When Gaming Gets Personal

Rill wrote: Please do not pee in the sandbox.  Pee over the edge, like maybe in the direction of Evony.

Hey AJ

ajqtrz wrote: Thexion wrote: People playing a game form social agreement to accept it rules and the consequences. Its not about internet or about online its about games.  I'm sure everyone can imagine lot sports and games where certain level of physical damage or emotional hurt is accepted. There is no need for debate is the game real every one knows what is real and what is part of the game, it can cause emotions and that is real but its within the consequences that players should accept. Sandbox game gives people a range of ways to play and when it is about city building, diplomacy and society building "threats and coercion" are one type of tools and as it is said society (and diplomacy) contains lot of legitimized threats and coercion. Player can always claim that they are not playing that game or did not accept those consequences but if the game mechanism allowed it and its within the rules its part of the game they did. To be clear in my opinion play any game in manner that's sole purpose is to cause pain or damage to someone is not morally right even if the game allows such behavior. And when you say, "social agreement to accept it['s] rules and consequences" do you mean the rules and consequences developed by the devs or by the society?  If the society, then what if the players of Illyriad determined that they did not want the use of intimidation by threats of coercion?  Would you accept that?  If you didn't would you accept the consequences?  We, the players, have been give some leeway by the game mechanics as to what socially negotiated "rules and consequences" we want in the game.  A small group of players has decided that over certain areas they get to decide the rules and consequences.  That is not an opinion, that is a fact.  You see that group has decided that they have the authority to speak for all of us about now only who can and who cannot decide where others settle, but how the rules of this sandbox will be decided.  And they have said that decisions must be made by force.  In other words, they have actually said that the rule of law shall be enforce by the use of in game wars.  Several times they have said that the ones who can make a land claim are those who can defend their claim.  Now if you are a warrior you get that.  You see it as simply part of how things are done in war games and thus, since Illy has a war component, how they are to be done here.  But Illy is not JUST a war game.  It is a sandbox where both the players as a whole and the players as individuals can decide what is allowed and what is not.  And one thing is probably true, that is, the players of Illy probably think they should be the ones deciding what is allowed in their sandbox not a minority.  It is a question of who owns the sandbox, the warriors who make other styles of play secondary, or the whole community who would, I think like to keep the traditional balance of the game.  It is a question of if we want to decides such things by force all the time and only by force, or if we will allow reason to prevail.  I've seen it before.  A fairly well balanced game is taken over by those who want to make it a "war game" and behold, because nobody stops them, within a year or two, it's a "war game."  And then it is no more anything as the devs shut it down.  Good bye to years of work for all.

ajqtrz wrote: Texion wrote: Slippery slope arguments about threats and coercion (and many other things) don't work. First of all there are too many ifs to be logical argument. Its more about trying to reflect fear on others which is rational perhaps but its not logical. Perhaps you should read from the forums history what happened to mal motchans when they tried to force people actually to do something which is way different from just warning people from doing something.  You say it's a "slippery slope" argument and it would be that if there were no evidence for the idea that a warrior dominated game soon becomes a warrior only game.  But games designed to be sandboxes have ended up dominated by warriors in the past.  There are, in my opinion, only a few of these well-balanced games left.

ajqtrz wrote: Thexion wrote: Argument that Land claiming is bad because it limits the settling rights of players given by game mechanics is bad one. Because its very selective on the game mechanics. Argument leaves out that there are several mechanics that allow players to limit other players ability to found and/or decide where other player can have a city. Therefore its within players rights to do so, deny that would limit players rights given by the mechanics if you follow the same logic. (For forcing players to do something there is no mechanism for example.) Finally, you are right that there are several other rights that the players have decided upon that limit the rights of other players.  But it was the strength of the whole player base which spoke then.  And they spoke with force.  Wouldn't it have been better if those who wished to use intimidation by threats of coercion at that time had listened to the desires and will of the majority and refrained from those actions?  Wouldn't it have been nice if reason had led them to the right choice instead of a large scale war?  In the end when players don't respond to reason force is the last option.  The opening blows were the land claims themselves as they attempted to intimidate by the threat of force.   Still, one would hope those using intimidation by threats of coercion would change their minds and leave things as they were before they raised their fists in defiance of the whole player base and claimed that they had the right to make the rules for all of us.  But that would be a reasonable response, wouldn't it? AJ

Edited by ajqtrz - 09 Mar 2016 at 00:17

Thexion,

I you think about the playground vs game you can get both out of Illyriad, depending on how specific you like to be in your definition of "game."  That a "game" can be a loose set of actions used to reach a goal is reflected in the question, "what kind of game are you playing?" while a stricter definition of game would focus on a common goal and a set of methods or techniques used to reach that "game defined" goal.   The social nature of Illyriad, with it's differing goals and definitions of what it means to "win" I think are closer to the playground metaphor than to the more strict definition of a game.

In Illyriad we each set up our own game to some degree or other because we can have very differing definitions of what it means to "win."  Thus, just as in a playground you can actually have a number of games occurring in a single space, the same here.   The real problem is that if you try to reduce it to a single game then, yes, some people are going to find the rules not to their liking because they thwart their definition of what it means to win, or at least make it much, much more difficult than they envision it should be.  This simply means that if you are going to allow differing definitions of what it means to win you should recognize you are sharing the space with others and that, from a moral perspective, you will probably need to compromise so that you arrive at the most fun for the most players.  And that means, I think, you cannot impose unnecessary rules upon other players which impede their ability to play.  Using intimidation by threats of coercion on all the players of Illy is such an attempt to impose an unnecessary rule which does, by definition, impede others ability to play as they wish.  And since it's unneeded to accomplish the stated goals, it's unneeded.

As for people telling their children what they can and cannot do, those people have the authority to do so.  In Illyriad the only authority is the authority or persuasion and of force.  I choose to attempt persuasion because force should, I think, be the last resort.  Those who have the authority are those who have the right reasons ...i.e. reasons that are logically and systematically presented and which drive to a logical conclusion, and those who represent the overall consensus.  It would be so much easier if we relied upon the former rather than the latter.  And of course, there is always a debate as to if a conclusion is warranted, but that is why we have these debates.  And there is also a more difficult thing to measure, i.e what the majority think is the proper course.

Thus, I do think you have a point that you can conceive of Illyriad as a single game with all the rules and procedures others bring to it and all the mess as well, but I think you sort out the mess by remembering we are in this space together and need to try to accommodate everybody as best and as generously as we can.

AJ

Illyriad is a game, its not a playground is the main issue here. Although you have stated so. Its not same as many other games and has some playground like features but its not actually a playground.  Just for one small example: Hence there is war like features (in the game). Does any offline playground allow you to destroy others property or destroy their structures against their will?

How about mother making threats to children in playground about throwing sand (will have to take you home)  or players threatening someone about not to pee in their sand box. Now anyhow this is not relevant since it is a game and not a playground.

It is unfortunate that players wish to play a game with military options with out actually experiencing conflict. If there would not be the option for war and freedom of choice I doubt I would have ever played this game.  I especially dislike games in which everything is segregated cube for fighting and cube for farming and they don't ever meet.  So I don't like I believe If the game is not fun then you should not play it, I'm sure there is enough players that do enjoy all the features of the game not just the ones they feel acceptable.