Voting: Player versus Player...or Community Descion-Making? After months of debate over if PvP can exist in an ARG format, I thought I finally came up with a solution of Players fighting Players. However, I was told it is more likely communtiy descion-making. And the fact "The Beast" ARG had voting before also means it mak be community descion-making. So, um, I'm going to need help.
In the ARG I PMed, "Project Zeit", I had players vote on what Faction would win the game. There were three Factions: the KPD (Communists), Sven (Germans), and Halder (the fourth one, Himmler, was there as a joke). I used http://selectricity.org/ for the voting experience, and selected the Schulze method (don't ask me what it is, I don't know much about it either).
Selectricity was formed as a way to promote new voting systems other than the regular old "simple majority"/"plurality" system. These voting systems attempt to be more fair than the "plurality" system, but at the same time, can be exploited. This leads me to consider the beniefts of voting that could make it PvP:
1. If you are a fan of one faction, you will most likely put that Faction as your first preference. But the "Schulze method" forces you to also indicate your second- and third-based prefrences, meaning that you must decide what side you 'hate the least'. This leads to strategy.
2. You need the support of the community for your faction to win. This means that you must launch a campagin, as well as 'get-out-the-vote' rallies to ensure your side prevails. At the same time, it also shows which faction really has the most strength rather than
3. You can 'game' the voting system, by engaging in tactical voting, as indicated above. This 'gaming' is in itself a form of competition. (I know tactical voting is frowned upon in real life, but in a game, it might be fun.)
I also draw attention to the results of the "Project Zeit" Voting. Using the "Schulze method", the KPD won. The KPD also won when I used the Plurality and Condorcet (which is the predecessor of the Schulze method) voting systems as well. But when I use the Boda Count (the higher your Preference is for a candinate, the more votes he gets) and Approval voting systems (you get to choose 2 people to 'approve' instead of just one), a new winner, Sven, emerges.
What does this mean? It means that the choice of what voting system you use can very well determine who actually wins the election. Had I choosen the Boda Count, Sven would be the winner, not the KPD. So, even that means that the choice of what voting system to use may be abused. While I wouldn't want the PM to go and start changing voting systems off the bat, I could easily see players decide what voting systems are legit or not legit.
Anyway, I really do think that Voting seems to be a good way of engaging in PvP. I am likely wrong. Please correct me.
Fri May 16, 2008 12:41 am
Joined: 11 Jul 2007 Posts: 62
PvP is a conscious effort to overcome an opposing faction or person that is controlled by another player or players. By introducing a voting system that allows you to vote for three NPC factions, you're creating a system where players might compete with each other to have their faction voted for, however, unless it's presented in a way that makes that clear, it would most likely be passive voting with no competition between players.
So, I think using a voting system like that can work as a form of PVP, but the player base has to be aware that they are campaigning against other players for votes and must make a conscious effort to do so.
Fri May 16, 2008 10:37 am
uF Game Warden
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3338
I think your observations of the voting system assume they are all supposed to be based on equivalent sentiments and have equivalent results. Thus, your choice of voting should be based on what sentiment you are trying to highlight in the voting, e.g. "who has what it takes to win" versus "who deserves to win".
I also think you are becoming lost in the analysis of the voting methods and losing sight of the question of if the PvP method is detrimental to the whole. Isn't that the real question?
Any sufficiently plausible fiction is indistinguishable from reality.
Any sufficiently twisted reality is indistinguishable from fiction.
Welcome to the new world of entertainment.
Fri May 16, 2008 7:45 pm
Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 56
I have to stress something: I think I answer: "who should win", not the "who will win" question.
Also, this thread isn't about condemning PvP. It is stating that if a person likes PvP, they could use voting as a way to allow for Player versus Player interaction/competition, without having to restrict information for one side or another. Instead, everyone would have the same information, and they must make deals with other voters in order to try and win the election, especially via strategic voting.
EDIT: The reason I made this thread is because I heard that voting may be a community-building excerise, instead of being a way to do PvP (which is what I desire), so I made this thread to find out why it may be community-building.
Fri May 16, 2008 9:57 pm
Joined: 11 Jul 2007 Posts: 62
I guess my question then, in terms of your example, is "Did the players know that they were working against each other to choose someone?"
If it wasn't made plainly clear to them, then in the end it was a PvE mechanic. even if they were voting for their favorite, they were still only directly interacting with a PM provided tool to "choose" an NPC.
Sat May 17, 2008 11:50 am
Display posts from previous: Sort by: All Posts 1 Day 1 Week 2 Weeks 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year Post Time Post Subject Author Ascending Descending