In Eco there are no monsters or zombies, instead the ‘enemies’ you must face are corruption, greed, ignorance, and exploitation, each exhibited from your own comrades sharing a vulnerable world with you. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, and our goal with this system is to emergently produce the same pathological problems that real governments exhibit (gridlock, corruption, gerrymandering, politicking) and allow players to navigate them by changing the rules of government. Will it be a dictatorship? A democracy? Is the first player that arrives/server operator the ‘king’ who issues all laws by fiat? Are representative elected per district? Or does every player have a vote, and majority wins? That is, they must determine how their government functions. Not only must they make decisions as a group, they must make decisions about how they will make decisions. In Eco we give this problem to players as a form of gameplay. Looking to the real world for examples of how decisions are made, you find an infinite spectrum of approaches throughout history indeed the ‘technology’ of how to make decisions as a group advances alongside actual technology. So just how does the group make decisions? Players will likely disagree on much, especially given that each player has individual specialties that determine their incentives, and coming to a 100% agreement in Eco will be as impossible as it is in the real world.
Individuals are physically bound by the decisions that the group makes, essentially simulating a perfect criminal justice system (more on that later and how we plan to evolve it). That means if the government decides that each player may chop down only 10 trees per day, attempts to chop down an 11th will be rejected by the server. The player-run government will be incredibly powerful, because laws will be binding. The solution to this is the player-run government, and running it is a huge part of gameplay that all players must participate in.
0 kommentar(er)
