[MUD-Dev] List rituals

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

J C Lawrence wrote:
> Ola Fosheim <=?iso-8859-1?Q?Gr=F8stad?= <olag at ifi.uio.no>> wrote:
>> J C Lawrence wrote:

> Its about 18 - 24 months old that I've noticed.  At a technology
> level its pretty primitive usually, and most have gaping security
> holes (bad designs/implementations) but that's a problem with the
> base tools not being a pervasive commodity yet.

Mmh, most are probably quite horrible, but then you have MSc level
college-students...  It is still interesting to note that they seem
to prefer their own tools over the tools provided by the system,
because they rate them as safer and customizable.

>> (Doesn't matter all that much to the MMPORPG model, because it
>> does not support strategic or creative game play to any
>> reasonably interesting degree... They are more like TV. :-(( )

> This will change and is slowly doing so.  There are learning and
> development curves to master first.  The biggest problem is
> building the basic vocabulary for the control and manipulation
> concepts in the player base.  On the first hand its a problem in
> invention (we really haven't figured out the area yet) and on the
> other hand the player base aren't educated into that vocabulary.

Hmm...  I doubt this.  Mass-market movies are as bad as they used to
be.  (?) The MMPORPG development costs are skyrocketing (AO costs >
$15 mill?) and the scenery is increasingly providing movie-like
experiences (flying or running through the landscape in 100 mph is
an aesthetic experience in itself and the audio is great too).
Sure, they can provide better game-play, but most players will never
get to a point where they can appreciate the finer points of
strategic co-operative game-play.  I suspect that developers will be
forced to move in the opposite direction, very simple interfaces,
addition of small subgames synchronized with events in the larger
society, etc, much like TV/Disney et al.  The high production costs
will allow a small set of companies to dominate the market, and thus
the market becomes profitable... Note that interactive TV and mpeg4
is coming too, which makes "big productions" even more attractive...

That said, you will get a subfield of "extreme sports". However,
this market will be crowded with developers (those who LOVE doing
games, games they would like to play themselves, and who are willing
to go bankrupt in their attempt to get there) and thus not really
all that interesting to publishers in the long run? (It is more
profitable to invest more and get into a much larger market with
less competition)

I already see players saying that they are planning to do
beta-testing rather than buying.  They are getting bored and betas
are becoming available at a steady rate.  Novelty is fun, betas
provide the cutting edge.  If you get 10+ new games each year... +
increased availability of bandwidth => you may need to make your
game available for free (Achaea model). Basically the Internet as it
is today, encourage the play-for-free model, but it is hard to scale
up.  There will most likely be decent mostly-free games available as
long as at least one developer can reach break-even using the model.
And then you have GPL efforts and perhaps companies that turn their
game into the public domain when bankrupt (e.g. Trolltech
license)...

Note the trend of special-case-death: the arcade industry is caving
in, the console industry is struggling in uncertainty, the web-game
industry is based on a flawed model, the PC game market is crowded,
and TV is (perhaps) getting more interactive (real soon now).  The
problem with TV is that the provider might be in total control (as
with mobile games).  Uh, so profitability might not be on the
Internet, but in the strategic infrastructure alliances. (lots of
arguments in favour of this development in the long run: media
streaming makes for greater variation in audio-visual presentation,
real-time performance, mpeg4 as industry standard etc)

Just thinking out loud... :( I am not too optimistic about the
profitable side of the industry => looking to the "extreme sports"
might be a better option actually.

>   20 years ago if you'd sat any computer user in front of a
>   current (2001) GUI interface with icons, drop down menus, a
>   mouse, etc, they would have been unable to function effectively.
>   They didn't

Hmm... New users are exposed to this every day though.  The worst
problems seem to be on the application level?  Anyway, MUDs can
provide fairly good physical-world knowledge transfer.  In fact,
games are privileged in this respect!  A well designed game will
also only expose the user to one new control every few hours.
I.e. level 1: move + chat + attack, level 2: + get, level 3: + set
skills etc.

If there is a good mapping between physical world experience and the
game world, and the interface is otherwise well designed, then
learning to use the mouse would be the biggest challenge for a
computer novice.  (20 minutes of frustration) Of course, using the
keyboard for chatting is a big hurdle too if they can't even operate
a mouse...

> That's where we are now: still trying to invent the base language,
> still working just the other side of, "Ugg!" let alone any larger
> expressions like, "Me hungry!"  We really don't have a basic
> interface vocabulary set yet for MUDs, let alone strategic MUDs.

Another problem is the "fact" that the current market will be split,
and thus most MUDs need to embrace the uninitiated.  And the
hardcore that is getting tired of the old-hat is not a loyal user
base.  It isn't obvious that mudders stay mudders for years
either... Even many MUD-Dev'ers don't play MUDs for their own
amusement as far as I remember..?  Mudding is usually a waste of
productive time, isn't it??

> Previous discussions have generally been basic; dedicated to first
> principles and scoping the field.  More recently we've started
> identifying class concepts like "grief players" and are starting
> to attempt to build models around general behaviour definitions
> and then building models from there.  That's a level of
> abstraction and general algebra that the Black Rose papers never
> dreamt of.

I don't see this progress...  A long time ago I think we discussed
how to integrate troublesome play styles and turn it into something
positive for the game world.  We now seem to be back at the
exclude-at-all-cost and make-your-userbase-behave-homogenously
strategy.

>> Yes, but I'd like to question whether players actually have or
>> need to have distinct goals.

> This seems largely irrelevant.  Walks like a duck et al.  If a
> player behaves in a manner which is consistent with him having one
> or more goals, then you may as presume he does.  And IRL many/most
> clearly express that they do have goals and what they think they
> are.

*gasp* I do not think it is irrelevant whether designers try to get
users to adopt the game's goals or not.  It isn't my experience that
players clearly express their goals, actually several GoPers seem to
need a break to think when I ask them why they play, what makes it
fun, etc...  It isn't obvious at all.  The hypothesises are obvious,
but the facts are not. When you dig into it you'll get contradictory
statements...

> Yup, goals.  Not hard well defined easily measured and auditable
> goals in general, but goals none the less.  (Just came back from
> Santa Cruz beach as happens)

There is a need to differentiate between "the player is aiming for
and planning for a goal" and "I *choose* to interpret that player as
having goals because I am using goal-modelling as an analytic tool".
Evolution is a proof that you do not need goals in order to get
complex "behaviour".  Yes, there are structures that favour certain
alternatives... Some in the game, some in the culture, some in the
player.

And you can make it much more complex analytically, i.e. having
higher level goals "I want to improve my English" and just fuzzy
selection when it comes to lower level activities, or the other way:
"take me, I am bored" on the higher level and low-level explicit
goal following.  Seems to me that there are a potentially wide range
of situations even within the same game-world.

I am a bit uncertain if (a posterio) facts should be analyzed as
goals (i.e. the user recognize a good experience), because goals
ought to be identified before action if they are to be classified as
"certain" goals. For instance, if you are served and eat a new dish
and then go "yummy" then you did not necessarily have any goal
related to that experience, even though it was retrospectively much
more valuable than getting some food in your stomach.

> model.  Ignoring the argument that programmer bits and admin
> privileges are speudo levels, equally I'd argue that levels would
> not work well on LambdaMOO.

True, LambdaMOO is based on hype, just like EQ. >;-}

Seriously, I appreciate and prefer the constructive worlds over
anything.  I am unfortunately not aware of any advances in this area
since 1996... :-((( Except maybe Adobe's effort and mpeg.

I appreciate any pointers to dynamic worlds!!!  Even minor ones.  My
horizon is cluttered with the static...

> Or, did you actually answer a fundamental problem to the point
> that

>   a) those who understand the answer can employ that understanding
>   such that they are (literally) never the adverse or unwilling
>   effect of that area?

> or:

>   b) the problem or area under discussion just doesn't exist in
>   any possible phrasing as a problem or question any more?

Well, it was more an attempt to find a shared understanding of how a
ideal role-acting system departs from regular MUDs while still
retaining what MUDs have to offer. There's probably more to it than
this, but basically, as far as I recall:

1. "roleplaying" is a useless term unless you want to fork
not-so-interesting discussions, "role-acting" is less ambiguous and
quite different from what players associate with "roleplay".
Enacting a personality in a context, and the
"socio-emotional"/"dramatic" struggle between the context and your
efforts resulting in "a story" is what is interesting. (?)

2. If you want to separate OOC/IC then you need to make IC commands
more difficult to use => a role-acting systems should optimize for
OOC communication (which is a paradox) rather than just having OOC
areas that are never used anyway.

3. In a role-acting system you want to avoid the enforced
growth-path from powerless newbie to superhero, but you still want
the intensity that "laws of nature" provide. In other words, the MUD
is not only a stage, it is a world which you interact with
(Metaphor: glossed paper versus textured paper, the latter is more
expressive for pencil drawing).  Inconclusive discussions about
various hypothetical approaches.

4. You might want to support a "theatrical troupe" that control and
dispose a set of resources and that can host smaller plots within
that resource framework etc.  I guess NWN is a small bounce in this
direction.

> This can hardly be a surprise.  Evolution rarely proceeds by great
> leaps into new territory.  Most activity is wobbly work in the
> internices of the current edge.

If you assemble a set of different people with different backgrounds
you supposedly don't need to mutate in order to get away from the
edge.  (Besides, we are capable of forming goals, so why not do it?)
Anyway, the vulnerable embryo needs to survive...

> Does the list suffers from a lack of fertiliser?  Are there signs
> of a diminishing supply?

Mmh... It seldom sticks :). Gah.

> The list has done that, and can do it again.  It merely needs
> someone to lead the discussion.

Maybe, I assume that it was easier to fork discussions on radical
ideas when "I am developing a radically new and dynamic persistent
simulation world server that is different from anything you have
seen before" was the more commonly shared goal...  My gut feeling is
that the list has been more discouraging than supportive lately when
it comes to such efforts...  Apathy?  (Well, I'm not supposed to
complain about this, the current configuration is the most useful
for me as a reader (but not as a participant) :)

> different and is a lot more structured.  A list is a media, not a
> social structure or a vested interest system.

I don't think I agree with this, for the obvious reasons, if you
qualify "list" with "particular".

>> If I recall correctly then it turns out that white-boards are
>> used largely as a common memory, rather than for discussion and
>> communication.

> I see both practices in common use.  They start out as shared
> visual thought tools, and once the discussion is done, mutate into
> shared memory tools.

Yes, the physical ones, but the virtual? (I don't have enough
personal experience with them).

> I'm trying to do this with the Wiki.

php-wiki?

> Pan has most of those intentions.

I think I must have forgotten what Pan is... (thus it is not a
"boundary object").

>> Another option is to fork a new list which focus on conceptual
>> models of game/server designs.  I would applaud any initiative in
>> that direction.

> I'll make you a deal:

>   If you can demonstrate that enough people are not only
>   interested in such but are interested enough to post and
>   maintain a working and productive list, I'll start and run the
>   list.

Well, I volunteer for throwing in new balls to play with at regular
intervals if you keep up the good work of moderation :).

If the others on the list who have expressed interest in
logic-programming, OO-models and experimental server technology will
do so on a separate list then there should be enough momentum.

>   Get a dozen people together with some demonstrated ability or
>   history in that particular area and I'll set up the list so that
>   you can run it.

I have the list(s), I just don't want to deal with the recruiting
hassle (and I don't want to make it dead-on-arrival by making it
open and having me as a herding moderator).

I also see no gains in splitting the kanga.nu community, except for
channelling overarching design-issues into a separate channel so I
and others (with decreasing amounts of free time on their hands) are
able to follow up posts without feeling that a post that is 2-3
weeks old is to old to be worth discussing.

> We're in an uncomfortable position right now.  My sense is that
> the we're approaching an inflection point.  I hope/trust that the
> graph on the other side of the point goes exponentially up versus
> down.

Which is why it is better to have such lists hosted at the same site
(kanga.nu).

>> For instance that recent audio perspective, and Bruce's design
>> model and Prolog attempts.  Both topics that I've tried to
>> establish threads on before with no or little success.

> Hehn.  Think about that for a bit.  You've answered your own
> question.

I don't get it... :( There are people who are interested, but they
don't have time when the topic comes up and then it is too late, or
the ones with knowledge in the area don't see the message at all due
to the high volume?  It can't be because we are brain dead
ignorants??? :)

>> For instance Richard Bartle's engine is Prolog inspired and
>> Cynbe's engine is Lisp inspired, there are also fairly recent
>> academic attempts at marrying Prolog with MUDs in order to
>> facilitate parallelism... There's a lot of interesting
>> opportunities that should be investigated.

> While I agree, I expect that we have different definitions of
> "should" in the above sentence.

== "We would benefit from looking closer at those as they provide
opportunity for real improvement and bringing the field
forward. Better sooner than later"?

> again and again.  Someone will finally notice.  Maybe not now.
> Maybe not tomorrow or the next day or the day after that, but
> eventually.  The basic part of the deal is that we have to keep
> wandering and tripping.  The rest is just low probability
> mechanics.

You don't build the Eiffel tower by stumbling.  Not even churches,
even though they quite often collapsed in their attempts it was far
from stumbling attempts. They were reaching for the sky... The
probability for achieving that by tripping is 0 (if represented as a
double ;).

Btw, genetic algorithms are failing as a generic optimization
strategy AFAIK.  However it does succeed as a tailored optimisation
approach. Generality is a hard "problem".  Writing a flexible server
is hard and requires more foresight and rigour than an evolutionary
approach typically affords.

> I've long wished to grab a team out of the list and build
> something I think would actually be interesting.  Perhaps after I
> win the lottery.

You've lost faith in what people can achieve in their spare time or
as synergies with their paid projects?  A set of template'd standard
compatible C++ libraries could be enough to get the ball rolling.

A minimal and stable HTTP1.1 implementation (persistant connection)
suitable for dynamically generated pages and which could be linked
into the core rather than sitting as a "sub" process would be a nice
start (for me anyway).

>> Well, we don't have enough islands, enough individuals, high
>> enough breeding rate or enough time to follow an unguided
>> evolutionary process!  :)

> Do we have a choice?

Using the brain?  Avoiding reinventing the wheel?  Turning square
wheels into jet engines, by borrowing from other fields?

> Currently we assume clarity because we assume that there is a
> significant definition difference between the RL person and the
> online character.  I question the validity of that distinction and
> I expect that line to become increasingly blurry and start to
> publicly vanish over the next years.

Well, I don't assume it, the meaning of the word "character" does
suggest that it signifies a distinct personality with a reasonably
specific repertoire. What you are talking about is what I would call
a "persona". Most don't seem to make this distinction though. (Not
even Sherry Turkle?)

> What happens when identity, personal "human" identity becomes
> iterative and concious of its own iteration?

Well, it is diverse and iterative in the sense that it develops over
time and that different situations afford different roles,
regardless of any virtuality, although we probably are secure about
certain aspect of it, rooted in our childhood experiences ("I am
creative", "I am good at rational thinking", "I treat other people
well", "I've got a well tuned body" etc)

What the virtual give us is new opportunities for forming new roles
(similar to moving to a new culture/country) and the ability to
separate roles to a large degree.

> Or, to turn it around slightly, what happens and what would happen
> if you were aware that you, personally, had lived thousands of
> lives before this one, and could recall all of clearly and
> distinctly, without effort or special process?

Hmm... Your childhood is probably a different life for you. So is
University. And high-school. And that summer-camp. And when you got
that girlfriend that thought you were the most fantastic person in
the world.

You are telling me that virtual worlds would make a significant
change here?  I am not sure if I can see them providing something
which moving to a totally different culture could not, except the
ability to live many parallel lives. (which most people don't seem
to be all that keen on, i.e. <10% are role-actors)

--
Ola  -  http://www.notam.uio.no/~olagr/
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev