As some of you may know, I rarely find a project that can keep my full attention for long, so I have 20 or so notebooks with design and theory on different games that I slowly refine over time. I have about 4 that I really love and work the most on, this is a discussion on my most ambitious project, and the less likely to actually be coded, but still. The Courts System (the Meat of this Post, skip below for the real ‘start’ of it) The Courts System is what will make (or more likely break) the game. A player (other than the lowest level) may issue a charge against any other player of their own level or lower, and the case is then heard by a Tribunal of their peers (3 players of their own rank). At least one member of the 3 are chosen at random. (Still debating how to choose the other two). Any Judge not satisfied with the outcome may appeal to a player that is One Rank Level higher than their own. They will have 3 chances to request someone support their case and hear it. If accepted by one of the 3 then the case is retried at this higher level. Again any member of the Tribunal may ask a member of One rank higher than themselves to go over the case again in appeal. Once all appeal chances are exhausted (or forfeited by the judges), the highest ranking Charges work as a petition found in many games. One player writes up the charges in a special in game text box, levelling them against one player(maybe options for different sized charges). A charge will eventually collect statements from other players, in support, in defence, or neutral. Each player may argue their case before the Tribunal (or hire another player to argue it for them). In arguments players first make their opening statements, then make a response to the opposition’s opening statements. Each gets to make a defence of their opening statements. Finally Closing statements. Judges make their Ruling Statements. Any Judge may then choose to make an Appeal to a higher Level if they wish, at most 3 times, or they may forfeit their appeal option. A Tribunal may vote as Innocent or Guilty, and may also flag the charge as being frivolous. Should a player be found making a large number of frivolous charges, a Tribunal of his peers (or those higher than him) may be formed to revoke their rank one level, or to Gag the player. Preventing them from levelling charges against other players for a set time period. (this may of course be appealed up the chain as always) Higher ranked players may issue a Protection of Actions to a lower player. This Protection of Actions protects a player from having charges against him for those actions found guilty at any Level below that of the player that issued the PoA. (Players found voting guilty in cases like that face charges of misconduct, which again are required ‘by law’ to be found guilty of. Punishment for ‘misconduct’ is forfeiture of rank.) Real Start Of This Post The background to this game design is an economic game set in a space aged feudal society, and near fully player created. Aggressive Economic Warfare, full Player vs Player with limited 'NPCs'. Open warfare isn't banned, but would be highly discouraged. Blowing resources up is counter productive to high productivity levels after all. The goal is to crush opponents economically, but thermo nuclear warheads are plan B. Each player starts off as a member of their own ‘minor house’. Blurring the line between extremely wealthy upper middle class citizens in the empire, and the lowest class nobles. A player’s Rank in society is far more important than the ‘skills and abilities’ of their Avatar Character. On “Skills and Abilities” Skills and Abilities will mainly centre around relations with lower class NPCs. If you have no history in working with scientists (needed to perform in game research on items to improve their effect or lower their production costs) then you are going to have to either pay far more for better scientists to work in your labs, or settle for lesser value ones that come from a less prestigious school. You will also have skills similar to those in EVE Online, but they will be far simpler, and have less of an impact on the game. Training/recruiting/obtaining skilled workers/pilots/engineers/scientists/doctors will have a greater impact on your performance. On “Rank” Rank is divided into a number of core Levels, core levels can be further subdivided slightly to give minor bonuses in what a player is allowed/expected to do, but the large jumps in power will be in the core levels. For this discussion lets use 7 core levels. Starting at the top, the Emperor (Developers main interaction with the game) a rank players can’t get to. After that are First Class Nobles. Likely around 20 or so. They basically serve as sort of GM players, directly allowed that rank by the Dev. Below them are Second Class Nobles. Around 100 players Third Class Fourth Class Fifth Class, the core players, these are the bulk of the players, and while not very powerful on their own, their main purpose is as soldiers in the Economic War, supporting those above them while at the same time trying to either squeeze into their place or take it over completely. Sixth Class (basic account, limited to next to nothing, possibly free to play) Each player will start out in the lowest rank. Rank decides several things, such as the number and size of ships/bases/warehouses/trade routes you are ‘legally’ allowed to own in game. To advance rank is actually political, rather than going out and bashing bunnies over the head with your Level 1 Wood Club, you have to convince someone of a class 2 levels higher than you to sponsor you, or a group of players your own class to support and follow you. Your level support is based on the political power of those Sponsoring you, and those supporting you (from your own level or those below you). Now we all know that in an online game we will have issues with players not playing fairly, and in the case of this game there would be no real in game block to breaking game ‘law’ (rules for things like blatant cheating and that would be dealt with outside of the game) but someone operating a smuggling ring, building ‘illegal’ products, or illegally owning items they’re not entitled to by rank. (Or general law, such as biological weapons, nukes capable of planetary strikes, combat drones, clone vats, many interesting things on the black market) People breaking these laws are dealt with by the players themselves. Players are free to attack and destroy anything they want by game rules, but in game law is what will ‘protect’ people from wrongful attacks. In all, I think a system like this may be interesting to try. Rank levels 4 and 5 will likely have huge numbers of 'problem' charges laid, which most likely get thrown out. (Level 6, the level all players enter on, is barred from issuing charges against each other). Spam could become a problem with the game, but I feel a game like this would eventually weed out younger/less mature acting players who would find it boring because they had little chance of advancing in the game. Abuse of 'leet speak' and that would also be grounds for "Conduct unbecoming" charges, which can see a player demoted to a lower rank, or muted and barred from talking in 'official' matters in the game. Such a rank system is also one I would use on the game forums. Especially the suggestions forum. Someone would make a suggestion, and people place Support, or Argue statements on the suggestion. After a set (very low) number of posts it would be bumped up to the next level where someone can take it, flag any statement as ones to hide (such as flames or redundant fluff) and make their own statement on the suggestion. It would then start the cycle over, being edited by a smaller and more select group each time. This should remove most of the flames and poorly thought out ideas, or over bias views. People at each level may make forum charges to remove someone from a rank lower than their own. Those above, weed out those below. The system should balance itself in short order. And that took up a good chunk time. I wonder how many people would actually read this. Thoughts, opinions, suggestions, anyone want to call me a fool?

Quote:Original post by MagikalGoat
Another problem, specifically with the justice system, was the actual trial process. A player could accuse an innocent player of stealing an item and two of the player's friends could act as witnesses (swearing that the innocent player did, in fact, steal the item). The court, in light of the testimonies, would convict the innocent player.

That is one reason why in the real world there are district attorneys, detectives, police officers etc. In theory at least, those agents must verify the validity of an accusation before bringing it before a court and if they fail to do that they risk the wrath of the judge who might fine them or jail them.

One solution to this problem would be to create a court system that downplays the importance of witness testimony.

Well, as far as proof of an action goes, that would easily be recorded by the game, and be kept in records that could be viewable.

Items, such as mined resources or cargo boxes, may be dropped in space, however in space there is now ownership, so if someone runs off with your stuff tough luck. Even if you charge someone with stealing things it shouldn't do much and you will hopefully be laughed at.

As far as cliques forming, I expect (and would want) factions to form. While the game would mostly be trading and building of mining/refining/production centres, I would still want shooting wars to break out now and then.

With a series of Laws for attacking and taking 'land/space', and things such as declaring feuds, (which give legal rights to war if accepted, with the option of paying a 'fair' settlement). Given that the game can record actions, and the laws are slightly flexible, this means that public opinion of the two parties, and the factions (and subfactions) they are part of will matter a great deal.


Now, them main issue I see is how best to pick the 3 judges to oversee these charges (which are really better thought of as suing another player), and what way to write the soft laws, such as Dishonourable Conduct, Misconduct of a Noble, and the laws behind Feuds.

Do you think something like this would work well with about 3-6 factions for every 2000 players? What do you see as being needed to keep balance? A dev controlled imperial warfleet to go after higher level players (and their followers) that step out of line when too powerful?

It seems to me that it might help to separate criminal court from civil court. But criminal court implies the existence of a state whose laws have been violated and given your description of factions, that may not be the case in your game. Civil court also implies the existence of a state, but it need not be so. It could simply be a more civilized method of handling contract disputes between players or factions - provided that both parties to the suit agree to go along with the outcome. Holding them to their promise would be another issue.

I'm not keen on tribunals. I think that a single presiding judge is needed to insure that the rules of court are being followed. Perhaps the tribunal could serve as a form of instant appeal, so that while the presiding judge would oversea the process of the trial, the opposing attorneys could immediately appeal to the tribunal regarding process decisions made by the presiding judge. In effect, the tribunal would be present at trial to provide oversight on the judge in addition to weighing in on the verdict.

To get around the criminal versus civil issue, instead of having one side or the other present evidence, it might be interesting to - it might be interesting to do away with the role of prosecutor. Instead, the court would appoint an investigator whose task was to determine the facts of the case and to present them at trial. Withing the game the investigator could be an NPC who simply "replays" the pertinent game record. If the investigator finds no evidence of wrong doing, the case never goes to trial. This serves to dampen frivolous lawsuits. If the plaintiff can't provide sufficient information for the investigator to begin the investigation, the case never goes to trial. If the investigator finds sufficient information to go to trial, then in the trial each side in the dispute would be represented by an advocate of their choice who would then build their argument based on the findings of the investigator. Doing away with the prosecutor eliminates the conflict of interest inherent in the legal systems that we know in the real world - that is, that the state (viz the police and prosecutors) bring suit in a court that is also run by the state. With the plaintiff providing an advocate to act as prosecutor, the court can better retain it's neutrality. This barrier would also serve to dampen frivolous lawsuits because advocates would cost money and people wouldn't bring suit unless it was worth the cost.

Anyway, I'm just riffing.

3-6 factions for every 2000 players? That would range from 350 to 700 players per faction. To achieve balance it would seem best to have the factions keep each other in check. I don't know about imperial war fleets. If the dev team is in control of the game they could pose as beings with supernatural powers - like dematerializing weapons, buildings, resources or the like - in order to act as a final check on players that become too powerful. If such a brazen display of force is unseemly, you could use nature to act as the hand of God - inflicting earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, pestilence, famine on players or factions that became too powerful.

I'm not sure I really like the idea of a "hand of god Smiting" for those that gain too much power, it removes the goal of politics ruling the battlefield, and becomes "You are doing something BAD! BOOOM!" you lose. No defence, no time to surrender, or make choices that might deflect damage from yourself to someone else, you're just dead.


My vision of the game is large space empires, but the setting doesn't really matter, it could be 'modern day' techs, or ancient/medieval/renaissance tech, or even fantasy world.


The idea behind the goal of large factions is they wouldn't be solid hard line factions (hopefully) as players would be mostly free to declare support to anyone else in the game. Sub Factions would form, and maybe even rapidly shift at some times, hopefully at least subtle shifts over time.

The Emperor as a tangible thing in game, presented as something you can resist, could give players hope of being able to actually have a real and very major effect on the game world. Maybe even a handful of Developer controlled accounts holding characters with ranks of first and second class nobles (those just below the Emperor) and have the Emperor changed now and then. I think the idea of being able to topple those above you is needed to keep player interest in the game, replacing the shiny carrot of level 65, with Baron, Prince, or Emperor.

Hopefully the upper 2 or 3 rank levels would be mostly stable with a few change ups, while the lower levels may rise and fall in rank fairly quickly, so the players get what they know is a minor setback, and doesn't lock the bottom of the tier out from any advancement.


As for a single judge, what keeps it from being Biased? With 3 players of the same rank picked mostly at random (maybe some weighting based on faction/alliance interaction, so you don't get all 3 from the same faction) should hopefully insure that at least one is not biased and can call for the lawsuit to be reviewed by a higher court should they feel the other two are conspiring or too biased.

Showing Bias is grounds for being charged with Dishonour, (So as a Judge, your Ruling Statement had best be good and logical. "Hes a nub from Fraction X, kill him" likely isn't going to go well when it comes to setting up your defence at your trial). The same goes for anytime you (as a judge) Appeal the case to another Tribunal, you had best make sure you give good reasons for your ruling.


I'm still struggling with how to handle picking the Judges for the first Tribunal. At first I was thinking the person that files the Charge would first require a Sponsor (at his own Rank, or higher) that agrees and accepts that there is an issue to be judged, and then pick the other 2 (or 4) players at random from the same Rank to fill in the other slots. This does lower the chance of spamming charges as a player that has a history of spamming may be charged for it, and have rank lowered or become muted for a few weeks. (A history of Charges someone starts, and the replies of people they request to sponsor it would follow a player) However, this does bring up the issue of likely causing at the start one Biased Judge.

Is it fair that the party that brings up the Charge requires a sponsor that acts as the first Judge, the person being charged gets to pick the second Judge, and then the last (three?) are picked at random?


Now, as I think I stated in the first post, brand new players are not allowed to place charges against others. I'm actually thinking brand new players shouldn't even be allowed to contact those of a higher rank. Instead they would have a writeup page in their profile. Their chance to give reasons for why they should be allowed to play. These players would be unranked players, allowed only a very small ship and no weapons, and could do simple courier runs. Players in the second to bottom Rank would be encouraged to accept and Sponsor these new players for the extra support they would offer. If enough new players can rally around one, they can elevate one to a second lowest rank, and bring themselves to the lowest rank.

Natural disasters might still be a useful addition to the game. As in real life, they could pose reasons why people would band together in the first place. Protecting against them would also absorb resources and thus act as a means of retarding the accumulation of concentrated power.

The role of the presiding judge is to ensure that the rules are properly being followed. Perhaps that judge could be an NPC like the investigator, rendering the procedural aspects of trial as neutral as possible. Another possibility would be to stipulate that no aligned player could serve as a presiding judge.

But an NPC judge can only rule based on hard fact centred around preprogrammed mechanics. This takes all human aspect out of one of a huge part of the game that is attempting to make the human aspect the heart and soul of it, rather than raw number crunching.

I'm not sure, this is looking more and more like something that simply won't work. It needs player freedom, but also a way to keep it from breaking down. Two lines of thought that work against each other.