[MUD-Dev] Social Networks

[Jeff Cole]

[Note: When I attribute "fitness" to nodes, I am invoking the
"fitness" concept as developed by Barabási in his book _Linked_--
the book that I think best strikes a jargon/vernacular balance]

From: Koster, Raph
> From: Jeff Cole

>> 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.

> One of the qualities of scale free networks is that they are
> emergent. In any given newly formed aggregate of humans, you'll
> find a scale-free network starting to develop.

Yes.  But it is also significant if Barabási et al. are correct that
there are organizing principles at every stage of network
development-- that is, these social networks do not appear out of
randomness.  There is no critical point at which order emerges from
randomness-- the order is there from the beginning.

I believe that this is evidence (and the result) of the general
social inclinations of the species.

>> 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.

...

> There's fitness before the fact and fitness after the fact, or to
> put it another way, the innate propensity of a node to acquire
> links, and the fitness measured by how many links it actually
> acquires. Call it "talent" and "achievement" if you like.

Agreed.  I think.  Hrmmmm.  Perhaps not.  I think the distinction is
important insofar as it illustrates the extent to which factors
external to a node can affect the nodes overall fitness.  What's
your take on:

Certainly each node has a "propensity" to acquire links-- let's call
it F(b) for "fitness before the fact"-- a fitness that might well
predict the number links the node is expected to acquire.  Likewise,
there is a number of links a node actually acquires-- call it F(a)
for "fitness after the fact."  I suggest that F(b) is largely beyond
developer control but that F(a) is largely a function of design and
implementation.

Assuming for the moment that a node's F(a) is independent of the
F(b) of a node with which it might link (not a realistic assumption,
but I am more concerned with the analysis rather than the result),
consider a "fitness efficiency" (call it E(f)) defined E(f) =
F(a)/F(b) and which, under the above assumption, 0 <= F(e) <= 1.
This is node quality rather than a network quality.  To whatever
extent the transaction costs associated with establishing links
prevent a node from establishing links, the node's fitness
efficiency will be less than 1.  At the extremes, if all such
transaction costs exceed a node's link-establishing threshold, then
F(a) = 0 and E(f) = 0; if all such transaction costs are below the
threshold (or, zero), then F(a) = F(b) and E(f) = 1.

Now, of the transactional costs associated with linking, some will
be node-imposed and some will be game-imposed.  Currently, games
impose far too many of these costs.  What's more, these costs are
rarely covered by corresponding increase in gameplay-- it is simply
value lost to the community.

> Fitness distribution in different arenas may or may not follow a
> power law distribution. For example, in IQ there's a bell curve
> (though not as smooth as many would expect).

Of course there are many types of "fitness."  Even within the same
networks.  I would imagine that the extent to which a type of
fitness is important in establishing the scale-free topology of a
given network corresponds to the to the extent to which that type of
fitness follows a power curve within the nodes of the network
(though such type of fitness might be otherwise distributed among
nodes of a larger network).  Or, if a network exhibits scale-free
topology and a characteristic (a potential "fitness") does not
follow a power curve among the nodes of the network, then such a
characteristic does not represent a measure of fitness.

> I believe the actual answer is "multiple overlapping networks."
> Selecting for different sorts of fitness. Which in the end gets
> back to the Law about multiple achievement ladders.

Absolutely.

>> 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.

> In other words, making it easier to acquire friends.

Yes, in small part.  More importantly, I am talking about decreasing
the costs associated with testing potential links.

> It's important to note, however, that most of the social mechanics
> that we have built into online games thus far are conducive
> towards retaining strong ties. But Granovetter's research showed
> early on (and Watts and Strogatz' work seemed to confirm) that it
> is weak ties that really bind a scale free network together.

That is more to my point.  Decreasing the transactional costs
associated with linking is unlikely to have a profound affect on a
nodes ability to acquire friends-- that is, strong ties.  Where
decreasing the such costs will have the greatest affect is on the
weak ties.  Because these weak ties represent exactly that: weak
links.  Decreasing such costs can only increase the number of such
links within the network.

> So really, how do we reinforce weak ties? By finding friendship
> mechanisms that aren't about strong ties, like guilds and friends
> lists--but about weak ties, like regular customers at a shop or
> tickler files for acquaintances or matchmaking services that
> introduce you to subcommunities with radically differing
> interests.

Weak ties play a very important role in both my MUD and MMO*
experiences.  If when I log in I cannot find a guild group, I go to
my strong ties, after that, I go to less strong ties as well as to
others with whom I might not have grouped but of whom my strong ties
have spoken well.

In many cases, nodes with which I have been weakly linked have
evolved into strongly linked nodes both inter- and extra-game.

Yrs. Affcty,
Jeff Cole



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