:
Why were there so many carebears in SB?  SB did everything but execute gangland them style and they still came.
What could be done to integrate hardcore carebears confortable?  I guess this just generalized version of BG's question.  But think it is important,  hardcore PvP doesn't generate enough subs to just the 50 million dollar investment.  So I think the reasonable approach to examine how can co-exist.

> The thing EVE lacks is mechanical flags to prevent the actual PvE Civilians from being killed by PvP'ers... and EVE doesn't want them.
In Eve, "Safe" space is inferior by design.  But is still hugely popular because there is no comparable way for a big alliance to create safe space.  And that's why it'll remain niche.

I think a PvP+ game with PVP- civilians could do well.  First, the rules should be crystal-clear for civilians: walk on to battlefield you are PvP+; walk into an enemy stronghold you are PvP+; If the area you are in becomes a battlefield, get out in X minutes.  Second make the civilians and soldiers mutually beneficial but not master-slave.  Having a health mix active soldiers and civilians should bonus to each other. Soldier provide security, areas without soldier presence quickly become battlefields.  Civilians provide the economic backbone for prolonged campaigns and military technology.  That way the most straight up hardcore killers want to find most straight up carebears to partner with.

I sure you can draw parallels to EvE, but if the relationship isn't formalized in game, people can't rely on it.

"Me am play gods"
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4701


Reply #3 on: February 27, 2007, 09:59:02 PM

Why were there so many carebears in SB?
There were carebears in SB because ultimately everybody's a carebear. We want to play our game without some asshole interfering... we just have different thresholds for pain. Folks came into SB thinking they were hardcore PvPers and after a few days realized they'd never even seen hardcore PvP. They felt betrayed. Play2crush was supposed to mean THEY'd do the crushing. I mean theoretically PvP could be designed that was so wildly punishing and unbalanced that only five guys would play it, but in practice things don't have to get that bad. They just have to reach a point where the size of the world vs. the population makes fights rare. Eventually even the people who want to fight get bored and leave.

These are games, see. They're supposed to be fun. You're supposed to feel like a protagonist and...
In the real world nations aren't just composed of predatory killers, there are more or less peaceful civilians who pay the state (in whatever form it may take) to protect them.  Shouldn't this also be possible in an online gaming context?
... these games are fundamentally about killing people. Eve doesn't have civilians because no MMORPG has had real civilians. UO and SWG tried to offer a few primarily civilian roles and those received only limited attention. The vast majority of the game content is obviously designed for warriors. The genres of fiction from which these games borrow are almost exclusively about warriors. The covers of the games display warriors. Most of the screenshots and trailers only feature warriors.

You're not necessarily killing other players, but if you're not killing at all you're not really playing the game. So to try to divide killers into PvE and PvP always leaves bruised expectations. When they stay in segregated areas, like in EVE, the split isn't so obvious. But a game that made each side require the other would generate an absolute shitstorm of resentment. The PvP+ minority (for it will always be a minority if another option is given) would resent the constant demands of a horde of ungrateful carebears who just wanted to play their little carebear games in peace. The PvP- majority would resent having to support an egotistical minority whose very presence implies that their badass hero isn't a real hero at all.

Taxes, tribute, and protection money work in the real world because the other option offered is death... either immediately by the agents of a ruling warrior elite, or slowly via anarchy and starvation. We accept the PvP+ minority because otherwise they'll kill us.

In a game the other option is playing something else, and developers aren't terribly interested in inspiring that choice.

if at last you do succeed, never try again
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8306


Reply #4 on: February 27, 2007, 10:28:28 PM

The only way I could see PvP+ and PvP- working together would be through the use of some very heavy and clever, NPC interaction. Take the idea's of keep guards from DAOC or Concord from EVE and really expand on it... like a lot. Instead of just having a few random keep patrols on a DAOC keep, you would need an entire NPC army/infrastructure in place to bridge the gap between the PvP+/- folks. I think EVE was planning on doing something similar to this with the Empire wars... not sure what came of it in the end. You would have to create an artificial player base of NPCs, willing to do all the boring as shit jobs neither the PvP+ and PvP- people want to do for the other side, but would require of each other.

Things like guard duty are usually boring for the PvP+ people, but vital to the PvP- folks. PvP- folks having to rely on the PvP+ folks for protection constantly is equally tedious. NPCs though, NPCs tend to not bitch about such things  smiley

Essentially, the game would play itself and the PCs would just be the elites in either field. This is how current games almost work, but instead of playing themselves, they simply stand idle. I doubt the resources required to create such an NPC system even exist yet. Dare to dream though!

and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
damijin
Terracotta Army
Posts: 448


WWW
Reply #5 on: February 28, 2007, 12:20:05 AM

We accept the PvP+ minority because otherwise they'll kill us.

Excellent post which basically boils down to: virtual worlds aren't the real world. You can't emulate much of the real world because the real world isn't all that desirable in many ways, mostly relating to the fact that you can die. If you try to emulate the undesirable parts of the real world or systems that hinge on those parts, most people when given the choice will just flock to a nicer world.

In other words, I'm pretty sure nations can't work since they depend on several real world factors that just wouldn't make sense to many gamers, like not being able to choose where your character is born. I think PvP can and should stay as gang warfare, but just because it's "gangs" doesn't mean it has to be ganking or without complexity. EVE is an excellent example of complex gang-driven economy, with large gangs protecting smaller gangs and forming large alliances to project power. But everyone knows the bigger you get, the more likely the shit is to hit the fan with internal turmoil and political dissent. To be honest, I think that stuff is a hell of a lot more fun than real world politics.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 12:24:23 AM by damijin »
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #6 on: February 28, 2007, 08:01:26 AM

You can't have real swording in MMOGs, just a gamified approximation of sword fighting.  I am not asking for a real nation, just a gamified approximation of a nation.  And we can do better than how current our current approximations. It can be a better game and provide more options.  It can be a better approximation and provide a home for more than killers.

Pxib:  I am not sure about resentment being mandatory.  Do you think BoB resents needing an army of miners to keep their capital fleet in working order? Na, the pass the bulk of it to renter corps.  I think what creates resentment is restrictions the mandate playing.  Give them choices; tell them the pros and cons; let them decide how they want to play.

"Me am play gods"
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Game Design/Development  |  Topic: Taxes. Tribute. Protection Money.  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC