Player run towns ? (Dev) Replied

Will it be possible to create player run towns?

 

I love the idea !
But I think it should be made in a way that the map won't end up being filled with more or less interesting towns, lore-wide speaking. As RG said in the annoucement video, they plan to get an emphasis on the immersion, the universe and the lore.

 

Maybe it could be set up that people have to subscribe to your town otherwise it wouldn't show up in your game.

 

With the game not being an MMO that leaves us with a whole lot of room to play. It means that mods will be possible though not necessarily encouraged.

Before we ask this question we need to know if there will be any official servers or if they plan to keep all hosting information/responsibility on the client side. Once we know that our questions gain legitimacy.

 

from what i heard on the roosterteeth podcast today it sounds like there will be a some kind of centralized server to facilitate multiplayer aspects of the game.

 

question answered on the live stream, there will be player run towns.

 

@Chris will you release a stretchgoals list for us to see?

 

Seconded @Chris will you release a stretchgoals list for us to see?

 

player run towns = guilds.

don't want to abide by that particular guilds rules, then you wont be welcome in their neighborhood.

 

They should make the static towns be able to elect a mayor, and you can only vote for a mayor if you have a house in that town. Mayor can control elements like taxes, town guards (more guards would require more taxes etc).

 

I'm going to push in the developer forums the voting idea as well. It would be neat for home owners to be able to vote. Things like voting for a tax increase for more protection.

 

Actually I like the mayor system - this idea should REALLY be broken out into its own thread.

 

Hail! I lead a 15+ year-old Player Town in UO Chesapeake called PaxLair. We built it primarily based on RolePlaying, not on game mechanics -- so my discussion may not fit the ideas of this thread, but I hope they contribute to ideas. Please read on.

The only mechanics PaxLair used were houses and guilds of characters. All the rest of the player town development was done through interaction between people mainly on a RPing level.

We developed a charter, appointed the first mayor through a council (not a general election), and built our defense divisions, crafter guilds, etc. We had and still have more than 20 guilds in our city (now cities since PaxLair is a statehood of several player towns). So our citizenry is not based on people abiding by guild or city rules, it's more realistic than that. You come and build a house ... you generally become a citizen if you get involved. You join a citizen-guild (one of many guilds), then you are a citizen.

If you attack (or habitually attack) the city or citizen guilds, you become an enemy and we treat you and your guild as such (RPing politics considered of course). Mechanics can't really do that for us because of the decision logic involved -- we make decisions as players-behind-the-characters and put your character on the wanted list on our web site (or IN GAME if we could do that -- hint hint)

In my opinion, putting in a lot of game mechanics to hold elections and such is fine if you want a "game mayor". It might be a popularity contest and not a best-person based contest. You might never see that elected mayor again and he/she might might not set up a web site, forum (or have others do that) to promote player town growth, history, news, discussion and publicity.

If it's just a "game mayor" with no real responsibilities than a "game mechanically elected mayor", then it's a good idea. In fact, it might mechanically feed "fiction" in the game where "bring me your mayor, or you cannot cross this bridge!!" So now you have to go find your game-mechanics elected mayor or you are stuck on the quest.

But, if you want a player leader with responsibilities and accountability, that's done through real life interactions (and RPing), personal commitment, elections, appointments, etc.

And yes, the mayor system is a more specific topic perhaps for another thread, yet it touches on the idea of player towns and player town leadership.

So... what we might want to discuss 2 different things about Player Towns:

1) Game-based Player Towns (mechanical elections feeding storylines, LTs promoted, etc.) and people can strive through merits and quests to become the Captain of the Guard, or get elected as mayor through in-game elections.

2) Real Life RPing Player Towns (based on player communities developed in real life, then RP'd in the game) -- which is what PaxLair is.


I love player towns and they've been my RPing life for 15+ years. I really like the idea that SotA will have player towns in some form/style.

Dragonspeed!

Winfield, Old Man and Governor of PaxLair

 

Player Town + Mayor system existed in Star Wars Galaxies and was pretty amazing when dedicated people participated...

Some town where Empire or Rebel, with player bought/crafted/trained perk to defend and run the town... some where simple or giant merchant town...

Something like that could probably fit in the game, but depending on the allowed size, it may hinder the value of the basic town housing if everyone know that the big player market is this area, etc...

 

I feel while in game support for player towns is good, election systems and similar are bad. That sort of stuff should be down to the community. It shouldn't be enshrined in any sort of game mechanics (which can possibly be abused). It takes away agency from the players.

But I'm wholly for the SotA supporting player communities.

 

I'd like to echo Winfield's sentiment. If the game defines roles, it defines restrictions. If the game offers tools, it allows for diversity. Basically, if the game has a governance and election system, you are bound to that, and a guild would have to actually work against the system if they preferred another way to run their city. In UO, I've seen cities run as communes(usually FaF guilds), monarchies/oligarchies(very common), militaristic(the more structured PVP guilds) and many other systems.

I think that in our pursuit of player run venues and towns, we should look to focus on the tools we need to accomplish it and not so much the roles or granular mechanics of it.

Pax Lair benefited more from being able to lock down objects and assign permission levels to storage/doors than any governance system would have offered it.

 

Paxlair is awesome. I was on Chesapeake for several years running a smith and a mining store with my friend Anjou. I left for SWG and experienced Valinor. That is how layer run cities should be. I liked both cities but having the tools to decorate and have elections etc made the city.

 

Great to hear from you on Chesapeake.

We (PaxLair) learned a lot in 15 years about player towns -- what works and doesn't work. We are working hard to recall and share our experiences to benefit SotA and to learn from others in SotA and other realms/communities too. A player town is as good as its people and the new ideas people have.

Winfield, Governor of PaxLair

 

Winfield - I visited your fair city several years ago and as a model it is indeed a wonder! I tried similar ventures on the Napa shard - but through time it has basically died. I believe the fall of player-run cities started with the end of our beloved City of Mith... despite the attempts by myself and others to bring it back.

Part of the issue - and I am not sure how this will affect SotA - was when they opened up the Trammel facet in UO. Gone went the risk and the NEED to band together. People didn't need the help of guilds anymore except to start farming champs. Since the implementation of multiple characters and MORE housing expansions in UO, even the hardcore RPers of our shard disappeared, myself included (for a time). Everyone had multiple houses and multiple characters covering just about every skill necessary to "win". It took me being gone from UO for 3 years to remember why I loved that game so much.

I had to stick to ONE character... with ONE purpose.

Now, I've made the return to UO and via Stratics got introduced to SotA (saw RG's name and went berserk I did). My first few nights of riding the roads on Napa broke my heart - yes, I cried. The landscape is so... empty. And Felucca is even worse.

Anyway, my point (for I do have one) is that if SotA is to really support Player Towns/Cities - there must be a <b>core REASON</b> for those cities to be built in the first place. Way back in early UO (1997 to 1998) it was the danger of the landscape and safety in numbers - for if you delve into history, that was the height of the Player City Creation - and I believe up until 2002 was the best for such a venture. After 2002, the creation of new Player Cities dies in UO.

As time moved forward, players banded together for resources and commerce. Now, it is simply for company (if one so wants it). If there is no core reason - then yes, will Player Cities even be worthwhile? Would dedicating resources in early development be a sound decision if there is no real REASON for those cities to be formed in the first place?

Psychologically, people (even in our virtual states) are social, but only if challenged will they band together. Family units, friendship circles, covens may fare well... but in the development of a CITY - there's a bit more to it than plopping down houses together in an area. Would the formation of Player Cities be counter-productive to the core game cities?

~~~~~

I can see a PaxLair being formed in SotA, but how will it grow? How will others be introduced to the city/state and join without first being asked? Will the citizens of your city ALWAYS play in public-mode (what I'm calling the MMO state) and will they actually allow outsiders participate in, say, the town's tavern/festival,etc.

One of the most fascinating things about UO is - as an RPer - I can walk up to any other character in UO and it is real time and if they are RPing or not, we interact despite the rest of the world. I can walk up to a murderer, and of course my poor beggar would be slain on the spot, possibly three or four times. But in what I'm understanding of SotA.. that will be impossible.

Or do I need more enlightenment?

I play several games on my iPad - many of them would be "rpgs" but they all lack that MMO feel of the unexpected we all get from the ONLINE worlds (UO being the best of them IMHO). Every single RPG game on my iPad is scripted with quests to gain familiarity, then go tell my friends to help get better stuff (buildings, items, etc) then pay for premium gems/gold/platinum to get even more exclusive items.

I am bored of those games, hence my return to UO.

Only in UO can I make a beggar who can tame rabbits and herd cats dressed in the rags she's sewn looking like an old lady leaning on a pole she found at the city bank and carrying a lantern she "borrowed" from the corpse of an ettin. Only in UO can she walk around the landscape begging the fighters around whatever moongate to spare a bit of bread for an old hag. Most times she is killed, but she "ooooos" about until she finds a random healer, then returns to dub all her rabbits with silly names to torment her murders. I've yet to play a game where I can create a toon to do just that.... except UO.

And I play a lot of games.

Would a beggar be able to venture into a SotA version of PaxLair at any old time and perhaps get a scrub of bread for her rabbit?