My name is Willy McBride, and I'm quite new to Eco - but i thought i'd share with you all an idea that has been in my mind for a while: and i think it would fit beautifully into what Eco is going for! That idea is the ability to wage war - or simply provide the tools of war that the players can manipulate.
I think the first thing people will say is "no", because this game has been shown to be rather peaceful and about making a better world. However, history has shown that whatever humans do has an effect on the environment - and warfare (at least recently in the last few hundred years) has had a great effect on it. It has already been discussed that people can make different settlements with different laws and views, and again it is shown in history that people have disagreements: a lot of which were not first solved with diplomacy. People argue, and those arguments escalate.
I can clearly envision a settlement (who has taken the greener path) upset over the opposite settlements anti-green ways, and how they are indirectly effecting them. This could be pollution from coal mines finding it's way into the waterways of another settlement, or massive encroachment on their land simply because they are desperate for certain resources. Sometimes people need to fight for what they love...
Now, i am not saying i want this to turn into a Call of Duty actiony type game, oh no. Warfare would have a devastating impact on the environment, and on all of the living creatures in the world. But it would also give people an out to have some extra fun in the process. Again, i can picture miles of trenches separating the settlements from one another...the grass slowly becoming brown, and trees dying (or being blown up)...massive craters and death everywhere. But as i said before, people will fight for what they believe in - even more so if they are the ones being threatened.
There is also the aftermath, when everything is settled and the settlements are again at peace. How will they divvy up the land and resources? How will they restore the war-torn land to it's original state? How will they convert military factories back into Civilian factories that once supplied the entire settlement with clothes, food, tools, ect. Will the people of either settlement show the same will and determination that they did during the war? Personally, i get really excited when i am confronted with scenarios like that.
That's another thing about people. When they've realized that they've broken something, they do their darndest to fix it. That's what i'd like to do in this simulator. Have a lot of fun doing one thing, and then even more fun doing the other.
Overall, these are things i'd like to see added into the game:
Weapons of War: Firearms (everything from muskets onwards), Artillery, chemical weapons (?), Swords/shields/spears/ect. (Less likely, but still).
Constructable military items: sandbags, barbed wire, firearm crafting tables/ factory chains, military uniforms, Helmets, body armor (things that would reduce the number of casualties and save lives).
Settlements double as a sort of mini-country with a custom flag, and a brief overview box (thinking information panel) outlining the laws, morals, ect...of that specific mini-country.
Fire-person combat (obviously). Think along the lines of the early versions of Ace of Spades!
Thank you very much everybody - and i hope you take this idea into account. Please be respectful in the comments!
Cannot wait to play with you all,
Starrik last edited by
The biggest problem with this would be that it would act as a distraction from the aims of the game. It's supposed to centre around construction and cooperation; and when warfare is added to a game it tends to become the focus for a large number of players. I agree that warfare would add another level of depth, there's just the very good possibility that it would wreak havoc with the other aspects of the game
There are a million and one warfare simulators, but the player driven economy and ecology that Eco is going for is, as far as I can see, is unique. I can't imagine anything worse than this being derailed into yet another warfare game. And the level of work needed to get that to wotk, and integrate wonderfully with the rest of the game- I just think other aspects of the game could be better served with the time and effort needed.
tl;dr I see your point, but worry that it would dilute the essence of the game
I see your point as well. I am looking at it from a different perspective - a role playing perspective. I am very much under the impression that people do not always get along, and that like minded people tend to gravitate towards each other. But i do understand that the developers -want- people to cooperate: it's just that not every one wants to all the time.
Warfare would have to have a a fail safe. I am not talking about the ability to attack whenever you want. I would suggest that, like laws, a settlement would vote on whether or not they want to go to war, and those they are attacking can vote whether they want to fight, or surrender and accept the other groups demands: but Warfare would not be a constant thing. You would have to have a majority vote, yes, but you could also say that a group has to have X number of weapons/people/supplies/ect.
However i definitely agree that they should focus on what they have planned for the game already.
I simply don't have the view that everyone always gets along and that a game should be built on that premise. In my experience, this concept becomes frustrating for the minority of people who would fight (for reasons other then to troll) because they would be ganged up on politically, but would not actually be able to do anything about it other then leave the server and start over.
I think the only way to tell whether this concept would dilute the game would be to talk to the developers about it and get their opinion, or simply put it into practice. But as you say, finish what they have planned for the game first!
Starrik last edited by
I'd argue that the ability to break laws, and to go against the existing rules, cheat, steal and be a bit of a rogue acts as a way for a lot of that frustration. I haven't been back since different settlements were able to have different laws set, but that seems to be designed to scratch the very itch you're talking about.
If two settlements with different laws exist in conflict with each other, then by their very nature they will compete, over everything. Leaving out war, every resource and thing of potential strategic value, especially newcomers to the server, will be fought over except not with weapons.
As it stands with the plans, settlements could wage a kind of warfare against each other by not punishing their own members for breaking laws in their competitor's settlement. (Side note: no idea how settlements are defined, or how exactly this system works. Been away a while.)
In essence, I think I disagree that full blown warfare would be a good addition to the game just because I much prefer the idea of peaceful, but aggressive competition. Of course, as you said, it's ultimately up to the devs to decide what they think are the best additions to the game.
Yeah, we definitely have different views on the subject - which is absolutely fine haha!
Honestly, another easy way to get the best of both worlds would be to have an toggle-eable option for Warfare, and for just Vanilla :p
Xelotath last edited by
If I remember right, they are going to be very supportive of the modding community. I would not expect pvp to be part of vanilla, but I'm positive someone will make a mod for it.
And i would be perfectly fine with that, haha!
NoBlackThunder last edited by
modding community should actully have it easy when we get there and more users since they actully sell access to the source code ( so you can learn and do mods ) but you cant use it outsite of eco since its copyrightet . anyway its a nice thing they try out with the source code
JohnK last edited by
Would love to do something like war, it would be a massive change though and require huge server populations. I think it's something we consider after the game is done, for a future expansion, etc. For now I'd like to focus on intra-society struggles, like a criminal justice system, before moving on to inter-society struggles, which are also quite interesting. Thanks for the feedback, will keep it in mind.
JohnK last edited by
And yes would be a great thing to explore with mods
Thank you very much for replying.
I'm glad that it's been thought of, and that it is supported for the future. You're right that it would take quite a few players to work correctly, and also a bigger world (which i'm sure is in the making!)
What's planned for Intra society struggled interests me deeply, and i can't wait for them! However i also can't wait to duke it out with another society over dwindling supplies :)
Alastair Leith last edited by
This post is deleted!
sdhaight last edited by
I know this is an old post I am bringing up but I just had to comment on it. I think the possibility of war would add so much depth to this game. I understand that the original intent of the game was more focused on cooperation but in my opinion, you can't have true cooperation without an element of disagreement.
Some things just can not be agreed upon and struggles will insue.
Now I can see your concerns Starrik, but I think that can be alleviated with one concept; Wars are expensive.
The whole premise of this game is dealing with finite resources. Bullets, guns, war machines? That's a lot of metal and other resources, not to mention time. Recourses that can't be used for other things.
Then there is the ultimate "resource" (and in my opinion the biggest deterrent to going to war) human life. War is expensive in life and I'd say if you are to die it's a perma death you would have to start over.