[MUD-Dev] Social Networks

[Dave Rickey]

From: "Jeff Cole" <jeff.cole at mindspring.com>
> From: Dave Rickey

>> But the social network is a collection of individuals, you cannot
>> separate questions of network behavior from the link-creation
>> behaviour of the nodes.

> I think that it has been demonstrated time and again that humans
> are socially inclined.  Certainly, within the context of
> multiplayer games, a developer can safely assume that every node
> seeks, to whatever extent, a social experience.

Can we?  UO guilds never approached the size of EQ and Camelot
guilds, even though it had similar server populations.

> Assuming the number of links an individual establishes represents
> (rough, even?) measure of the individual's fitness (your
> socialness), then it is the manner in which individuals are not
> equally fit (the link distribution) that is so important: fitness
> follows a power curve.

I think network fitness is sharply separated from individual
"fitness" (I'm not sure individual fitness is relevant in this
context).  Altough the hub is more important to the integrity of the
network than other nodes, it is not inherently more fit.  Yes, here
we're verging on "group selection", but it is entirely possible that
group selection does operate on human social networks, through
learned and emulated behaviour.

>> 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.

I was basicly asking the question of what would constitute
"effective implementation".  Unless we have defined that, we cannot
judge whether we have achieved it.

> 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'm not sure that social networks are neccessarily scale-free.
Scale-free networks seem to be a property of systems that are
required to adapt, but that carryineffieincies that make them
non-ideal for particular cases.  In the absence of selection
pressures, or more accurately if selection pressures do not change,
scale-free networks are not neccessarily more fit. What is the
environment for a social network, what determines if it is more fit?
More specifically, what is the environment for the social networks
in these games?

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

So, in this context DAoC's "looking for group" system (possibly)
reduced transactional costs of establishing links compared to EQ's
"/shout 35 Paladin LFG" method, which was superior to that in UO
(which had very limited communications tools)?  And our
auto-promotion for guilds with MIA Guildmasters reduces the costs of
perpetuating the network after the loss of the primary hub.  I can
buy that.  Nonetheless, a particular link forms for a particular
reason, and is strengthened compared to other links for other
reasons, and I don't think it's going very far to say that the
design of the game can have a significant impact on those reasons.

> Currently, the costs associated with demonstrating fitness and
> establishing links are a far higher hurdle than lack of incentive
> or content.

>From the viewpoint of nodes (players), the fitness of a link can and
probably often does turn on whether that link better enables that
player to pursue his goals.  Not that players won't form bonds just
because they want to, I'm saying that the choices the player makes
in what links to strengthen and peretuate can be influenced by the
restrictions placed on his goal-seeking by the game.

>> 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?

> 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.

Well, I think we can assume that players will move in whatever
direction they are most "pulled" in, when it comes to game-migration
issues.  Very few guilds remained divided between EQ and Camelot for
long, eventually they went with either one or the other.  In most
cases, it was whatever game the Guildmaster preferred.  What I'm
wondering is if the game encouraged other hubs inside of the guild
structure, is it possible that 1 person would no longer be the
deciding factor?

But after more thought, it doesn't seem too promising.  It seems
like it will be more effective to try and allow the guild as an
entity to establish a presence that isn't portable.  As Raph has
pointed out, player-controlled in-world content seems a likely
avenue.  Giving up a place on a raid rotation is one thing, giving
up a castle and land would be quite another.

Basicly, we need to think of the guilds themselves as players of a
meta-game, a layer of gameplay over and above that the players see.
The guild has goals (at a minimum, to perpetuate itself by gaining
members at around the same rate it loses them), and to achieve that
it tries to aid the pursuit of goals by the individuals within it.
Guilds as group-providers works well up to a point.  What effect can
changes in the goals of individuals have on the structure of the
guilds?  Is it possible for the guild itself to have goals other
than self-perpetuation through satisfaction of individual goals?

--Dave



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