Return to “Games”

Post

Eco

#1
I just found out about this game through the latest update of CivCraft which I backed and sadly was too late and missed out on backing it, would have loved to have backed this hard. An amazing game with amazing potential both as a game as well as for educational purposes. I really hope they open up the ability to back the game for those who missed out. I didn't even know it existed lol.
Post

Re: Eco

#3
BFett wrote:Wow, just reading through the description for how Land Ownership could work and I'm very impressed. This isn't just another game, it's a simulation ran by the players where all the rules are player decided. I'm sold.
I know right? The main selling point for me was the player hosted servers as well. I mean, if this were gonna end up being one of those (all too common these days) company/cloud hosted games where the players are forced into only servers hosted by the company, or only "premium" hosting companies I wouldn't touch it with a 20 foot pole. But getting the server software, complete with the web interface (I think I read that right) with statistics, data and graphing. It's something that I find truly amazing. Being a simulation and not just a game is win to me.

Also reading in the comments it appears that they are going to open up backing through their site too which is really good since the KS ended already and I managed to miss it. I'll be backing this hard when that goes live.
Post

Re: Eco

#4
I saw this when it launched, it really is a neat concept, I always loved organic player driven worlds with their own policing. I'm kinda worried about not being able to play 'evil' moneygrubbing enough, via automatic systems too strict and players just being the goody-two-shoes they are, as other games' stats show that the overwhelming majority plays Paragon all the time. Without enough conflict of interest and unlawfulness, it will turn stale quick as a paradise of cooperation.

I elected not to back in the end because they ultimately didn't show much in the way of gameplay (and I'm not the least interested in the educational part - I want fun), and delivery is almost two years away - and I don't feel interested in the alpha for the price. If it's any good, I'll nab it with full release. The other thing was how they literally just paywalled some major features - they quickly revoked it, but there was a $750 tier that would have allowed you to build a doomsday device to threaten and destroy the world. Nobody else could have made one, just counteract, it's gameplay available for the well-off few. It's just not a policy I'm keen on supporting.
panic
Post

Re: Eco

#6
Mistycica wrote:I saw this when it launched, it really is a neat concept, I always loved organic player driven worlds with their own policing. I'm kinda worried about not being able to play 'evil' moneygrubbing enough, via automatic systems too strict and players just being the goody-two-shoes they are, as other games' stats show that the overwhelming majority plays Paragon all the time. Without enough conflict of interest and unlawfulness, it will turn stale quick as a paradise of cooperation.

I elected not to back in the end because they ultimately didn't show much in the way of gameplay (and I'm not the least interested in the educational part - I want fun), and delivery is almost two years away - and I don't feel interested in the alpha for the price. If it's any good, I'll nab it with full release. The other thing was how they literally just paywalled some major features - they quickly revoked it, but there was a $750 tier that would have allowed you to build a doomsday device to threaten and destroy the world. Nobody else could have made one, just counteract, it's gameplay available for the well-off few. It's just not a policy I'm keen on supporting.
While I understand your sentiment about wanting to be able to be "evil" I suppose the main issue with that is the fact that ultimately a lot of people can put a lot of work and interest in a server, only to have it ruined by a few bad actors if being allowed to be "evil" is an option. With the criminal and law system they are putting into place you will have the ability to do this I believe, but how far you can go with it is still very much unknown given that the way it reads is that if you aren't witnesses to be committing crime you can essentially get away with it. This being entirely configurable on a per-server basis is good too. As I said though, when you're talking about something being interconnected to this degree, being evil for gain (monetary) would potentially only go so far before real negative repercussions started becoming visible. Whereas being evil for the sake of being evil is certainly possible but given that theoretically one player can be the cause of the world being destroyed (deleted) I really can't see there being much incentive to be bad/evil. There just isn't much point. Unless you are a troll/griefer and you take pleasure out of pissing everyone off. But that being said, how often does that go unpunished on any game where it is an open option? Not too often. Usually you'll find yourself banned from games if you are doing that.
Post

Re: Eco

#7
TGS wrote: While I understand your sentiment about wanting to be able to be "evil" I suppose the main issue with that is the fact that ultimately a lot of people can put a lot of work and interest in a server, only to have it ruined by a few bad actors if being allowed to be "evil" is an option. With the criminal and law system they are putting into place you will have the ability to do this I believe, but how far you can go with it is still very much unknown given that the way it reads is that if you aren't witnesses to be committing crime you can essentially get away with it. This being entirely configurable on a per-server basis is good too. As I said though, when you're talking about something being interconnected to this degree, being evil for gain (monetary) would potentially only go so far before real negative repercussions started becoming visible. Whereas being evil for the sake of being evil is certainly possible but given that theoretically one player can be the cause of the world being destroyed (deleted) I really can't see there being much incentive to be bad/evil. There just isn't much point. Unless you are a troll/griefer and you take pleasure out of pissing everyone off. But that being said, how often does that go unpunished on any game where it is an open option? Not too often. Usually you'll find yourself banned from games if you are doing that.
But that's the whole premise of Eco. Studying human conflicts of interests, if the small group can efficiently self-govern and direct resources into combating an external threat, or they fall apart. 'Evil' is a necessary part of that, players against other players, hard work destroyed. That's the concept they laid down; the whole conflict of self-interest and global interest is actually encouraged.

The law system was described to be automatic, magical mystical fairies reporting your crime, Elder Scrolls style - I'm really feeling that's wholly against the idea, even if players do vote for the laws themselves. I feel that it falls short as a simulation, precisely since there is little incentive to be selfish. In order for the sim to be more accurate and not devolve into the usual boring coop and autowin/rng-based win: a) the threat needs to be less evident b) 'evil' self-interest needs to be much more lucrative, and c) just quitting when things aren't going your way cannot be a viable option. I realize some of this is not possible or not fun in a game, but I still think there could be more to be had in here.
panic
Post

Re: Eco

#8
How far do you want to go with evil players? Greed seems to be one of the motivating factors within the game, but it also vary with the type of government the players decide to start up. So, besides the whole Communism vs Democracy thing where does crime fit in. If someone is hoarding items should theft be possible? Could a militia be organized to fight against players of opposing social views? I'm not sure, but I think that there is going to need to be a balance between all out war and a like minecraft utopia.

The players are all united at the start of the game with a mission. Destroy the external threat and do so without destroying the planet. The way the players go about it will be open ended but I do see economics being developed within the game. With economics in place, trade can occur, which means that scams may be possible (or just bad deals). With weapons developed for hunting, the ability to kill another player may also be possible.

Could this lead to player led battles over territory or wealth? I don't know. But this may be something that is possible to mod into the game.
Image
Post

Re: Eco

#10
Pretty much as Cornflakes said. I don't think they are actively encouraging evil or selfishness. It is simply a part of the game as it is in any game potentially.

Also I think you misunderstood the Law/Justice system. If that is enabled by the server host/admin then it isn't actually "magic fairy" anything. The only people who are able to react against you are those who witnessed the crime take place
If a player violates a law, they will be flagged as a criminal for that length of time, but that flag will be only visible to witnesses.
Personally I do not like being bad/evil in games for the sake of it. But I do know that a lot of people do. The problem I see with this is that personally as a gamer myself my view is this. I sink time into a game, I have fun doing ... whatever. If I sink say... 20 hours into something and some griefer comes along for no other purpose than to gain amusement from my suffering comes and destroys everything I have spent all that time building up... that to me is not fun. Yes I understand that it IS fun to a lot of people, furthermore the increasing malleability of games in the form of Minecraft/Terraria/Starbound/etc along with other games that simply flat out promote psychopathic tendencies such as EVE online have ultimately pushed non-psychopathic players into becoming that. "Attack them before they attack me" mentality. But this game unlike minecraft where many servers have anti-grief protection, and the ones that don't... provided people aren't using hacks/cheats you can take some steps to protect your creations by not doing it anywhere near where griefers are likely to be.

This game... Eco strikes me as a game that a lot of people are simply not going to be able to play it due to the fact that SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many gamers these days delight in nothing more than causing havoc and trying to ruin other peoples fun. It isn't even just gamers, it's just people on the internet in general. They feel as though they gain power by attacking other people in some shape or form, hiding behind the veil that is the internet. However if the Law system is NOT enabled then as far as I've read it will basically be a magical prevention that stops you from committing those crimes. But the laws that govern what you can/can't do whatever or not it is physically allowed (by server config) is ultimately decided by the people of the server. If you have a server where people cannot cooperate to build a decent society, it probably isn't likely to last very long and it won't be a very welcoming environment to those who do not wish to live amongst evil. And I hate even using the term evil. Malice perhaps, evil... not so much. Evil suggests a contrast to good. I don't like to break people down as good or evil. There are people who do things that have a positive impact on those around them and people who do things that have a negative impact on those around them. Sometimes the person might have semi-legitimate motivation for it. Other times their motivation isn't what I'd call legitimate. E.g Some people might be roleplaying an Evil character. Other people just do it because they're trying to piss as many people off or hurt as many people as possible to amuse themselves. I really expect that to happen a lot in this game, but I think it will likely die down a fair bit once people learn how to play the game and setup the appropriate structures to stop it from happening.

I can say this, I am likely to run my own server and I'll do my best to make an environment that is welcoming and helpful to those that wanna participate, and punishing to those who do not. My logic is if you don't wanna be a positive part of the community, gtfo. Yes mistakes will probably be made. Planets might be doomed. But as part of the challenge of the game I'm 100% okay with that. As long as it isn't some griefer whose only goal is to cause the destruction of other peoples effort.

It will be interesting either way.
Post

Re: Eco

#11
TGS wrote:Pretty much as Cornflakes said. I don't think they are actively encouraging evil or selfishness. It is simply a part of the game as it is in any game potentially.

Also I think you misunderstood the Law/Justice system. If that is enabled by the server host/admin then it isn't actually "magic fairy" anything. The only people who are able to react against you are those who witnessed the crime take place
If a player violates a law, they will be flagged as a criminal for that length of time, but that flag will be only visible to witnesses.
Personally I do not like being bad/evil in games for the sake of it. But I do know that a lot of people do. The problem I see with this is that personally as a gamer myself my view is this. I sink time into a game, I have fun doing ... whatever. If I sink say... 20 hours into something and some griefer comes along for no other purpose than to gain amusement from my suffering comes and destroys everything I have spent all that time building up... that to me is not fun. Yes I understand that it IS fun to a lot of people, furthermore the increasing malleability of games in the form of Minecraft/Terraria/Starbound/etc along with other games that simply flat out promote psychopathic tendencies such as EVE online have ultimately pushed non-psychopathic players into becoming that. "Attack them before they attack me" mentality. But this game unlike minecraft where many servers have anti-grief protection, and the ones that don't... provided people aren't using hacks/cheats you can take some steps to protect your creations by not doing it anywhere near where griefers are likely to be.

This game... Eco strikes me as a game that a lot of people are simply not going to be able to play it due to the fact that SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many gamers these days delight in nothing more than causing havoc and trying to ruin other peoples fun. It isn't even just gamers, it's just people on the internet in general. They feel as though they gain power by attacking other people in some shape or form, hiding behind the veil that is the internet. However if the Law system is NOT enabled then as far as I've read it will basically be a magical prevention that stops you from committing those crimes. But the laws that govern what you can/can't do whatever or not it is physically allowed (by server config) is ultimately decided by the people of the server. If you have a server where people cannot cooperate to build a decent society, it probably isn't likely to last very long and it won't be a very welcoming environment to those who do not wish to live amongst evil. And I hate even using the term evil. Malice perhaps, evil... not so much. Evil suggests a contrast to good. I don't like to break people down as good or evil. There are people who do things that have a positive impact on those around them and people who do things that have a negative impact on those around them. Sometimes the person might have semi-legitimate motivation for it. Other times their motivation isn't what I'd call legitimate. E.g Some people might be roleplaying an Evil character. Other people just do it because they're trying to piss as many people off or hurt as many people as possible to amuse themselves. I really expect that to happen a lot in this game, but I think it will likely die down a fair bit once people learn how to play the game and setup the appropriate structures to stop it from happening.

I can say this, I am likely to run my own server and I'll do my best to make an environment that is welcoming and helpful to those that wanna participate, and punishing to those who do not. My logic is if you don't wanna be a positive part of the community, gtfo. Yes mistakes will probably be made. Planets might be doomed. But as part of the challenge of the game I'm 100% okay with that. As long as it isn't some griefer whose only goal is to cause the destruction of other peoples effort.

It will be interesting either way.
If even with the best of intentions you are likely to dig your own grave, I have nothing against it. Not sure how hard it's gonna be, even with cooperation, I'm afraid the game will be 'solved' quickly with the best strat available. But I'd like a simulation of society first, game second, and that's definitely not carebear village. You work might be in constant peril, you build knowing that. Not evil for the sake of it, probably not even malice, but working for self-interest and profit, definitely. You can't really do that if you know it dooms the game quickly, or gets your kicked/makes other leave. I'm thinking of the sort of thing where you just mine a bit more, kill a couple more deer, because it's more convenient that way or just plain keeps you alive, and the doomsday clock might not even exist, along with objective statistics. "Oh the deer and becoming rare? I saw a bunch yesterday! And your statistics and falsified! You just want me to starve." kind of a reflection of today, instead of the utopia where you can just euthanize those who litter, and there is a clear goal and clear data - or euthanize yourself if everyone else is an arse. It would def work a lot better in a good roleplaying community :D
panic
Post

Re: Eco

#12
Mistycica wrote:If even with the best of intentions you are likely to dig your own grave, I have nothing against it. Not sure how hard it's gonna be, even with cooperation, I'm afraid the game will be 'solved' quickly with the best strat available. But I'd like a simulation of society first, game second, and that's definitely not carebear village. You work might be in constant peril, you build knowing that. Not evil for the sake of it, probably not even malice, but working for self-interest and profit, definitely. You can't really do that if you know it dooms the game quickly, or gets your kicked/makes other leave. I'm thinking of the sort of thing where you just mine a bit more, kill a couple more deer, because it's more convenient that way or just plain keeps you alive, and the doomsday clock might not even exist, along with objective statistics. "Oh the deer and becoming rare? I saw a bunch yesterday! And your statistics and falsified! You just want me to starve." kind of a reflection of today, instead of the utopia where you can just euthanize those who litter, and there is a clear goal and clear data - or euthanize yourself if everyone else is an arse. It would def work a lot better in a good roleplaying community :D
You could be right. Personally I'd very much like to hope that a lot of it is configurable. Like have as much of it be configurable (via server config) as possible. Meaning if you want to scale things up in such a way that it takes months of real time for the "catastrophic" event to occur then so be it. If you want the "one hour = one day" thing to actually be one day = one day then that should be completely an option imo. That should make things a bit more interesting game play wise. Though I vaguely recall seeing some mention of it taking weeks for the catastrophic event to occur (Be it drought, comet etc) not sure if that is real time weeks or game time weeks, I can only imagine real time because game time would mean that each server is having an extremely quick turnover period and that wouldn't be very much fun imo.
Post

Re: Eco

#13
TGS wrote: You could be right. Personally I'd very much like to hope that a lot of it is configurable. Like have as much of it be configurable (via server config) as possible. Meaning if you want to scale things up in such a way that it takes months of real time for the "catastrophic" event to occur then so be it. If you want the "one hour = one day" thing to actually be one day = one day then that should be completely an option imo. That should make things a bit more interesting game play wise. Though I vaguely recall seeing some mention of it taking weeks for the catastrophic event to occur (Be it drought, comet etc) not sure if that is real time weeks or game time weeks, I can only imagine real time because game time would mean that each server is having an extremely quick turnover period and that wouldn't be very much fun imo.
I'm holding off, but keeping an eye on it. Configs might just be extensive enough - like a chance of the catastrophe actually not happening ever, or the ability to fake statistics and actually work hard to research on your own.

iirc time is real time by default, with the server 'always on', the ecosystem living its thing.

Oh, another thing that caught me as bad form with the campaign: the offered the dying stupid shrimp as a reward. I expect the creators of an ecosystem simulator and 'green game' know that these glass globes of 'ecosystem' are a level of animal torture.
panic

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron