K., There is no difference between simulated life and real life. Players care depending on the amount they could lose or win in a certain situation. That counts in real life as well as in virtual life.
This has been said before in this thread but it is so important that it is worth to be repeated: In order to have trust and constructive/social interaction in a virtual environment you need, just like in real life:
-Repeated interaction: Only when the shadow of the future influences an encounter does the logic of the Priseners Dilemma (which says that it is always wiser to chose for the most safe option and betray your partner so that you can go free or have mior punishment) change in favour of cooperation. Consequently,the players must be aware (or think) that the probability of future interaction is sufficiently large and important so that if someone is convincingly and publicly labelled as a defector his future interactions will suffer.
-Interaction history: Information on previous interaction must be available. (Gosip serves this purpose well)
-Persistent, distinct identities: In order for the above to be possible players must be able to recognize one another. For humans and animals, this typically means devoting a section of the brain to facial recognition.
You can implement this in a virtual world. Repeated interaction is there when people live in communities. If they can solo adventure and cross through the country, do not need anybody and still be successfull than a murderer, a cheater, a betrayer can go on for free whithout being punished once. Hence he will continue and bug a lot of people. Make it impossible to travel like that, to be obliged to live in a community, maybe with possibility to transfer from one to the other but still having to integrate (thinking on a sort of tribal community society simulation now) and you will get social behaviour. (This is one sollution I''m shure there are others to be found.)
Interaction history is easy to implement, if people have the time to gossip, they will gossip about that new guy or some other people from the community.
Persistent distinct identities; you must be able to be unique so strong costumization tools for your avatar, duplicates of avatar outlook and names by other people should be made dificult. A combination of different espects can be used here: attributes that only you have, a lot of variables for the avatar shape modification so that setting it exactly like the other one is difficult, an aging outlook system so that you had to be just as old as the other one, started with the same outlook and attributes to be an exact copy. This will do for shure.
What I like about the ''game'' approach of virtual worlds is that it allows players to experiment with things that they can''t do in real life that easily. For instance, create a deep simulation of citylife with the political, organizational, juridical structures. Now players (young boys) can try (and will) to compete to become mayor of the city, police officer, gang leader and will learn all those jobs, how to be good at it in a virtual setting.
Firstly I can''t wait to see this happening, I want to play it! But secondly, what a powerfull learning tool!
And what Jay just mentioned ''recreate'', blody heck I couldn''t say it better. Indeed it''s wonderfull how we are attracted by simply simulation. Play is the key.
Creating Constructive/Social Behaviour in Online Worlds !
Ok here's an idea that COULD promote cooperation, but with competition as well.
Say you have different cities/countries or whatever. Then within each of these the players can take on a certain role farmer,soldier,noble etc (they would obviously start at the lowest rung of the role of their choice). Each players stats/skills are weighted towards their role, so farmers are good at farming when they start the game.
Also players only get rewards for doing things that lay within their role, so if a city guard kills a law abiding citizen from that city they get no reward at all. In fact in this case they would be stripped of their rank, and possibly outlawed. These outlaws could then live outside the cities, where life is a lot tougher - no shops, and hunting for food. Maybe when they get outlawed they could choose another role such as bandit or hermit and then get rewarded for doing things that bandits or hermits do. Say the player decided to become a bandit, he would get experience for attacking (NPC) merchant caravans etc, but attacking a town and killing most citizens would be very very difficult. So this would be the punishment - although it could be decided by a player (a high ranking noble/judge etc)
Each player would have to carefully decide whether they would want a safe or unsafe life. A safe life would be a tailor, but being a mercenary would be very unsafe. But people who want combat would have to be prepared to lose (people don't like losing though - which is where the problem lies). Of course there could also be quests that would allow the players roles to be changed, so they don't get too bored.
Of course some things could be influenced by how much land the country owns. If when players are assigned to a country when they start, they are assigned a specific one depending on the population and the amount of land of the countries. The cost of good would also avry depending on the amount and type of land. This would mean what is cheaper in one city is more expensive in another. So merchants might actually have something to do - although beware of bandits.
There isn't anything to say that a tailor couldn't go and farm though, he would just be rewarded at a very slow rate.
I'm not sure this is what you wanted though, as the society is totally artificial in the way people are assigned specific roles.
[edited by - Blacksmith_Tony on June 5, 2002 8:55:09 PM]
Say you have different cities/countries or whatever. Then within each of these the players can take on a certain role farmer,soldier,noble etc (they would obviously start at the lowest rung of the role of their choice). Each players stats/skills are weighted towards their role, so farmers are good at farming when they start the game.
Also players only get rewards for doing things that lay within their role, so if a city guard kills a law abiding citizen from that city they get no reward at all. In fact in this case they would be stripped of their rank, and possibly outlawed. These outlaws could then live outside the cities, where life is a lot tougher - no shops, and hunting for food. Maybe when they get outlawed they could choose another role such as bandit or hermit and then get rewarded for doing things that bandits or hermits do. Say the player decided to become a bandit, he would get experience for attacking (NPC) merchant caravans etc, but attacking a town and killing most citizens would be very very difficult. So this would be the punishment - although it could be decided by a player (a high ranking noble/judge etc)
Each player would have to carefully decide whether they would want a safe or unsafe life. A safe life would be a tailor, but being a mercenary would be very unsafe. But people who want combat would have to be prepared to lose (people don't like losing though - which is where the problem lies). Of course there could also be quests that would allow the players roles to be changed, so they don't get too bored.
Of course some things could be influenced by how much land the country owns. If when players are assigned to a country when they start, they are assigned a specific one depending on the population and the amount of land of the countries. The cost of good would also avry depending on the amount and type of land. This would mean what is cheaper in one city is more expensive in another. So merchants might actually have something to do - although beware of bandits.
There isn't anything to say that a tailor couldn't go and farm though, he would just be rewarded at a very slow rate.
I'm not sure this is what you wanted though, as the society is totally artificial in the way people are assigned specific roles.
[edited by - Blacksmith_Tony on June 5, 2002 8:55:09 PM]
Wavinator made the most succint answer, imo.
Marc de Mesel, unless the reason that you want to create that scenario (farmers, etc.) is context specific (nostalgia for farm life, perhaps), I think you are neglecting the potential MMORPGs present. Coderx75 made the point well, let the AI do simpleton stuff.
That said, I think you are recognizing an important corollary of any principle designed to create unity of purpose beyond differentiated roles, subordination of some kind _is_ necessary. Unfortunately, this is at odds with the principle encouraged by role-playing, viz., the more dynamic the role the higher the probabilty that the role will be enjoyed (since the drive to greater role-dynamism simultaneously necessitates increased social complexity - where society is the basis of coordination for those roles). I think this is the reason that people prompt factions, trades, etc. as a solution.
The real potential, of course, is realized when you recognize the use of MMORPGs as shared language structures. Defining the world (not entering into it) should be the purpose of the game, reasons and roles and rules and taboos will follow after that.
PS. Would implementing Kantian ethics improve player cohesion? ie. The player is not able to perform any act which cannot also be performed by every other player. Simulation might be costly if calculated on the fly, but the idea is interesting as a game playing constraint, would you agree?
Marc de Mesel, unless the reason that you want to create that scenario (farmers, etc.) is context specific (nostalgia for farm life, perhaps), I think you are neglecting the potential MMORPGs present. Coderx75 made the point well, let the AI do simpleton stuff.
That said, I think you are recognizing an important corollary of any principle designed to create unity of purpose beyond differentiated roles, subordination of some kind _is_ necessary. Unfortunately, this is at odds with the principle encouraged by role-playing, viz., the more dynamic the role the higher the probabilty that the role will be enjoyed (since the drive to greater role-dynamism simultaneously necessitates increased social complexity - where society is the basis of coordination for those roles). I think this is the reason that people prompt factions, trades, etc. as a solution.
The real potential, of course, is realized when you recognize the use of MMORPGs as shared language structures. Defining the world (not entering into it) should be the purpose of the game, reasons and roles and rules and taboos will follow after that.
PS. Would implementing Kantian ethics improve player cohesion? ie. The player is not able to perform any act which cannot also be performed by every other player. Simulation might be costly if calculated on the fly, but the idea is interesting as a game playing constraint, would you agree?
quote:Original post by Kylotan
the ''rule of 150'' is just a proposed figure among MUD and MMORPG people. Player policing won''t necessarily work any better with smaller numbers, even though the social ties are stronger. This is because Bad Guys Have Friends Too. In fact, grief players are often better organised than the others, and often beat the ''police''. People who are good at killing like to kill, and being a successful policeman is counterproductive as you don''t get to kill people any more if you''re too good. Therefore the best killers will not be policemen.
The rule dosen''t apply to the case of policing against griefters. The number 150 is like an estimated saturation point of numbers of population a single social structure can hold with direct contact person to person before possible branching into multiple groups and structures which may or may not lead to future conflict. Long story short, if you have more than 150 players, it''s only natural for split to occur; no matter how much you try to encourage co-operate gameplay.
quote:And regarding the competition between East and West... sure, it boosted growth. Did it encourage prosperity for all, or cooperation? The USA has one of the largest gaps between rich and poor among all the developed countries and a negative attitude towards welfare and so on, and we all know Russia''s problems in that many people live as little better than peasants. The ''organizations'' succeed at the expense of many of their people. The upper classes (leaders) profit at the expense of the lower classes (followers). The result is that you''re writing a game that only really suits clan leaders and the like.
Heh, this is one of those social problems I don''t have an answer to. Game design is easy, but manage online community is hard.
I would much much rather have these "organizations" of upper classes than Russia''s 70% peasents wanting to revolt or disorganized mob.
And no, I''m not writing games that only suits the clan leaders. It''s merely that people who goes out of their way to take the time to form a social group and maintain it deserve to be rewarded. The reward could be as small as a simple title in front of his name and it dosen''t have to be some major powerful weapon or special rights to build houses. The point is they need to be recongized. So if this means creating a lower class of players who dosen''t have the title in front of their name, yes, that''s the way it''s gonna be.
I don''t know if Kantian ethics will improve player cohesion. I have heard arguments from both sides but personally I feel that the effect is so small if not completely neglectable. Even if you give all the players in the game the same functions, they will categorize each other by different models, or by names (koreans names, german names, that sort of thing). The result is the same, I believe.
Author
Hi Blacksmith_Tony,
You feeled it already but yes indeed I don''t like it that players are assigned a job, a role in the world. I like it better that you are dropped in the world as an avatar with all the options, possibilite actions and jobs still open to the player so that they can change between roles/jobs they perform.
But it is the statistics and skill system of today''s mmorpg''s that I find even more troublesome. There is no need for a godlike observe system that rewards you, gives points for you doing certain actions.
What you need is a deep simulation. For instance take farming. A good farmer in my world would be someone who has studied and experimented with farming and starts to get a grip of what the ideal variables are for growing crops. If he knows how much water, how regularly, what sort of ground, and the amout of sunlight is the best he will simply grow more crops than someone who doesn''t know this and hence he will become richer more successfull. There is no need for a skill/stats system to acknowledge that he indeed is agood farmer and give him farmskill points. What you do need is the possibility to be a good farmer so you need to define the simulation more deep. Give crops the characeristics with different variables.
Now, If your simulation works like this it is more interesting (within the possibilities) to let the characteristics of thge simulation be close to real life because only that way players learn something of worth to them in real life. Some people might be very excited that they have the knowledge in your world to have the best crop growth and they will build out there business and love it because they are successfull. Lots of players won''t be interested in growing crops but don''t worry that will make that cropgrower only more rich wich gives him again other extra possibilities in that world, extra power. That way everything balances very well. If the need of the community for crops is high, the demand is big than the reward for those who offer the crops is big too and because of that more people will get interested in growing crops.
You feeled it already but yes indeed I don''t like it that players are assigned a job, a role in the world. I like it better that you are dropped in the world as an avatar with all the options, possibilite actions and jobs still open to the player so that they can change between roles/jobs they perform.
But it is the statistics and skill system of today''s mmorpg''s that I find even more troublesome. There is no need for a godlike observe system that rewards you, gives points for you doing certain actions.
What you need is a deep simulation. For instance take farming. A good farmer in my world would be someone who has studied and experimented with farming and starts to get a grip of what the ideal variables are for growing crops. If he knows how much water, how regularly, what sort of ground, and the amout of sunlight is the best he will simply grow more crops than someone who doesn''t know this and hence he will become richer more successfull. There is no need for a skill/stats system to acknowledge that he indeed is agood farmer and give him farmskill points. What you do need is the possibility to be a good farmer so you need to define the simulation more deep. Give crops the characeristics with different variables.
Now, If your simulation works like this it is more interesting (within the possibilities) to let the characteristics of thge simulation be close to real life because only that way players learn something of worth to them in real life. Some people might be very excited that they have the knowledge in your world to have the best crop growth and they will build out there business and love it because they are successfull. Lots of players won''t be interested in growing crops but don''t worry that will make that cropgrower only more rich wich gives him again other extra possibilities in that world, extra power. That way everything balances very well. If the need of the community for crops is high, the demand is big than the reward for those who offer the crops is big too and because of that more people will get interested in growing crops.
quote:Original post by coderx75
even worse, they were hooked on The Sims!!! They ran around doing the same things that happen to us in everyday life. Do you want to tell me that "The Sims" isn't popular and wasn't fun?
Be VERY careful there, "The Sims" isn't everyday life... and a perfect re-enactment of everyday life is not going to hold much interest.
The best way to explain it is to paraphrase a quote:
quote:A design is perfect when you cannot leave any more out, not when you cannot add any more to it.
"The Sims" succeeded because it managed to weed out all the things that weren't good.
Many MMORPGS fail because they leave a lot in (for the sake of misdirected "realism") that would have been better removed.
Saying "The Sims was popular, and seemed pretty real, so we'll make a REALLY real game and it'll be MASSIVELY popular" is being naive about the design. Like many posters have said already, "real" is freely available all around us already, and the reason we play games is because we want to get away from it.
[edited by - MadKeithV on June 6, 2002 6:16:20 AM]
Author
Hi DeClavier,
(What point exactly was it from wavinator that you find succint? I couldn''t find his post.)
If it is a repetetive task that has to be performed over and over again or even worse a slavery scenario''s where you have to work in the mines, can''t talk to anyone and have no hope to flee, the temptation to just log off and kill your character and simply start a new life will be big indeed.
However if there is a possibility to talk to your commrades, if the atmosphere of the simulation and the reality closeness is big. (All those guards and other slaves are real people, they have fun with you, they know you by name) and you have something valuable to lose, your life, the shape of your body that you have builded up and if you would stop you would have to get reborn again and start a s a child, and there is a possibility to flee you might stick to it for a while and be a slave, while observing and thinking out your grandesc escape plan, or terrorizing other slave mates, or organizing a revolt.
The deeper, realistically the simulation. (Why did slaves not kill themselves right away in RL because they had hope, people they loved, strong comrade ties) If they lose all that when they kill themselves than they might be motivated to continue.
At the other hand, I wouldn''t risk me for the moment on such a route. To make a simulated world as deep as that will ask for some more years. However, a simple farming simulation as part of the world I think is doable.
You as a worlddesigner are free to chose what actions the players can perform in your world. If you make shure that those are somehow interesting but above all worthwile doing, that they can bring you success in a social setting than that will do.
You can avoid incorporating boring tasks, that only an ai wouldn''t mind doing.
Did I do that?
What exactly do you mean here?
I agree that I personally would be attracted too to a more dynamic role with increased social complexity as a player. If possible I would want to become a successfull lawyer, mayor, businessman but there are enough other jobs to be offered in for example a city simulation that are worth exploring too policeofficer, fireman, lover!, etc...
Indeed you could use npc''s to do the real boring jobs but you could as well automate that or simply not incorporate it. If you don''t want cleaner jobs in the city than do not make it possible that the city becomes dirty. (Although I wouldn''t mind being a cleaner in shifts for a while in new york, might be fun, you earn money with it and if you do it for a while you can buy a car, yeha)
I don''t get this yet. What is it exactly that you think why people organize themselves into communities, clans, factions, trades?
Ok I get you, you agree that we as worlddesigner should create the worldrules, how it functions, the natural laws (ofcourse the setting, interface, and some other desiccions) but that we should not enter it as a moderator does. I agree with you. It''s interesting to see how people in muds actually how friendly they might be against the moderator just mistrust him because he simply has godlike powers. No, we offer the platform, the world and we offer a way for you to feel POWER, lots of power and we as worlddesigners do not have the right to comme inbetween with godlike powers. You would make the players, rightfully angry.
It''s like the state and companies. Companies (players) will florish the most if the power of the state is limited. The state offers the platform but the companies have there rights that can not be inflicted (otherwise they simply move to another country (game)). But there are limits. A company can not disbalance the state and become so powerfull that it can start dictating the laws and therefore have the option to terrorize a whole community. States will make shure that companies do not become that powerfull by trying to break monopolies with all the weapons they have at their disposal (and those can reach very far). The company also pays taxes to the state in order to get the platform on which they can wield power and that way make the state more powerfull. But the state or the platforms can only exist thanks to the people who are member from it. So making shure they are happy and do not flee to another platform/state cost money.
And than the circle is made. A group of people forms a platform. A platform can be tapped. But they will ask you to be tapped back because otherwise you simply may not tap them. So you need them and you have to give something back as a company (money or free play). You could move your campany to a taxfree state and try to avoid the draining back of resources but they will make it hard on you to tap them and you won''t have military protection and other services that the state offers you in return.
We as virtual world creators are a platform and our future lays in how much people we can attrack to that platform. One day these online worlds will be accessable for free as real world organizations will pay for it through advertising just like tv. (There will be other businessmodels too, plenty of them but this is the one I''m betting on, for now).
I also should note that I want to develop a virtual world that has the goal of being a ''play'' world. Which means I will not allow real world activities other than advertising in it such as real businesses or real money that is used in that world (Mindark does this and has set up some serious platform already)
The goal is to offer a simulated world where people can experiment, develop there people and maybe some technical skills in a safe environment whith not such a big consiquences as in RL.
Implementing such a drastic rules like ''The player is not able to perform any act which cannot also be performed by every other player.'' might offer you a more safe environment but it won''t offer you an exciting world where power can be wielded. You see, the characteristic of power is just that you can do things that others whithout that power can''t do. Therefore power is so attractive. It gives you the fieling that YOU are the one in control and that they can''t do you shit!
In real life you are always in danger for being killed no matter how much financial/political or other more subtle power you have (like beauty and charm). So you always have to watch out, even for less powerfull figures on your level because they always have enough physical power to put a knife in your stomack. (Maybe this all is a bit rude explained, it is more subtle than that, there are other things that make us weak even if we have power such as rumours that can be spread and other things..)
Because of that we tend to behave decently or any way more decently than if you would be harmless, not killable. So implementing such a weak physical state as a property of your virtual world is important if you want players to behave more decently towards others. In any way the simulation of that virtual society will be closer to RL society and therefore will be richer as a learning tool for social interaction.
I think kant his view on ethics is a biut flawed. I feel more for Nietzsche''s views on this. I found a good comparison between them concerning ''the emergence of moral'' and how we should behave. ( http://www.ohadmaiman.com/displayessay.asp?PageNumber=19 )
If you would implement such a harcoded rule you would get a flawed simulation with unrealistic situations and behaviours. The world would immediately be less attractive than a simulaton who doesn''(t implement such a hardcoded rule.
What is interesting to note here is that again this proves that you need to understand the working of the real world very well in order to make a simulation about it (and see that it''s possible). How morality emerges, how society emerges, hmm lovely!
Nice talking to you Declavier and I hope this clarifies some aspects,
MarcDM
(What point exactly was it from wavinator that you find succint? I couldn''t find his post.)
If it is a repetetive task that has to be performed over and over again or even worse a slavery scenario''s where you have to work in the mines, can''t talk to anyone and have no hope to flee, the temptation to just log off and kill your character and simply start a new life will be big indeed.
However if there is a possibility to talk to your commrades, if the atmosphere of the simulation and the reality closeness is big. (All those guards and other slaves are real people, they have fun with you, they know you by name) and you have something valuable to lose, your life, the shape of your body that you have builded up and if you would stop you would have to get reborn again and start a s a child, and there is a possibility to flee you might stick to it for a while and be a slave, while observing and thinking out your grandesc escape plan, or terrorizing other slave mates, or organizing a revolt.
The deeper, realistically the simulation. (Why did slaves not kill themselves right away in RL because they had hope, people they loved, strong comrade ties) If they lose all that when they kill themselves than they might be motivated to continue.
At the other hand, I wouldn''t risk me for the moment on such a route. To make a simulated world as deep as that will ask for some more years. However, a simple farming simulation as part of the world I think is doable.
You as a worlddesigner are free to chose what actions the players can perform in your world. If you make shure that those are somehow interesting but above all worthwile doing, that they can bring you success in a social setting than that will do.
You can avoid incorporating boring tasks, that only an ai wouldn''t mind doing.
quote:Original post by deClavier
That said, I think you are recognizing an important corollary of any principle designed to create unity of purpose beyond differentiated roles, subordination of some kind _is_ necessary.
Did I do that?
What exactly do you mean here?I agree that I personally would be attracted too to a more dynamic role with increased social complexity as a player. If possible I would want to become a successfull lawyer, mayor, businessman but there are enough other jobs to be offered in for example a city simulation that are worth exploring too policeofficer, fireman, lover!, etc...
Indeed you could use npc''s to do the real boring jobs but you could as well automate that or simply not incorporate it. If you don''t want cleaner jobs in the city than do not make it possible that the city becomes dirty. (Although I wouldn''t mind being a cleaner in shifts for a while in new york, might be fun, you earn money with it and if you do it for a while you can buy a car, yeha)
quote:Unfortunately, this is at odds with the principle encouraged by role-playing, viz., the more dynamic the role the higher the probabilty that the role will be enjoyed (since the drive to greater role-dynamism simultaneously necessitates increased social complexity - where society is the basis of coordination for those roles). I think this is the reason that people prompt factions, trades, etc. as a solution.
I don''t get this yet. What is it exactly that you think why people organize themselves into communities, clans, factions, trades?
Ok I get you, you agree that we as worlddesigner should create the worldrules, how it functions, the natural laws (ofcourse the setting, interface, and some other desiccions) but that we should not enter it as a moderator does. I agree with you. It''s interesting to see how people in muds actually how friendly they might be against the moderator just mistrust him because he simply has godlike powers. No, we offer the platform, the world and we offer a way for you to feel POWER, lots of power and we as worlddesigners do not have the right to comme inbetween with godlike powers. You would make the players, rightfully angry.
It''s like the state and companies. Companies (players) will florish the most if the power of the state is limited. The state offers the platform but the companies have there rights that can not be inflicted (otherwise they simply move to another country (game)). But there are limits. A company can not disbalance the state and become so powerfull that it can start dictating the laws and therefore have the option to terrorize a whole community. States will make shure that companies do not become that powerfull by trying to break monopolies with all the weapons they have at their disposal (and those can reach very far). The company also pays taxes to the state in order to get the platform on which they can wield power and that way make the state more powerfull. But the state or the platforms can only exist thanks to the people who are member from it. So making shure they are happy and do not flee to another platform/state cost money.
And than the circle is made. A group of people forms a platform. A platform can be tapped. But they will ask you to be tapped back because otherwise you simply may not tap them. So you need them and you have to give something back as a company (money or free play). You could move your campany to a taxfree state and try to avoid the draining back of resources but they will make it hard on you to tap them and you won''t have military protection and other services that the state offers you in return.
We as virtual world creators are a platform and our future lays in how much people we can attrack to that platform. One day these online worlds will be accessable for free as real world organizations will pay for it through advertising just like tv. (There will be other businessmodels too, plenty of them but this is the one I''m betting on, for now).
I also should note that I want to develop a virtual world that has the goal of being a ''play'' world. Which means I will not allow real world activities other than advertising in it such as real businesses or real money that is used in that world (Mindark does this and has set up some serious platform already)
The goal is to offer a simulated world where people can experiment, develop there people and maybe some technical skills in a safe environment whith not such a big consiquences as in RL.
quote: PS. Would implementing Kantian ethics improve player cohesion? ie. The player is not able to perform any act which cannot also be performed by every other player. Simulation might be costly if calculated on the fly, but the idea is interesting as a game playing constraint, would you agree?
Implementing such a drastic rules like ''The player is not able to perform any act which cannot also be performed by every other player.'' might offer you a more safe environment but it won''t offer you an exciting world where power can be wielded. You see, the characteristic of power is just that you can do things that others whithout that power can''t do. Therefore power is so attractive. It gives you the fieling that YOU are the one in control and that they can''t do you shit!
In real life you are always in danger for being killed no matter how much financial/political or other more subtle power you have (like beauty and charm). So you always have to watch out, even for less powerfull figures on your level because they always have enough physical power to put a knife in your stomack. (Maybe this all is a bit rude explained, it is more subtle than that, there are other things that make us weak even if we have power such as rumours that can be spread and other things..)
Because of that we tend to behave decently or any way more decently than if you would be harmless, not killable. So implementing such a weak physical state as a property of your virtual world is important if you want players to behave more decently towards others. In any way the simulation of that virtual society will be closer to RL society and therefore will be richer as a learning tool for social interaction.
I think kant his view on ethics is a biut flawed. I feel more for Nietzsche''s views on this. I found a good comparison between them concerning ''the emergence of moral'' and how we should behave. ( http://www.ohadmaiman.com/displayessay.asp?PageNumber=19 )
If you would implement such a harcoded rule you would get a flawed simulation with unrealistic situations and behaviours. The world would immediately be less attractive than a simulaton who doesn''(t implement such a hardcoded rule.
What is interesting to note here is that again this proves that you need to understand the working of the real world very well in order to make a simulation about it (and see that it''s possible). How morality emerges, how society emerges, hmm lovely!
Nice talking to you Declavier and I hope this clarifies some aspects,
MarcDM
Author
Hi Jay!
Here we are back again. Do you know Steve Grand? He is the creator of the 'Creators' series. I don't know if you know that but it are ai creatures that are very alive, or so they say. (He has a very interesting vision on life and it is thanks to him also that I see the parralel between virtual life and real life, he says 'htere is no difference, they are parallel and very persistent) (Here's an interview: http://www.generation5.org/grand130900.shtml)
Now, you are probably in the beginnng of the creation of life-like creaters/people. I would like to know how far you are there. What rules do your people follow already? And would love to see how they interact and what the results are, what happens. I know I can't wait
Now for me I'm just beginning little but building it up on another way, the purpose is different to, ti is thought out from the players perspective. What do you think of that approach I posted '
I'm stuck'?
I love your protection of the idea of using npc's
You've got a point in stating that by having those npc's you can test out the world and balance it before players enter the 'entertaining' experience. But is it trustable if the npc's are not like the pc's i.e follow other rules than what the people would follow?
Are the basic rules that the npc's follow the same as those that people follow?
Are you challenging me?
[edited by - Marc De Mesel on June 6, 2002 10:00:29 AM]
Here we are back again. Do you know Steve Grand? He is the creator of the 'Creators' series. I don't know if you know that but it are ai creatures that are very alive, or so they say. (He has a very interesting vision on life and it is thanks to him also that I see the parralel between virtual life and real life, he says 'htere is no difference, they are parallel and very persistent) (Here's an interview: http://www.generation5.org/grand130900.shtml)
Now, you are probably in the beginnng of the creation of life-like creaters/people. I would like to know how far you are there. What rules do your people follow already? And would love to see how they interact and what the results are, what happens
. I know I can't wait Now for me I'm just beginning little but building it up on another way, the purpose is different to, ti is thought out from the players perspective. What do you think of that approach I posted '
I'm stuck'?I love your protection of the idea of using npc's
You've got a point in stating that by having those npc's you can test out the world and balance it before players enter the 'entertaining' experience. But is it trustable if the npc's are not like the pc's i.e follow other rules than what the people would follow?
Are the basic rules that the npc's follow the same as those that people follow?
quote:
Also, keep in mind that we are going in different directions. You want the society for a game environment and I want the society to amass world data without me having to do it myself or hire world editors and artists. I need the NPC's, but I have to admit, YOU really don't. You could probably create a character with MAD $'s and have your character build an entire city in his name... then invite the game playing masses to try to overthrow you! =) MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! They'd create cities of their own, raise armies and unleash the bloodbath! That'd be cooool! You'd just need a good sized group of friends to help protect ya since ya ain't got NPC's =) Hehehehehe
Are you challenging me?
[edited by - Marc De Mesel on June 6, 2002 10:00:29 AM]
quote:Original post by MadKeithVA design is perfect when you cannot leave any more out, not when you cannot add any more to it.
"The Sims" succeeded because it managed to weed out all the things that weren't good.
Many MMORPGS fail because they leave a lot in (for the sake of misdirected "realism") that would have been better removed.
Saying "The Sims was popular, and seemed pretty real, so we'll make a REALLY real game and it'll be MASSIVELY popular" is being naive about the design. Like many posters have said already, "real" is freely available all around us already, and the reason we play games is because we want to get away from it.
That is the key point! I've been doing this for 11 years and for the past 3 years I've been hard at work on a design that is both fun and light weight. In order to make it possible to program agents to build my world, the rules must be simple. I have no choice but to remove all excess. That quote hit the nail on the head. =) Mind if I use it for my for my Sig? Sorry, Shunryu. Hehehe
- Jay
"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki
Get Tranced!
[edited by - coderx75 on June 6, 2002 12:31:20 PM]
quote:Original post by Blacksmith_Tony
Ok here''s an idea that COULD promote cooperation, but with competition as well.
Say you have different cities/countries or whatever. Then within each of these the players can take on a certain role farmer,soldier,noble etc (they would obviously start at the lowest rung of the role of their choice). Each players stats/skills are weighted towards their role, so farmers are good at farming when they start the game.
The idea is to let every character just be. There is no preconcieved character class that the player must follow. For example, in AD&D and all games based on its rules, the Theif can hide in shadows and pick locks, but doesn''t fight well and can''t use magic, while other characters can do these things. Everyone eats, earns money, buys weapons, fights to survive if necessary. This builds trade and economics as well as the need for protection. That need spawns "government", although my world is under a crude mob rule. In a world like this, you have to be careful who you mess with. You don''t know who their friends are and more importantly, you don''t know what they can do for you. He could be friends of the kingpin or one of his close associates.
The rules are formed by association, not by the programmer.
- Jay
"Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu Suzuki
Get Tranced!
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
