April 2007

• Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguard reviews and rants) Richard A. Bartle
• • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguardreviews and rants) John Buehler
  • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant againstVanguardreviews and rants) Raph Koster
    • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) John Buehler
      • • Importance of emoting (Was: ArantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) Raph Koster
        • • Importance of emoting (Was: ArantagainstVanguardreviewsand rants) John Buehler
          • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant againstVanguardreviews and rants) Michael Hartman
            • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) John Buehler
              • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) Chris Richards
                • • Importance of emoting (Was: ArantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) Raph Koster
                  • • Importance of emoting (Was: ArantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) Amanda Walker
                    • • Importance of emoting (Was:ArantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) McDonald, Stephen
                      • • Importance of emoting (Was:ArantagainstVanguardreviewsand rants) Richard A. Bartle
                    • Importance of emoting (Was: ArantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) Matt Chatterley
                • Importance of emoting (Was: ArantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) Morgan Ramsay
              • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant againstVanguardreviews and rants) Dana V. Baldwin
              • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) Dave Scheffer
          • Importance of emoting (Was: ArantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) Dana V. Baldwin
      • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant againstVanguardreviews and rants) Michael Hartman
    • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant againstVanguardreviews and rants) Richard A. Bartle
    • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant againstVanguardreviews and rants) Tess Snider
      • Importance of emoting (Was: A rantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) John Buehler
      • • Importance of emoting (Was: ArantagainstVanguardreviews and rants) Richard A. Bartle
• Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguard reviews and rants) Mike Sellers
• • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguard reviews and rants) Tess Snider
  • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguardreviews and rants) Mike Sellers
    • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguardreviews and rants) Tess Snider
      • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant againstVanguardreviews and rants) Mike Sellers
  • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguard reviews and rants) Damion Schubert
  • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguardreviews and rants) Mike Sellers
  • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguardreviews and rants) Raph Koster
  • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguardreviews and rants) Sean Howard
    • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant againstVanguardreviews and rants) Raph Koster
      • • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant againstVanguardreviews and rants) Damion Schubert
        • Importance of emoting (Was: A rant againstVanguardreviews and rants) Michael Hartman
• Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguard reviews and rants) Dana V. Baldwin
• [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Raph Koster
• • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
  • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Raph Koster
    • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
      • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Damion Schubert
        • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
      • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Sean Howard
      • • [DESIGN] What is a game?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Raph Koster
        • • [DESIGN] What is a game?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Sean Howard
      • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Vincent Archer
    • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
    • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
      • • [DESIGN] Consensus and control [was: What is a game? (again)] cruise
        • • [DESIGN] Consensus and control [was: What is a game? (again)] Caliban Darklock
          • • [DESIGN] Consensus and control [was: What is a game? (again)] cruise
            • • [DESIGN] Consensus and control [was: What is a game? (again)] Caliban Darklock
              • • [DESIGN] Consensus and control [was: What is a game? (again)] cruise
  • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
  • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Sean Howard
    • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
      • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Sean Howard
      • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
      • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Sean Howard
        • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
          • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
            • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
              • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
                • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
                  • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
                    • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Sean Howard
                      • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
                        • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Sean Howard
                          • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
                            • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Sean Howard
                              • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
                                • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Miroslav Silovic
                                    Caliban Darklock wrote:
                                    > There are three possibilities of any given activity in the game.
                                    >
                                    > 1. It has zero effect on the game.
                                    > 2. It has positive effect on the game.
                                    > 3. It has negative effect on the game.
                                    >
                                    > Let's consider the use of a toy by a player.
                                    >
                                    > Case 1 is readily discarded because the player is on the game field,
                                    > occupying some portion of the finite space available, and for which
                                    > demand exceeds supply.
                                    >
                                    > Case 2 is readily discarded because the network effect of a player
                                    > playing the game exceeds the effect of individual activity. When you
                                    > account for the lack of this network effect, you cannot end up with a
                                    > net positive.
                                    >
                                    > By the process of elimination, you have case 3 - a negative effect.
                                    >
                                    > There are three premises underlying this.
                                    >
                                    > 1. Demand for game space exceeds supply. (Implies players consume
                                    > space.)
                                    > 2. The network effect of players playing the game together is
                                    > necessarily positive.
                                    > 3. That network effect necessarily exceeds any individual effect.
                                    >
                                    > You may certainly attack any of the above premises as untrue, but I
                                    > think the only one really susceptible to such an attack is premise 3.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    
                                    Premise 1 is easily attacked: MMOGs are by definition big - that's the
                                    part of what "massive" means. Space taken by any individual player is
                                    negligible compared to the overall world size.
                                    
                                    Premise 2 and 3 actually counter-argument your conclusions. Players that
                                    introduce "toys" are still part of the network effect (whether they want
                                    it or not). A well-designed game can allow them to blend in. This is how
                                    you add colour to your world without extra effort from designers. Note
                                    that some games do have exploitable holes that allow players to spoil
                                    other players' fun; but this doesn't mean that -all- game have.
                                    
                                    > There's an additional possibility: when a toy is introduced to the
                                    > game, it may be assimilated as part of the game. However, this
                                    > destroys the game you had before, replacing it with a new one. Nomic
                                    > aside, arbitrary introduction of a new ruleset is rarely a positive
                                    > development - it might have something to do with entropy.
                                    
                                    Um, this is again not true. Introducing new rules is part of the network
                                    effects mentioned above. It can be positive or negative, and part of the
                                    difficulty of a good game design is making the positive effects
                                    overwhelm the negative ones. The whole point of open world is that its
                                    designers allow it to evolve. They relinquish part of the control over
                                    their own game in exchange for depth.
                                    
                                    > But they don't really offer it. Fundamentally, the terms of service
                                    > always include what amounts to an agreement that if you don't adhere
                                    > closely enough to the consensus of what the game is, you don't get to
                                    > play anymore. They call it "disruption". If enough people get mad
                                    > about what you're doing, you get the boot.
                                    >
                                    
                                    Disruption is not about playing the game outside the consensus, it's
                                    about invading other players private boundaries. In your premises listed
                                    above, it's about going around premise 1 in order to force yourself on
                                    other players.
                                    
                                    However, I believe that most of the disruptive behaviour can be designed
                                    out - with notable exception of acceptable language rules. But you get
                                    those in real life, too.
                                    
                                    Just see Guild Wars as an example of no-disruption-by-design system. Bad
                                    things still happen there, but they're relatively rare. OTOH, there are
                                    plenty of examples of really entertaining player additions that were
                                    eventually endorsed by designers (such as using ectoplasm as substitute
                                    currency, player-organised RPG guilds, solo-farming extremely difficult
                                    area as challenge, player-ran scavenger hunts and other award contests).
                                    
                                    > My assertion is that whether a stick is a toy depends on what I do
                                    > with it. It isn't the object that matters, it's the action. I can play
                                    > fetch with any number of things; a stick, a ball, a stuffed animal,
                                    > whatever. And in a virtual world, the toy with which I choose to play
                                    > - while it may certainly look and act like an object in the game world
                                    > - DOES NOT EXIST. It's just data on a server. I'm playing with an
                                    > idea, just as I might play with mathematical concepts, and the lack of
                                    > a material object doesn't in any way diminish my enjoyment of it.
                                    >
                                    
                                    Frankly, I don't think you introduced a concise, useful definition of
                                    "toy" into this discussion yet. I don't mean description, but proper
                                    definition (although I might've missed it from a previous post).
                                    
                                    >> Gameplay is not changed, only exposed.
                                    >>
                                    >
                                    > This is because the player has not actually created any content -
                                    > merely rearranged it. Back to Crawford:
                                    >
                                    
                                    Rearrangement requires design effort and upload of information from the
                                    player's client. Therefore it does add content.
                                    
                                    > "A properly designed game precludes this possibility; it is closed
                                    > because the rules cover all contingencies encountered in the game."
                                    >
                                    
                                    This is arbitrary statement. Properly designed game doesn't have to be
                                    closed. In fact, I contend that a properly designed game works well with
                                    being open.
                                    
                                    > We're dealing more and more with games that not only permit but
                                    > *pursue* emergent gameplay opportunities. This is a Good Thing, but
                                    > along with it comes the boogeyman of not really knowing what your game
                                    > is or how it's played. This makes it very difficult to close the
                                    > system.
                                    >
                                    
                                    I agree with the first part - it is a good thing. But since I don't see
                                    any necessity for the closed system, there is no boogeyman. What I see
                                    as a design challenge is forming a *stable* system. In other words, it's
                                    perfectly good for the game to evolve over time; it's only a problem if
                                    certain game parameters have a potential for runaway growth. For
                                    example, in another thread, Ralph was discussing buffbot problem on SWG.
                                    In this case, the individual player power had a potential to grow way
                                    beyond what designers thought possible. But this sort of things can be
                                    patched and I agree with him that this is a polish bug, not a
                                    fundamental flaw. This also had nothing to do with introduction of
                                    "toys", it was simply an exploitable bug in the rules; in other words,
                                    it killed the system stability, and didn't damage the game by evolving
                                    it.
                                    
                                    Miro
                                  • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
                                    • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Morris Cox
                                • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Morris Cox
                                • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
                      • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
                      • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
                        • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
                          • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
            • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Lachek Butalek
            • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
    • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Jeffrey Kesselman
    • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
• Importance of emoting (Was: A rant against Vanguard reviews and rants) John Buehler
• [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Hideto Koudanshi
• • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
  • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
  • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Dave Scheffer
    • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Sean Howard
      • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Dave Scheffer
        • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
        • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
          • • [DESIGN] What is agame? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
            • • [DESIGN] What is agame? (again)was:[Excellentcommentaryon Vanguard's diplomacy system] Dave Scheffer
      • [DESIGN] What is a game?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
      • • [DESIGN] What is a game?(again)was:[Excellentcommentaryon Vanguard's diplomacy system] Dave Scheffer
        • • [DESIGN] Principles vs Rules [was: What is a game?(again)] cruise
        • [DESIGN] What is a game?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Caliban Darklock
        • • [DESIGN] What is agame?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
    • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Hideto Koudanshi
    • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
      • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Hideto Koudanshi
        • • [DESIGN] What is a game? (again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
          • [DESIGN] What is a game?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
• [DESIGN] Rewards cruise
• • [DESIGN] Rewards Raph Koster
  • • [DESIGN] Rewards cruise
    • • [DESIGN] Rewards John Buehler
      • • [DESIGN] Rewards cruise
        • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
      • [DESIGN] Rewards Mike Sellers
      • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
        • • [DESIGN] Rewards cruise
          • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
            • • [DESIGN] Rewards cruise
              • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
                • • [DESIGN] Rewards cruise
            • [DESIGN] Rewards John Buehler
            • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
              • • [DESIGN] Rewards John Buehler
          • [DESIGN] Rewards Mike Sellers
        • [DESIGN] Rewards John Buehler
        • [DESIGN] Rewards Jean, Yannick
        • • [DESIGN] Rewards Dana V. Baldwin
          • [DESIGN] Rewards Jeffrey Kesselman
          • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
            • • [DESIGN] Rewards cruise
              • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
                • • [DESIGN] Rewards cruise
            • [DESIGN] Rewards Jean, Yannick
            • • [DESIGN] Rewards Mike Sellers
              • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
                • [DESIGN] Rewards Jean, Yannick
                • • [DESIGN] Rewards cruise
                  • [DESIGN] Rewards Paolo Piselli
          • [DESIGN] Rewards Michael Hartman
      • [DESIGN] Rewards Raph Koster
      • • [DESIGN] Rewards cruise
        • • [DESIGN] Rewards Raph Koster
          • • [DESIGN] Rewards Jeffrey Kesselman
            • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
            • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
            • [DESIGN] Rewards Mike Sellers
      • [DESIGN] Rewards Caliban Darklock
      • • [DESIGN] Rewards cruise
        • [DESIGN] Rewards John Buehler
    • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
    • • [DESIGN] Rewards John Buehler
      • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
        • • [DESIGN] Rewards John Buehler
          • • [DESIGN] Rewards Dave Scheffer
            • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
            • [DESIGN] Rewards David Love
            • • [DESIGN] Rewards Johnicholas Hines
      • [DESIGN] Rewards Raph Koster
      • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
        • • [DESIGN] Rewards Michael Hartman
          • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
            • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sulka Haro
              • • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
                • • [DESIGN] Rewards Michael Hartman
              • [DESIGN] Rewards Michael Hartman
  • [DESIGN] Rewards John Buehler
  • [DESIGN] Rewards Sean Howard
  • [DESIGN] Rewards Dave Scheffer
  • [DESIGN] Rewards Caliban Darklock
  • [DESIGN] Rewards Adam Martin
• Downtime & SWG (Was: Importance of emoting) Sean Howard
• • Downtime & SWG (Was: Importance of emoting) Raph Koster
  • • Downtime & SWG (Was: Importance of emoting) Sean Howard
• Framing and Player Psychology (was: Importance of emoting) Tess Snider
• [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops Jeffrey Kesselman
• • [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops Dave Scheffer
  • • [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops Jeffrey Kesselman
  • [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops cruise
  • • [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops Jeffrey Kesselman
  • [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops Peter Keeler
  • • [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops Dave Scheffer
    • • [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops Jeffrey Kesselman
      • • [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops Dave Scheffer
        • • [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops Jeffrey Kesselman
    • [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops Jeffrey Kesselman
  • [DESIGN/OPERATION] A rant about NPC ops John Buehler
• What is agame?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
• • What is agame?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
  • • What is agame?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary onVanguard's diplomacy system] Dave Scheffer
    • What is agame?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary onVanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
    • • What is agame?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary onVanguard's diplomacy system] cruise
      • • What isagame?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary onVanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
  • What is agame?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system] Dave Scheffer
  • • What is agame?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary onVanguard's diplomacy system] John Buehler
• [DESIGN] Crafting Systems: Supply-Driven vs. Demand-Driven Shannon Sullivan
• • [DESIGN] Crafting Systems: Supply-Driven vs. Demand-Driven cruise
  • [DESIGN] Crafting Systems: Supply-Driven vs.Demand-Driven Dave Scheffer
  • [DESIGN] Crafting Systems: Supply-Driven vs. Demand-Driven Morris Cox
  • • [DESIGN] Crafting Systems: Supply-Driven vs. Demand-Driven Michael Hartman
    • • [DESIGN] Crafting Systems: Supply-Driven vs.Demand-Driven Dave Scheffer
  • [DESIGN] Crafting Systems: Supply-Driven vs. Demand-Driven Chris Richards
  • [DESIGN] Crafting Systems: Supply-Driven vs.Demand-Driven John Buehler
  • • [DESIGN] Crafting Systems: Supply-Drivenvs.Demand-Driven Dave Scheffer
• RE : [DESIGN] Rewards Jean, Yannick
• [DESIGN] Is photorealism the goal? ( was Ray traced environments) Jeffrey Kesselman
• • [DESIGN] Is photorealism the goal? ( was Ray traced environments) Tess Snider
  • • [DESIGN] Is photorealism the goal? ( was Ray traced environments) Jeffrey Kesselman
    • • [DESIGN] Is photorealism the goal? ( was Ray traced environments) Keith Dunwoody
• [TECH] Client time-server time sync Roger D Vargas
• • [TECH] Client time-server time sync John Buehler
  • [TECH] Client time-server time sync Jeffrey Kesselman
  • [TECH] Client time-server time sync Hudson, Thomas C.
  • [TECH] Client time-server time sync Lachek Butalek
  • [TECH] Client time-server time sync Adam Martin
• Whatisagame?(again)was:[Excellentcommentary onVanguard's diplomacy system] Dave Scheffer