It's not like nodes are new, they're just new to to us (nerd alert)

ekadzatiekadzati Member, Braver of Worlds
The way I see the node system is roughly encapsulated in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2281

What I'd LIKE to see is math models like the one linked being used to make games that are player driven, not mechanic driven, story driven, law driven, culture driven, or actual behavioral emergence boxes in which explication is part of the mechanic (i.e., only explicit contract is enforceable).

All it requires is as much attention to the behavioral economics of social exchange and a means to report/measure a given territory's economic and crime stats. Maybe some community tools for law enforcement that are open democracy driven.

Imagine a game where you were more motivated to solve problems than to fight over them. But when you did fall into conflict requiring war, you choose "Just" war or "Total" war it actually MATTERS if you're killing non-combatants because they're bound to contract not to fight as much as you are to defend them. And there are COSTS for all of them.

You know, the tools by which any society manages long-term civilization, and of course, all the Machiavellian appearance play around plausible deniability. Heh.

Long game hopes in a short-cycle (and often short-sighted) market, me.
Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 1 yet?)
«13

Comments

  • noaaninoaani Member
    ekadzati wrote: »
    What I'd LIKE to see is math models like the one linked being used to make games that are player driven

    I can't see how that would be enjoyable.

    Take a whole bunch of people, provide them with anonymity, and then put them all in to a world where it is them that decide how things operate, rather than a mechanic or system.

    Doesn't seem to me like it would be enjoyable.

    Since games are literally just a matrix of systems and mechanics, in order to create a game that is not driven by these things, the game would need to have enough of those systems and mechanics coded in to the game so that players never hit a wall that tells them they are actually still constrained by systems. The only plausible way to do this would be to use an advanced (as in, not yet developed) AI.
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Long game hopes in a short-cycle (and often short-sighted) market, me.
    We all have things we would love to see in an MMO that are simply not plausible yet - this is not something that is unique to you. You just seem to be rather inarticulate in your description of what you want.
  • leonerdoleonerdo Member, Settler
    So, an open-source game where all the players are programmers, so they can make their own rules?

    Mod-able Minecraft comes remarkably close, imo.

    I don't have much else to add. It seems like a vague and open-ended idea.
  • RavudhaRavudha Member
    edited May 18
    ekadzati wrote: »
    What I'd LIKE to see is math models like the one linked being used to make games that are player driven, not mechanic driven

    Games/MMOs are already player driven: players input to/interact with game mechanics, and this paper just covers one type of game-theory algorithm that can be used; mechanics are just (parts of) algorithms.

    It sounds more like you just want the game world to have more in-depth social/political systems so players have more avenues of interaction to solve problems and the game world reacts more realistically.

    More depth is nice, but I wouldn't say that fighting over a problem isn't a valid way to solve it either.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
    I read the first paragraph of that paper and I'm already completely lost. I'll be honest I'm really not sure what you are asking for here but going off what @Ravudha said, I will remind you that this is a game, NOT real life. Why does this matter? Because the consequences of our actions in real life are much harsher than in a game. In real life, society teaches us to find solutions that don't involve active conflict, but in a game like Ashes of Creation active conflict is encouraged.

    For example, if one node starts a war with another node, the consequence of that war will probably something along the lines of one node being destroyed and a bunch of players losing some in-game assets. Not a big deal. Compare that to real life where if a country declares war with another country, the result will likely be a huge amount of death, not to mention economic repercussions that will cause strife and even more death for years to come.

    You really can't compare the two at all.
  • ekadzatiekadzati Member, Braver of Worlds
    Because the consequences of our actions in real life are much harsher than in a game.

    In real life, society teaches us to find solutions that don't involve active conflict, but in a game like Ashes of Creation active conflict is encouraged.

    There is no reason why MMO games cannot do the same; the argument that consequences shouldn't be "too harsh" only seems to come from people who want 'total war' lawlessness in gaming. It's ironic, given that it's the same argument most PKers use when there are justice mechanics that are as harmful to their "fun".

    Why bother with economic reality in a game if you're not going to offer political reality, too? There's only so much that can emerge when you have an artificial boundary against the presence of any tooling or mechanics for grassroots organization and reaction.
    You really can't compare the two at all.

    You're not my supervisor!!!
    Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 1 yet?)
  • CaerylCaeryl Member
    We know you like to hear yourself talk, or read your own text in this case, but for the love of god stop using overblown wordage and speak like a human being and not like a google-translated academic text.

    You can’t make a game be identical to real life because that isn’t fun. Nothing is gained from having permanent death, nothing is gained from punishing players for engaging with systems as intended (node wars and sieges, in this case), no one benefits from that. Not the PvP diehards, not the players devoted to trading, not the PvE raiders.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
    edited May 18
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Because the consequences of our actions in real life are much harsher than in a game.

    In real life, society teaches us to find solutions that don't involve active conflict, but in a game like Ashes of Creation active conflict is encouraged.

    There is no reason why MMO games cannot do the same; the argument that consequences shouldn't be "too harsh" only seems to come from people who want 'total war' lawlessness in gaming. It's ironic, given that it's the same argument most PKers use when there are justice mechanics that are as harmful to their "fun".

    Why bother with economic reality in a game if you're not going to offer political reality, too? There's only so much that can emerge when you have an artificial boundary against the presence of any tooling or mechanics for grassroots organization and reaction.

    Alright, let's say you are playing Ashes and a dragon is approaching your node, intent on destroying it. You are given 2 options:

    1. Talk to the dragon and convince it to go away
    2. Fight the dragon

    Now I don't know about you but I (and I'm sure a lot of other players too) would prefer to fight the dragon than to reason with it because, guess what, that is far more engaging gameplay.

    Really, what you are suggesting seems to be another one of those "I want my games to be realistic!" things without stopping to think how it would negatively impact gameplay. There's a difference between adding depth to a system and creating barriers just for the sake of "realism".
  • ekadzatiekadzati Member, Braver of Worlds
    It's like some of these folks think it's a competition. It's not even a game about competition. It's a game about cooperative civilization building. Sure, there's competition, but that's not the main thrust of the game, just like it's not the main thrust of real world civilization.

    The only ones insisting otherwise are, well, you.

    Anyone who thinks life isn't the ultimate immersive MMO needs to revisit their biology lessons.

    #neuroscience #TheoryOfMind
    Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 1 yet?)
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men
    Just because its not first does not mean it will not be the best.
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • ekadzatiekadzati Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited May 18
    Caeryl wrote: »
    We know you like to hear yourself talk, or read your own text in this case, but for the love of god stop using overblown wordage and speak like a human being and not like a google-translated academic text.

    You can’t make a game be identical to real life because that isn’t fun. Nothing is gained from having permanent death, nothing is gained from punishing players for engaging with systems as intended (node wars and sieges, in this case), no one benefits from that. Not the PvP diehards, not the players devoted to trading, not the PvE raiders.

    Despite your initial paragraph, I'm going to pretend you are interested in a discussion and that you are, in fact, capable of reading at or above year 1 college level:

    Games mirror life. By design. The overlay of story and power dynamics are not present to be "fun", but to condition you to like and respond to the dopamine hits that you get feeling a sense of [whatever you game to feel]. The marketing is there to convince you it will be "fun".

    The question you have to answer for yourself is: "How often is that marketing evidenced to be truthful?"

    Ultimately, understand that game design is about designing to your audience's tolerance levels for repetition, stress/pressure, and physical norms... and making a game that requires a minimum, regular investment somewhere along the way.

    And every mechanic is tied to some part of the formula for getting that investment.

    Which is why you only see real innovation and progress in these games when there is a way to push the boundaries OF those limits in the name of compulsion and fulfillment cycles (i.e., more time = more revenue).

    Games as a business are traps for your time and money. Duh. They should be less stress inducing and compulsion priming considering that there are costs to players that may not show up for years. But that's another discussion.

    Suffice to say that more realism would mean less operation conditioning into fight/flight edging for profit.

    And yeah, I'm a fan of that.
    Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 1 yet?)
  • ekadzati wrote: »
    Suffice to say that more realism would mean less operation conditioning into fight/flight edging for profit.

    And yeah, I'm a fan of that.

    Except even in terms of complete realism, Fight or flight has been our reality as a species far more then not. Civilization has been pushed forward more by conquest and destruction than any sort of peaceful cooperation. Even today's relative peace is in large part enforced by the idea that we have the capacity to so horribly annihilate each other.
  • RavudhaRavudha Member
    edited May 18
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Why bother with economic reality in a game if you're not going to offer political reality, too?

    Scope, budget, fun, necessity...take your pick.

    MMOs have a political reality; it's not like it's completely missing. Players discuss issues and negotiate with each other outside the game. Since this meta level of play is widely known, it is factored into MMO design. Maybe the devs decided it's enough to simulate the politics needed to work in tandem with the other game systems.

    Also, pointing out that some game experiences are carefully curated to the point of manipulation to be fun doesn't make them not fun or necessarily mean that fun is not the intent of design. It's simply talking about the phenomenon/experience of fun at different levels of abstraction: experiential and chemical.

    Not all games are sinister business products or designed to mirror life to any significant degree. Many are artful or literary experiences designed to elicit emotion. Others, including MMOs, are purposely abstracted from reality to deliver a level of fantasy or escapism. They incorporate elements of social belonging and working toward medium-to-long term rewards on top of short-term conditioned dopamine hits. Yes, the effects of gaming is a separate discussion, and it requires a look at multiple facets, not just a focus on the elements of repetition and stress.
  • ekadzatiekadzati Member, Braver of Worlds
    Clearly no one read that paper through. No worries; it's good to know how much of the ol' DK effect folks are selecting into... cheers.
    Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 1 yet?)
  • noaaninoaani Member
    ekadzati wrote: »
    It's like some of these folks think it's a competition. It's not even a game about competition. It's a game about cooperative civilization building. Sure, there's competition, but that's not the main thrust of the game, just like it's not the main thrust of real world civilization.

    The only ones insisting otherwise are, well, you.

    Anyone who thinks life isn't the ultimate immersive MMO needs to revisit their biology lessons.

    #neuroscience #TheoryOfMind

    If you think competition is not the driving force of everything in life, you should consider taking biology, history and economics papers along with the articulation paper you really need to look in to.
  • ekadzatiekadzati Member, Braver of Worlds
    Cooperative relationships last longer, run deeper, and survive more than competitive ones. If you think competition is all that matters, you've already missed the point of evolution.
    Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 1 yet?)
  • noaaninoaani Member
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Cooperative relationships last longer, run deeper, and survive more than competitive ones. If you think competition is all that matters, you've already missed the point of evolution.

    In order for cooperation to exist, competition needs to exist.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
    edited May 18
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Clearly no one read that paper through. No worries; it's good to know how much of the ol' DK effect folks are selecting into... cheers.

    It's got nothing to do with the "ol' DK effect". I tried reading the paper and got totally lost within the first paragraph, and it didn't even seem relevant to this discussion.

    Anyway, I'd like to remind you that this is a game, NOT real life. Outside of a few edge cases, the majority of games are focused on competition and combat rather than cooperation via diplomacy.
  • noaaninoaani Member
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Clearly no one read that paper through. No worries; it's good to know how much of the ol' DK effect folks are selecting into... cheers.

    It's got nothing to do with the "ol' DK effect". I tried reading the paper and got totally lost within the first paragraph, and it didn't even seem relevant to this discussion.

    Anyway, I'd like to remind you that this is a game, NOT real life. Outside of a few edge cases, the majority of games are focused on competition and combat rather than cooperation via diplomacy.
    Yeah, that paper has nothing to do with Ashes. It's more about an abstract way of looking at a game.

    It is probably best described as an academic paper that can be used to help others write academic papers.

    My guess is the OP searched for game design papers containing the word "node".

  • RavudhaRavudha Member
    edited May 18
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Clearly no one read that paper through. No worries; it's good to know how much of the ol' DK effect folks are selecting into... cheers.

    This post boils down to a preference for a type of game experience. It's not necessary to read the academic papers explaining the mechanics or theory behind the systems you prefer. You already gave practical examples.

    To the original point, sure, there is no reason you can't make a game with all the proposed systems; it might just mean re-evaluating your player demographic.
  • ekadzatiekadzati Member, Braver of Worlds
    It's got nothing to do with the "ol' DK effect". I tried reading the paper and got totally lost within the first paragraph, and it didn't even seem relevant to this discussion.

    Well, that's because you are working very hard not to understand, and looking for any reason to dismiss what you cannot manage to understand.
    Anyway, I'd like to remind you that this is a game, NOT real life. Outside of a few edge cases, the majority of games are focused on competition and combat rather than cooperation via diplomacy.

    You are essentially saying, "change is bad". /laugh

    I'm saying combat-focus has never been the thing that kept the market in these games; sociability and relationships are/were/continue to be.


    Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 1 yet?)
  • noaaninoaani Member
    ekadzati wrote: »
    I'm saying combat-focus has never been the thing that kept the market in these games; sociability and relationships are/were/continue to be.
    Combat is what separates an MMO from a messenger app.

  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds
    I love how this person argues for 'realism', and 'cooperative city building'. In a PVP game. By definition, PVP is competitive, not cooperative.
    PVP is not an acronym for Players Valuing Peace, it is Player Versus Player. The 'versus' usually does not indicate cooperation.

    That paper is about multiplayer, not MMORPG. It basically says that you should model very small interactions and extrapolate the rest. Try that with real life. It ain't gonna work.
    Do you mean that I should model the interactions with me and 4 friends. Then apply that to the larger groups around us. So therefore, everyone gets along well, plays games, and drinks a lot.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
    ekadzati wrote: »
    It's got nothing to do with the "ol' DK effect". I tried reading the paper and got totally lost within the first paragraph, and it didn't even seem relevant to this discussion.

    Well, that's because you are working very hard not to understand, and looking for any reason to dismiss what you cannot manage to understand.
    Anyway, I'd like to remind you that this is a game, NOT real life. Outside of a few edge cases, the majority of games are focused on competition and combat rather than cooperation via diplomacy.

    You are essentially saying, "change is bad". /laugh

    I'm saying combat-focus has never been the thing that kept the market in these games; sociability and relationships are/were/continue to be.


    For someone claiming we need more cooperation in games, you sure do like causing conflict a lot in your posts....

    Anyway, I never said that change is bad, but change for the sake of change, in the name of "realism" is pointless when it comes to mmorpgs.
  • ekadzatiekadzati Member, Braver of Worlds
    I love how this person argues for 'realism', and 'cooperative city building'. In a PVP game. By definition, PVP is competitive, not cooperative.

    I love how you confuse competition with combat. Did you know lots of kinds of competition don't use combat at all, or do I need to use smaller words?
    That paper is about multiplayer, not MMORPG.

    Incorrect. The paper is about accurate models for use in multi-player games.
    It basically says that you should model very small interactions and extrapolate the rest.

    Incorrect. Very. The paper presents a model for efficient Nash equilibrium computations based on local area interactions. You don't NEED to extrapolate, because the effects are cumulative/deterministic over time.
    Do you mean that I should model the interactions with me and 4 friends. Then apply that to the larger groups around us. So therefore, everyone gets along well, plays games, and drinks a lot.

    Not. Even. Close.

    Feel free to try again.
    Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 1 yet?)
  • ekadzatiekadzati Member, Braver of Worlds
    For someone claiming we need more cooperation in games, you sure do like causing conflict a lot in your posts....

    Funny, seems to me the only conflict is coming from people who seemingly cannot function in the presence of a difference of opinion.
    Anyway, I never said that change is bad, but change for the sake of change, in the name of "realism" is pointless when it comes to mmorpgs.

    You're having an argument over 'change for the sake of change' but you seem to be forgetting that the 'sake' is market share and longevity.

    Did you lose track or get confused?
    Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 1 yet?)
  • noaaninoaani Member
    edited May 19
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Incorrect. The paper is about accurate models for use in multi-player games.
    Incorrect, that paper is about ways (or a single specific way) researchers can break down multi-player games in order to further study them.

    It has no place in discussion outside of people conducting research on multi-player games, and no relation at all to nodes as they will appear in Ashes.
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Funny, seems to me the only conflict is coming from people who seemingly cannot function in the presence of a difference of opinion.
    This forum thrives on differences of opinion.

    It is practically the only way these forums DO function.

    Take away the developer threads and occasional help topic, and difference of opinion is basically all that is left.
  • ekadzatiekadzati Member, Braver of Worlds
    Oh, look, the arbiter of "place" has arrived..... (LOL)

    So predictable, some people. Wow.
    Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 1 yet?)
  • noaaninoaani Member
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Oh, look, the arbiter of "place" has arrived..... (LOL)

    So predictable, some people. Wow.

    Arbiter of place?

    Well, no. More like the only person here that has read and understood the paper in question (working on the assumption that only two of us have read it). I mean, I didn't read it at the time it came out (2013) or when it was revised (2015), because I took one look at the title and realized the purpose of the paper.

    The part of the title that says "For Game Theory" is a fairly easy way to tell that the paper is designed to advance Game Theory study, not to provide any practical advances in actual game design. The fact that it has been cited by over 650 other papers says it does a good job at what it was intended for.

    Failing that though, after reading it yesterday, it was very easy to see that my initial assumption about the paper was in fact correct. The fact that it has no conclusion should have also given something away to you (papers without conclusions are meant as a source of further study).

    My assumption is that you came across it while reading the Wikipedia page on game theory - since it is used as a source there.


  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Anyway, I never said that change is bad, but change for the sake of change, in the name of "realism" is pointless when it comes to mmorpgs.

    You're having an argument over 'change for the sake of change' but you seem to be forgetting that the 'sake' is market share and longevity.

    Did you lose track or get confused?

    So, in your opinion, the average player would be drawn to a game where negotiation and diplomacy are the primary ways of resolving conflict, rather than combat. Now while there are games that are non-combat-orientated, these are very much a niche category not mainstream. Your argument that such a game will produce greater market shares and longevity is simply false.

  • ekadzatiekadzati Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited May 19
    ekadzati wrote: »
    Anyway, I never said that change is bad, but change for the sake of change, in the name of "realism" is pointless when it comes to mmorpgs.

    You're having an argument over 'change for the sake of change' but you seem to be forgetting that the 'sake' is market share and longevity.

    Did you lose track or get confused?

    So, in your opinion, the average player would be drawn to a game where negotiation and diplomacy are the primary ways of resolving conflict, rather than combat. Now while there are games that are non-combat-orientated, these are very much a niche category not mainstream. Your argument that such a game will produce greater market shares and longevity is simply false.

    No, you are not understanding me. Combat should be a last resort, not a first one. That's how you give it meaning. When you finally get there, everyone knows it's on... and not just because some idiot is trying to game the wardec system, eh?

    You folks are cutting off your nose to spite your face and you don't seem to see it. You trivialize the one thing you claim most to want, meaningful combat and conflict, and in doing, convince anyone not like you to drop out... then you complain about how dead PvP is... it's just fascinating.

    I mean, nothing surprises me anymore, but damn. This is definitely a case of people walking a thousand miles to avoid running one. So sure, gold with open pvp and I'll see you in 6-9 months when it's free to play.

    Neither game developers nor forum white knights seem to get that if you induce population crash, you actually get population crash.

    Go figure.
    Speak as a friend, find a friend. Speak as a foe? To hell you can go. (Is it Alpha 1 yet?)
Sign In or Register to comment.