• Create Account

# Creating Constructive/Social Behaviour in Online Worlds !

Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

95 replies to this topic

### #81Kylotan  Moderators   -  Reputation: 3107

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2002 - 11:11 AM

quote:
Original post by Marc De Mesel
By ridiculing an analyzes of the word 'recreate' as an 'etymological fallacy' is a poor argument to the point that Jay tried to make. We use all kinds of things to try to get a point through. Etymological analyzes of words can learn you a lot and if appropriate can serve you in expressing your vision on a subject. And that was exactly what Jay tried to do, give his vision on game design. That was the message, you should criticize that message!

I already did, in a previous post. The 'ridiculing' of which you speak was because he was appearing to use the etymological fallacy to back up his claim that the point of recreation is to recreate, which it isn't. It can be one perfectly valid type of recreation, but it is not the only way or the 'correct' way.

quote:
Losing stuff in a game feels the same as losing stuff in real life, it indeed can never be that intense as in RL but you can make efforts to approach it.

All the problems revolve around the intensity of the feeling. You can't just ignore that.

quote:
But if you link some things to that character his life that are important to him (the real player) for being successfull in that world, like social connections, status in the world, a body that he has grown, some property maybe, than the loss of that character means something to him. He won't like it to die and will watch out for it, more than he would if he could not loose those things that he had to build up.

This is all true, but these things already exist on games and have proven insufficient for controlling grief players. Additionally, you have suggested implementing measures that reduce the effects of such losses or punishments, such as allowing multiple characters.

I've lost track of what it is that you want to achieve. You started off saying you wanted constructive and/or social behaviour, and to cut out anti-social behaviour, but since then you've gone on to say that you embrace player-killers. It doesn't make much sense. And I don't see what you're offering that's any different from existing MMORPGs.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]

[edited by - Kylotan on June 10, 2002 7:48:46 PM]

### #82coderx75  Members   -  Reputation: 401

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2002 - 12:46 PM

quote:
Original post by Kylotan
I don''t have a problem with you trying to go for more simulation in a game in the belief that it makes a game more fun, but you were suggesting that "recreation" should be about the act of "recreating" something, which you justified through linguistic wordplay to suggest that you were somehow ''right''. The words did had a common origin but that is irrelevant - the meanings are now different.

Yes, it is irrelevant. The point I was trying to make, however, had to do with "Creating Constructive/Social Behaviour in Online Worlds". My point was made in my example of people being entertained by "The Sims". The "linguistic wordplay" in no way is used to say I am right. It is only to say that people enjoy recreating real life things (not all things, of course). Perhaps, you don''t but you are not the entire gaming population.

We could go back and forth on this but it''s pointless really. I''m interested in how society and economy can emerge from a PC and/or NPC population while you seem only interested in the aspects of dealing with griefers. As I''ve said, and emergent society might be fun and it even might reduce griefing. As I''ve also said, anything is possible, but it''s really not my point. I''m only interested in _how_ society emerges. Everything else is just cake.

- 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!

### #83deClavier  Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2002 - 07:03 PM

The key to designing communities is designing by emotion, not action. Games these days all say "you can do x, you can do y" but neglect to mention that all the things you can do are all combat related.

When designing a game about community you need to ask, "how else can I express myself?"

There are four basic emotions - aggression :<, depression , love and fear :0 (which babies demonstrate versions thereof) - most games deal with two! (yet another reason to push for the design of games from the language perspective). There have been some experiments with game design along these lines; I don''t remember the title but someone designed an online game about the schoolyard - players could include/exclude players from groups, play nice or bitch - it highlighted how involved people became when social status was what was being manipulated (as opposed to other people''s health levels). It also highlighted the limits of the potential for "emergence" where survival/score principles are predominant - it wasn''t designed to be a very stable social environment.

Maybe what you need is to define the game in terms of group powers only, then individual dissent becomes a social issue, not a gameplay feature.

Marc de Mesel! Forcing permanently stable status quos? You''re dealing with a self-defeating scenario - that''s what I''m saying.

"We lived peaceful lives for a long time, for years we ignored a heap of metal that lay in the corner of our field. We were happy, we talked amongst one another and passed the time idly. Then one day, Hamish, who often complained at his father''s orders, went to the corner of the field and picked up the BFG9000. That was a sad day for all of us; things have changed now, as you can see."

You may not put a BFG in your game but its the principle I''m trying to highlight. You won''t see the problem until you step out of the designer shoes (sic!) and ask yourself what players will want to do to get the power you had in designing the game. Are you going to prevent players from exercising the "will to power" (and not the "will to observe")? Apparently, from your comments about Kant, you don''t like the idea. Jay''s "emergence" design philosophy is much more self-consistent.

[Mental note: MM voyeur game based on the "will to observe"... players are compelled (survival) to visit NPCs in the game at which point various social taboos have a probability of being broken. The rest of the game is spent running around with a camera trying to get other player''s misdeeds on film.]

### #84coderx75  Members   -  Reputation: 401

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 08 June 2002 - 07:45 PM

quote:
Original post by deClavier
When designing a game about community you need to ask, "how else can I express myself?"

There are four basic emotions - aggression :<, depression , love and fear :0 (which babies demonstrate versions thereof) - most games deal with two!

Computers are rather cold little devices. Although, Micro$oft is pretty good at causing "fear" with their software by adding that "Blue Screen of Death" feature in everything they produce =) My agents have to be spawned... I''ve been interested in how players would feel about eachother if they spawned other players. This could make for some interesting emotional ties. Not as strong as real life but cool nonetheless. quote: [Mental note: MM voyeur game based on the "will to observe"... players are compelled (survival) to visit NPCs in the game at which point various social taboos have a probability of being broken. The rest of the game is spent running around with a camera trying to get other player''s misdeeds on film.] MUAHAHAHAHA!!! That''s the about the whackiest idea I''ve heard yet. I dig it! =) - 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! ### #85MarcDM Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 10 June 2002 - 01:36 AM Hi Jay, Thanks for your email. Now back to business. When you talk about a 'social system' what is it exactly that you mean? And correlated to your project what is it that you expect from your 'social system'. If you mean with this social system the interdepended relations between the animals, plants and npc's than it's more an ecological system that you are trying to get balanced. I wouldn't talk of a social system here. A description of a social system would be something like this: quote: "Tribal society is the stable social system with a division of labour organised around extended family relations. This division social division of labour is almost exclusively based on kinship relations, within a relatively closed circle, wherein the character of an individual’s labour is determined by their age, sex and position within the family. A tribe consists of more than one formallly recognized kinship group, termed clans, which exchange marriage partners. Land belongs to a particular clan, not to the whole tribe. However, the number of people in a tribe is still low enough that everyone knows everyone else by name and relationships. A few hunderd seems to be the upper limit for group size compatible with everyone's knowing everybody. Because almost everyone is related to everyone else, by blood or marriage or both there is no need for police, laws and other conflict-resolving institutions of larger societies. When 2 villagers get into an argument they will share many kin who will apply pressure on them to keep it from becoming violent. This would be part of a description of the social system of a game about being part of a tribal community. I know that you are not working at such a kind of social system but I would love to know if you are planning for some kind of simple social system, some kind of cooperation between the npc's or maybe some kind of cooperation between your animals. ( In sugerscape there emerged cooperation from the simple rules the agents followed. quote: To be more clear, there are personal needs, not social needs. Social needs are emergent. The only personal needs I've implemented is food and protection. Of course, protection is an emergent need and requires other game elements to acquire. The Sims had a social need to that was simply displayed by one stat, other stats were hunger, comfort, hygiene, bladder(?), energy, fun and room (and social). You can see it on this screenshot (http://www.gamegenie.com/cgi-pub/pic-gg.pl?&url=/reviews/pc/images/thesims-2.jpg). I don't understand that social needs are emergent. I don't think that is the case. We as humans are geneticaly engeneered as such that we will look for contact with other living beings and will want to live with it. I do understand that your desire for protection will be furfilled through other actions yo have to undertake like making good friends, a strong house or whatever. [edited by - Marc De Mesel on June 10, 2002 8:41:53 AM] ### #86MarcDM Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 10 June 2002 - 04:43 AM quote: All the problems revolve around the intensity of the feeling. You can''t just ignore that. Damnit Kylothan I did not ignore that in my previous post. I clearly stated that the intensity of virtual life for a human being can never be as intensive as in real life. I did not ignore this, not even in that same post!! (since by now it''s clear that you seem not be interested in looking for the other arguments mentioned in the other posts by that person). quote: This is all true, but these things already exist on games and have proven insufficient for controlling grief players. Indeed, this is true, the measures I would take, that are not yet done in todays MMOW would be: - The Physical Weakness of every character even if they have lots of political or financial power. (like RL) - The Birthing System that makes shure that newbies are protected by the parents and surrounding community and at the same time those newbies, since they are little and weak do not have the power to harm a lot, kill adults. (They wouldn''t mind griefing those children since they did not invest a lot of time in their character yet but if they want to become physical as powerfull as the adults and have access to other power structures and attractive things like a girlfriend, a house they will have to work for it, eat, invest time, fight, use your people skills. By the time they are big they are a very part of the commmunity and have a lot to lose if they start to grief. - The ''Trust'' System, making trust of other players possible and necessary by having Repeated Interaction (the people live in a tribal community, together and can''t easily go to other tribal communities, they will live together and see eachother a lot), Interaction History (I will make shure that people have planty of downtime(time that you are waiting for something and do not have to do anything) to chit chat and will that way talk a lot about eachother.) and Persistent Distinct Identities (It will be very difficult to have exactly the same character as somebody else.) I might have forgotten other things that are important to implement if you want to grow organized societies with a lot of constructive social behaviour in it (next to a lot of destructive social behaviour, which is a very part of it). Or I might not yet even have discovered, found other necessarily features you have to implement to realize such a dynamic living society. quote: Additionally, you have suggested implementing measures that reduce the effects of such losses or punishments, such as allowing multiple characters. Allowing multiple characters was a solution to the prison sentence talked about in the other post. It was a solution to having nothing to do. I now realize that it was not a good solution as the effect of punishment would be lost if the player could just play another character (while this one is in prison). That way the player wouldn''t mind much doing the same crime again because he would not feel prison as a punishment. I came upon that feature, being able to grow several characters at the same time (not moment) in the same world because this allows for real roleplaying. Since the other people don''t know that ''Gina'' and ''Jack'' are the same real person you can experiment a lot thanks to this mask being offered. If there are some strategies in it like tribal communities fighting eachother you could grow a personage in multiple communities and have valuable information thanks to this. This way somebody who knows how to play different roles would maximize his possibilities for success in that world. quote: I''ve lost track of what it is that you want to achieve. You started off saying you wanted constructive and/or social behaviour, and to cut out anti-social behaviour, but since then you''ve gone on to say that you embrace player-killers. It doesn''t make much sense. And I don''t see what you''re offering that''s any different from existing MMORPGs. What I mean with ''embrace Player Killers'' is that the possibility to kill players, the power of attacking other players ingame, the power to have impact on other players is a must you need for a self policing system. You need the option of killing other people or hurting them in order to create constructive social behaviour among the players. I embrace it because there lays the solution to the griefer problem. Of course this alone does not solves the griefer problem. Why the griefer problem is there is simple. If you are invulnarable and there is no other people or godlike system of preventing you to kill that newbie than it is possible and as such will happen. (If you even gain something by doing this than it will happen a lot, is that the case in current MMORPG''s? I don''t know that.) Before explaining what it is exactly that I offer that is different from current MMORPG''s I want to say something about the personality that you are playing in this thread. You are not looking for solutions (or that is the impression you give) for today''s problems that arise from the systems we play/live in. Sometimes it seems like you feel treatend by the ideas being proposed certainly if they are about MMORPG''s, stats, griefers and such. I bet you are quite happy with today''s MMORPG''s and do not desire any other things, true? A constructive discussion with people who are quite happy with current systems is difficult. You have to convince them that they can gain something too with this new system. If it is absolutely clear that they can only loose (or so they think) when implementing such a new system it is impossible to discuss with them. This sort of people is not inspiring in the search for solutions. However the stupid things they constantly and repeatedly say train you very well in building up arguments and expressing your ideas as you constantly have to repeat them. The nerving thing when discussing with such people however is that they constently seem to forget other things that have been said about the subject before, even when those are easily accesable, and often jump on just a part of the argument or simply rip things out of context. If you stick to this role you play Kylotan you will be reduced to the observer role as you do not understand how these new systems work or are created. I would want to ask you to put some energy in the understanding of. Still here Kylotan? If so then now clear your mind and forget all the insults that I have trown upon you. This is difficult but it is necessary in order to understand some new things I''m going to try to explain you here. So here we go, especially for you Kylotan repeat and reformulate the ideas that I, Jay and some others have tried to explain until now. The difference between today''s MMORPG''s and the game we propose is that we simply want a deeper simulation incorporated in our world. We want the simulation as deep as possible with lots of interdependent relationships between all the things you find in that world and the systems that guide them. If you offer such a simulation than the need for missions given by the gamedesigner is not necessary anymore because the world already allows for massive experimentation and possibilities. (Simcity) So if we would make a gta serie (Grand Theft Auto, a popular game) we would try to go as deep as poossible in the simulation of a today''s city while keeping the focus on the sorts of activities that players from the series like (such as being a criminal, gang leader, cop, taxidriver, hooker, ...). Although you can do all this with ai, creating a dynamic living society) and do not need other players in the game world I personaly am very much attracted by using only real players as citizens because it allows for again a more real like experience (ai npc''s can''t simulate real living beings yet and for a long time probably). (I could also give an example of how the game would be different from Everquest for instance while keeping the same setting, environment, themes and roles but I''m just not familiar with that world and therefore have not fantasized yet about such a world in that setting and how it would feel, play.) So as a player you would experience the difference in that you have no defined objectives from the gamedesigner and you would also notice that you can do a lot in that world. The difficulty is, How do we create such a deep simulation of a city, certainly when a lot of real players are active in that world? I''m going to stop here. Somehow I do like your presence as it is way better than no responce at all. At least you live. -Marc (This is my name if you speak to me, mentioning the back name feels ''teachy'', if you know what I mean) ### #87coderx75 Members - Reputation: 401 Like Likes Like Posted 10 June 2002 - 05:35 AM quote: Original post by Marc De Mesel When you talk about a ''social system'' what is it exactly that you mean? And correlated to your project what is it that you expect from your ''social system''. If you mean with this social system the interdepended relations between the animals, plants and npc''s than it''s more an ecological system that you are trying to get balanced. I wouldn''t talk of a social system here. I don''t feel a social system alone is really a social system. A social system effects the world and vice versa. Ecology, economy, society, trade, etc. all go hand in hand. Sure, I could just have food spring out of the ground like magic, but the ecological system is a very trimmed down version of the social system. Some animals pack together and follow a leader. This is just practice before the big game, so to speak. It also makes the world a little more interesting. quote: ...I would love to know if you are planning for some kind of simple social system, some kind of cooperation between the npc''s or maybe some kind of cooperation between your animals. No cooperation between animals and npc''s is planned (such as dog and man). Animals are there for food... and fight. The carnivores need to eat too. This puts the initial fight into the world and gives primitive "human" agents a purpose. quote: I don''t understand that social needs are emergent. I don''t think that is the case. We as humans are geneticaly engeneered as such that we will look for contact with other living beings and will want to live with it. I do understand that your desire for protection will be furfilled through other actions yo have to undertake like making good friends, a strong house or whatever. You''ve actually made my point. Social needs are emergent. But, I see your point as well. Society IS programmed to some extent. The need for agents to be together is to fulfill protection and to get more done. To an agent, another agent is just a resource. How much that resource is used depends on the value of their relationship. This is where society emerges. ----------- BTW, don''t worry so much about Kylotan''s posts. I don''t think he''s really on the same page as us. As I said a couple posts ago, he''s more interested in taking care of the grief problem. Although that was originally part of the topic, we''ve moved away from the issue. You''ll notice his criticisms are aimed at that issue. Whether my system or yours will "banish" griefers, I doubt HIGHLY but I hope they will make them a little more interesting as everything you do in a social system requires some bit of strategy and always involves cause/effect. Either way, it''s not something I''m taking into account, just seeing it as possibility. At first, I thought Kylotan was just talkin'' outta his a$$... spouting criticism without doing his homework. But on closer inspection, he''s got his target on a different problem... and his arguments are good. I told him in an earlier thread to ut some more thinking behind his replies. Sorry, Kylotan, if you took offense to this. We just weren''t at all on the same page. =) Perhaps, you [Kylotan] should start another thread on the topic of griefers so we can battle it out there =) 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! ### #88Kylotan Moderators - Reputation: 3107 Like Likes Like Posted 10 June 2002 - 01:06 PM quote: Original post by MarcDM Damnit Kylothan I did not ignore that in my previous post. I clearly stated that the intensity of virtual life for a human being can never be as intensive as in real life. I did not ignore this, not even in that same post!! Then let me rephrase - you have failed to address it. In my opinion. quote: You need the option of killing other people or hurting them in order to create constructive social behaviour among the players. I embrace it because there lays the solution to the griefer problem. Death is only one method. Is death permanent? (I may have missed you clarifying this.) If so, then you will still probably lose more good players than bad this way, unless you have something very interesting set up to prevent this. After all, the ability of the average grief player is usually higher than the average player overall. (Excluding verbal grief players, who usually just indulge in harassment that tends to be easy to shut out or prevent using in-game methods, if you allow them.) If death is not permanent, then it is not necessarily a better deterrent than other methods. quote: Before explaining what it is exactly that I offer that is different from current MMORPG''s I want to say something about the personality that you are playing in this thread. You are not looking for solutions (or that is the impression you give) for today''s problems that arise from the systems we play/live in. Sometimes it seems like you feel treatend by the ideas being proposed certainly if they are about MMORPG''s, stats, griefers and such. I bet you are quite happy with today''s MMORPG''s and do not desire any other things, true? Not true. I am not impressed by the current crop of MMORPGs at all. I am looking for solutions just as the rest of you are, except I have spent a long time listening to the likes of Raph Koster and Damion Schubert who have learned from their mistakes in the design of such games. Which is why I''m very sceptical when people come in and say "more ecological systems and player policing is the answer" when in fact both of those systems were among the first to be tried, and discarded due to their inadequacy. This doesn''t mean they can''t work - it just means they need a new approach in order to work, and I don''t see that here. For example, making players more vulnerable by reducing the difference in power between newbies and experienced players is largely already in Ultima Online. The skill cap means that most people are approximately the same. But this isn''t enough to solve the problem. quote: A constructive discussion with people who are quite happy with current systems is difficult. Lucky I''m not one, then. I just see as many problems in your systems as I do in existing ones, largely because your ideas have already been tried in some form or other, as far as I can see. quote: The nerving thing when discussing with such people however is that they constently seem to forget other things that have been said about the subject before, even when those are easily accesable, and often jump on just a part of the argument or simply rip things out of context. The whole of the context is available above in this thread for anyone who wants to see it. quote: If you stick to this role you play Kylotan you will be reduced to the observer role as you do not understand how these new systems work or are created. I would want to ask you to put some energy in the understanding of. On the contrary... I actually run an online world right now, albeit a small one. I have been dealing with grief players and fostering societies before anybody here even heard of Ultima Online. I don''t say that to imply that I know more than the rest of you - just to let you know that I do have some experience of the process. quote: The difference between today''s MMORPG''s and the game we propose is that we simply want a deeper simulation incorporated in our world. We want the simulation as deep as possible with lots of interdependent relationships between all the things you find in that world and the systems that guide them. If you offer such a simulation than the need for missions given by the gamedesigner is not necessary anymore because the world already allows for massive experimentation and possibilities. (Simcity) This is all well and good. I don''t have a problem with the simulationist approach. I partly subscribe to it myself. However I feel this aspect is orthogonal to the whole society/grief-player aspect, and doesn''t really help it. In fact, it possibly hinders it in that simulation has less directed goals, which in turn could mean less in the way of a ''shared vision'' and consequently less cooperation. [ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ] ### #89MarcDM Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 10 June 2002 - 01:40 PM I don''t understand what you are saying to me Declavier. It''s not that I don''t want to it''s just to difficult. Just think of me as a litle boy and explain it. sorry, Marc ### #90coderx75 Members - Reputation: 401 Like Likes Like Posted 10 June 2002 - 03:24 PM quote: Original post by Kylotan Not true. I am not impressed by the current crop of MMORPGs at all. I am looking for solutions just as the rest of you are, except I have spent a long time listening to the likes of Raph Koster and Damion Schubert who have learned from their mistakes in the design of such games. Which is why I'm very sceptical when people come in and say "more ecological systems and player policing is the answer" when in fact both of those systems were among the first to be tried, and discarded due to their inadequacy. This doesn't mean they can't work - it just means they need a new approach in order to work, and I don't see that here. Games may have attempted to create economic or social systems, but they've never created an emergent system that the players don't have total control over. No game has ever attempted anything this ambitious. The game AI would create the world and the player would have to try to influence this world. Players would have to gain funding and popularity before they could do anything. I'm creating such a system now as we speak but I'm not creating a game. This is just an experiment. I hope to one day grow the idea into a game system. I would appreciate your opinion on such a system in a single- and multiplayer environment as you seem to have some background. Where do you see these failing? What have you seen happen in the past? There is a somewhat similar system that is being implemented now in a game called "Republic". Check this out if you are interested: Republic - GameSpy ...and some more. "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 10, 2002 10:26:01 PM] [Edit - The quote was attributed to Marc when actually it should have been me, so I changed it to avoid confusion -- Kylotan] [edited by - Kylotan on June 11, 2002 8:32:37 PM] ### #91MarcDM Members - Reputation: 122 Like Likes Like Posted 11 June 2002 - 12:37 AM quote: Original post by coderx75 I don''t feel a social system alone is really a social system. A social system effects the world and vice versa. Ecology, economy, society, trade, etc. all go hand in hand. Sure, I could just have food spring out of the ground like magic, but the ecological system is a very trimmed down version of the social system. Some animals pack together and follow a leader. This is just practice before the big game, so to speak. It also makes the world a little more interesting. So a social system refers to the system of cooperation that emrges between animals or between human being or between human beings and animals. Cooperation between the fauna and flora is an ecological system. (Just to get it straight that we mean the same thing if we talk about a social system.) quote: You''ve actually made my point. Social needs are emergent. But, I see your point as well. Society IS programmed to some extent. The need for agents to be together is to fulfill protection and to get more done. To an agent, another agent is just a resource. How much that resource is used depends on the value of their relationship. This is where society emerges. Indeed so society is an emergent phenomena that is created because of the (programmed) desire of human beings to have protection, and maybe some other programmed needs. But the social ''needs'' themselves are not emergent phenomena, maybe if you look from it from an atomair approach, yes than maybe as intelligence itself is an emergent phenomena but they do not emerge from the need of protection. The social needs are the cause of emergence. The cause that there emerges a society from it. The social needs are simply there just as the need for sex is simply there. Making friends are consequences from the social needs. Making a house is a consequence of the need for protection. But it are not emergent phenomena in that due to the programmed need for social contact there ''emerges'' the quest for friends. It''s simply a consequence. I looked for some definitions of emergence. This one might serve us : Emergence is the phenomenon wherein complex, interesting high-level function is produced as a result of combining simple low-level mechanisms in simple ways. Marc ### #92coderx75 Members - Reputation: 401 Like Likes Like Posted 11 June 2002 - 05:56 AM quote: Original post by MarcDM Emergence is the phenomenon wherein complex, interesting high-level function is produced as a result of combining simple low-level mechanisms in simple ways. This proves my point. No social need is programmed. If you are aiming at programming a social need, then it is not emergent and you are making more work for yourself. If you feel that controlling these things is beneficial to your game, then more power to you. But, it's still not truly emergent. The needs of the singular agent are all programmed. Other agents are also a need as I've stated before, but this is only to fill its own needs, not the needs of a society. Example: sex is a need of the RLIfe individual, however, you can probably trace an entire war back too it. If an ALife individual has the need for food, it has the option to find it, grow it or trade for it with another agent. If he grows it, he may sell it to others. A system of basic economy and trade have just emerged because of the singular agent's need for food. The need for food is a simple low-level mechanism where the economy is a complex, interesting high-level function. What I said earlier was incorrect. In order to have an emergent system you can not have ANY society-related programming. To do so is to remove emergence within the system. Programming emergence is very simple and any high-level, complex programming is just excessive and probably requires some redesign, especially if its human players and not AI. When you go my route of AI socializing, you can't help but get into some tricky techniques but they're still applied to the individual only. - 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 11, 2002 12:58:21 PM] ### #93 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_* Guests - Reputation: Likes Posted 11 June 2002 - 06:20 AM There is a game where social and political structures have been formed as you describe. Its called Asheron''s Call. If you are not familiar with it I will briefly describe the allegiance system that the programmers implemented to promote social interaction. There are no set realms in AC. Players can choose to be a monarch or to follow another person by swearing allegiance to him. The patron recieves a fraction of the experience points his vassal produces thereby giving the patron incentive to help the newer player. In non-pk servers on AC thats all there really is to it but on Darktide the pk-only server allegiances come into play as much more important. The allegiance you are in defines what you are like to other people. If you are in the monarchy of "Blood" people autamatically know that you are hostile to everyone and will attack them, however if your monarch is "xanthro" people recognize you to be a protector of good and justice and will only attack known pk''s such as "blood"s In the pk-server(darktide) it is essential to join a monarchy for protection. Each monarchy attempts to control certain areas of the world and many of the guilds allow only their members to use dungeons or towns that they control. In Asheron''s Call, darktide there is a great political and social structure with NO influence from the programmers aside from the allegiance system. ### #94coderx75 Members - Reputation: 401 Like Likes Like Posted 11 June 2002 - 07:54 AM quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster There is a game where social and political structures have been formed as you describe. Its called Asheron''s Call. Oh God help us... it''s a Micro$oft game! Wow, this is actually cool as hell. Hey Marc, this is exactly what you were looking to do... and didn''t Kylotan say that it would fail? Guess not, eh?

Well, no ones done the AI society thing yet (except republic, but that''s somewhat structured). You guys should check out this link... I''ve read it and I''m trying to get the hard-on to go down =b

Asheron''s Call

- 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!

### #95Kylotan  Moderators   -  Reputation: 3107

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 11 June 2002 - 01:35 PM

quote:
Original post by coderx75
Oh God help us... it''s a Micro\$oft game! Wow, this is actually cool as hell. Hey Marc, this is exactly what you were looking to do... and didn''t Kylotan say that it would fail? Guess not, eh?

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. In this whole thread, I have had AC''s hierarchical system in mind, and now you''re acting as if you''d never heard of it. Odd. And no, I don''t believe I ever said such a thing wouldn''t work. Please find the relevant quote. However, Asheron''s Call doesn''t do half of the things that have been asked for in this thread, which is a large part of why I''ve said that making clans and guilds is insufficient to create cooperative behaviour.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]

### #96coderx75  Members   -  Reputation: 401

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 11 June 2002 - 02:59 PM

quote:
Original post by Kylotan
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. In this whole thread, I have had AC''s hierarchical system in mind, and now you''re acting as if you''d never heard of it. Odd. And no, I don''t believe I ever said such a thing wouldn''t work. Please find the relevant quote. However, Asheron''s Call doesn''t do half of the things that have been asked for in this thread, which is a large part of why I''ve said that making clans and guilds is insufficient to create cooperative behaviour.

- 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!

Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

PARTNERS