[MUD-Dev] Social Networks

[Matthew Dobervich]

Dave Rickey wrote:
> Jeff Cole wrote:

>> I've been thinking of it in terms of "defining social conflict".
>> There is something that individuals want that they can only
>> achieve through cooperation of a larger scale.  In EQ, it was
>> managing the spawns of high-level encounters, in Camelot it is
>> control of relics and access to Darkness Falls.  The problem in
>> both cases seems to be that they have nothing *else* to do that
>> requires that level of organization, and a limited scope of
>> activity that contributes to that goal.  I've been trying to
>> think of ways to establish multiple hubs.

> While evolution in content is indeed important, I think it begs
> the question of whether the existing content is efficiently or
> effectively implemented.

> That a social network is scale free, implies that the fitness
> curve is going to largely depend on the nodes and not the content;
> that is, that additional or different content is not going to
> drastically change the networks link distribution.

I would have to agree with Dave.  Jeff, if I understand you
correctly the only factor that determines differences in fitness
curves, number and concentration of hubs, and network distribution
of one persistent world's population as compared to another's would
be the "type of person" a given world would attract.  What else
would "depends on the nodes" mean?

I'm not saying more content (defined as more mobs, weapons, skill,
spells, quests, etc.) will change the topology of a given peristant
world's social network, but I DO believe that content (defined as
game systems) can clearly do this.  Examples of this type of content
(and I think it's what Dave was getting at) include communication
systems, guild systems, economic systems that require player
cooperation, and PvE/PvP goals that require player cooperation.  I
would also argue this is the ONLY way to change the topology of a
given world's social network.

To me the only power a developer has to increase the number of hubs
(and hence the clustering coefficient of a given world) is to
increasing the number of activities (facilitated by additional game
systems) that create player connections, hence activities that
REQUIRE player cooperation.  EQ has one, PvE.  DAoC has two, PvE and
RvR.  Although it's too early to tell SWG looks to have three; PvE,
"RvR" (imperial player created towns laying siege to rebel player
towns and visa versa), and it's Economy.

(Editor: please remove this if it's inappropriate) I would be able
to tell if I was in the beta, of course then I couldn't talk about
it. <smirk>

> Decreasing the transaction cost associated with demonstrating
> fitness-- and, therefore, establishing links-- would have a much
> more profound effect on the distribution.

The only way I see to decrease transaction cost is to increase the
number of communication tools at a player's disposal, although this is
required to facilitate an increase in the clustering coefficient, I
don't see it increasing the coefficient by itself.

> Also, decreasing such costs would increase the likelihood that a
> network could recover from the loss of a hub insofar as remaining
> nodes could more easily and quickly establish new links.

Again, only if decreasing transaction costs by itself created new
links.  I think what's required to see the profound effect on
distribution you speak of is a combination of decreased transaction
costs and game systems that REQUIRE player cooperation.  Remember,
nodes don't WANT to link by nature, players work together because
they have to.

I don't see any of these factors increasing or decreasing the
vulnerability of scale free networks to random node loss.  The real
danger to player communities is a focused loss of hubs.  I have a
hard time picturing events that would cause this selective node
loss, but would be curious to see some brainstorming of plausible
scenarios.  I see migration as large scale random node loss, not a
focused loss of hubs, as a guild is a scale free network in itself.

>> What I find myself wondering is, if we can create explicit
>> support (or even encouragement) of multiple hubs and more
>> cross-cluster random links, will that make guilds less likely to
>> migrate?

I see increasing the clustering coefficient of a world's social
network as having two effects.  Guilds will be less likely to leave
a world (as will individuals), but if they do leave, they'll leave
together.

> Hmm.  Now, *this* is where content is a solution.  The stronger
> you make the network, the more likely it is the network will
> migrate if the hubs migrate.

Agreed, the network is a self-organizing system that forms to
overcome obstacles facing it.  If the network overcomes all
available obstacles, no matter how tightly woven it is, it will
migrate.  It will migrate as a whole, but it will migrate.

The only obstacles I see as never being surmountable are obstacles
the network creates for itself, such as player created content.  I
also see player created content as the only "forth" game system to
require player cooperation on the horizon.  I won't dilute this
thread anymore with my vision of that game mechanic, but I'm prone
to seizing any opportunity to harp on my favorite subject.  <smile>

___

Matthew Dobervich
A student of persistent world creation



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev