[MUD-Dev] Understanding Simulation (was: Point of View)

[John Robert Arras]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Ted L. Chen wrote:
> John Robert Arras Wrote
>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 listsub at wickedgrey.com wrote:
 
>> But it should be. You can do so much more then. Instead of
>> attacking when players are there, set up populations and have
>> them attack whenever they feel like it. Maybe players are there,
>> maybe they aren't. Maybe they do something, maybe they don't. If
>> they aren't there, then they could find out through news or
>> rumors of some kind that propogate throughout the world. If you
>> set up general "population" code, then you have to do it once,
>> and never have to think about it again. And, if you improve the
>> code, then you get improvements across the board.

> Not to harp on John - as he's not the only self-proscribed
> simulationist on this list - but I roll my eyes whenever someone
> offers the roaming wolf example as if that system would be stable
> throughout the course of any game.  Raph and some of the boys from
> UO in the early days can probably attest to the stability of
> programmed ecology systems. 

I realize that simple systems won't work too well, but I'm saying
that you should try to make a system that does what you want, even
if it has to be very complex. Thinking about this is fun for me, so
I don't mind if it's hard.

Also, I'm not trying to model ecologies or economies right now.  I
am more trying to model at the level of colonies of smart ants. I
think ecologies are too hard to do right.

> So in hopes of helping people break out of the "Star Trek
> Simulation Syndrome", I suggest that anyone seriously interested
> in simulation as a tool for MMOGs to read up on:
 
>   "Road Maps: A Guide to Learning System Dynamics"
>   from the MIT System Dynamics in Education Project
>   http://sysdyn.mit.edu/road-maps/rm-toc.html
> 

That's a very nice site. Thank you for telling me about it.

> For those who wish for close-system ecologies, I suggest looking
> at: "Generic Structures: S-shaped growth I" in Roadmap #5.
> "Oscillating Systems 2: Sustained Oscillation" in Roadmap #8.
> then "Generic Structures: Overshoot and Collapse" in Roadmap #9.

I have seen predator/prey simulations many times. That's why I
wouldn't simulate things perfectly. I am not interested in having a
perfect simulation, I am interested in making a simulation that the
players will find interesting. Therefore, I would increase
population growth when something's population decreases, and
decrease it as the amount of the thing increases. Perhaps we're not
talking about different things here. I'm arguing that you can make
simulations that are interesting to the players, not actual
"correct" simulations.  Creating actual "correct" simulations of
ecologies and economies is too hard.

> So, are complex systems based on simple rules possible?  Of course
> they are.  Nature is a prime example of that.  But don't discount
> all the natural extinctions that have occurred in the past.  So
> unless you're cool with resetting your players every few days,
> losing all content you've created so far (wolf meat is no longer
> available... they're extinct!), all in the attempt to find that
> rare local equilibrium point, I really suggest reading up and
> understanding what simulation can and cannot do.  

Again, I am not talking about simple systems. I am talking about
making systems that the players will find interesting. I have
thought a lot about what happens at the extremes or when things get
out of whack, and I have many mechanisms inside of my systems that
bring them back toward areas that I consider to be interesting
states.

> So bringing it all back, John was making the point of coding the
> rules of the dynamic systems, letting it run (based on those
> rules), and generate the story from that.  To which I have to say
> is fiddlesticks.  If you want an interesting story from such a
> system, you're going to need a lot of factors and dependencies in
> that simulation.  And by "a lot", I mean any number greater than
> 3.  Which unfortunately, is already one too many.

It depends on how much time and effort you put into those systems
and it depends on how much you're willing to cheat by putting in
constraints to make the systems interesting to the players. I also
don't think it's easy to do this. It's just that it's amazing when
it works the way you want, and since I find it interesting, I will
continue plugging away at it.


John


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