01-20-2011, 03:34 AM
It's an interesting idea in that it gives a community a way to basically make a sub-game out of a game. That is, the developers create a game that allows you to do X, Y and Z, but the community mostly enjoys only Y, and they find X and Z to be detractions from the game, so they start punishing people who do those things.
Sounds like a terrible idea from a developer's perspective, though I can see where some players, possibly even a majority, might like it.
For example, Pirates of the Burning Sea. Some people believe it's "treason" to sell goods to the enemy. I say they're going to get those goods anyway and it's really a question of who gets the money, which I believe should be me. If a majority of players decided that I was wrong about this then potentially they could ban my activity, if POTBS had a tribunal like this. They could decide similar things about ganking newbies, unfair fights in general, etc. As long as a majority supports it, then I guess they can enforce it?
So the community, which is to say, the majority, gets what they want and everyone else has to go find a new game.
I think this is why we got a Republic in America and not a Democracy...
It's kind of a baffling solution to my eye because it sounds like something that's going to be complicated and have a lot of overhead. As long as you're doing something complicated with a lot of overhead, why not just solve the root problems via better game design?
Sounds like a terrible idea from a developer's perspective, though I can see where some players, possibly even a majority, might like it.
For example, Pirates of the Burning Sea. Some people believe it's "treason" to sell goods to the enemy. I say they're going to get those goods anyway and it's really a question of who gets the money, which I believe should be me. If a majority of players decided that I was wrong about this then potentially they could ban my activity, if POTBS had a tribunal like this. They could decide similar things about ganking newbies, unfair fights in general, etc. As long as a majority supports it, then I guess they can enforce it?
So the community, which is to say, the majority, gets what they want and everyone else has to go find a new game.
I think this is why we got a Republic in America and not a Democracy...
It's kind of a baffling solution to my eye because it sounds like something that's going to be complicated and have a lot of overhead. As long as you're doing something complicated with a lot of overhead, why not just solve the root problems via better game design?