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

[Sasha Hart]

[Ted L. Chen]

> Raph and some of the boys from UO in the early days can probably
> attest to the stability of programmed ecology systems.

They can certainly attest to the stability of _their_ programmed
ecology systems. UO's model is not representative of all possible
programmed ecology models.

There is a vast space of possible ecology models which UO does not
even begin to exhaust. There is no demonstration that it is
impossible to devise a model that would have worked well in UO, even
on a practical level. There is not even a demonstration that
different parameters wouldn't have worked OK. My assumption has been
that fixing it wasn't amenable in terms of cost:benefit at that
time, and thus that it was ditched in favor of something which more
neatly met the needs of the players.

The uses of a model, and therefore the dynamics which qualify as
undesirable, vary. Even the UO model might have been perfectly
usable with zero change, if it were not important that there be a
stable supply of animals to kill. This stability thing isn't even a
consistent requirement for ecology models.

The UO example is instructive for people who contemplate models like
UO's for similar purposes. For different models or ones with
different purposes it really says very little. (Although trying to
use it as a proof of the bankruptcy of ecology systems makes me roll
*my* eyes).

> But don't discount all the natural extinctions that have occurred
> in the past.

On the same grounds, don't discount the fact that there are still
animals after millions of years of inter- and intra-species
gobbling, either. Or after thousands of years of man, or a number of
decades of egregious pollution. Thus, if you are arguing that the
real world is a demonstration that extinction is inevitable (perhaps
for sufficiently realistic models), you also have given a
demonstration that a single extinction isn't a terminal catastrophe
for everything in the whole world. Of course, in either case we have
the advantage over nature that we can make the rules nearly however
we want them.

The real world is resilient enough to be interesting despite single
extinctions. They are very sad, but they do not constitute total
failures. In much the same way, banking survives despite single bank
robberies, and people still know the ABC despite the deaths of
single people who knew the ABC. That kind of resiliency isn't
mysterious. No one should be discouraged from using ecologies just
because they have trouble keeping single species from eventually
going extinct. (Although actually, I haven't seen that it's quite so
hard to avoid extinctions, even just by adjusting parameters. Even
if you don't believe me, the real world doesn't have any trouble
keeping a bunch of species going for thousands upon thousands of
years, let alone the incredibly tiny time scales expressed in a
typical MUD's career. If extinction is in your model, it should be
there because you want it there - it is NOT inevitable unless you
make a lot of rigid and unnecessary demands on how things have to
be).

> 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!),

  >  look

  You are in a long and cavernous hallway.
  On the table: wolf meat, red wolf meat, tasty wolf meat, big wolf
  meat, dirty wolf meat, fragrant wolf meat, roasted wolf meat, and
  tough wolf meat.
  Admin is here.

  Admin says, "Welcome to WolfMeatMUD! Where all the content
  we've created so far is wolf meat!"

  >  quit

> all in the attempt to find that rare local equilibrium point, I
> really suggest reading up and understanding what simulation can
> and cannot do.

Apart from the point that there is absolutely nothing about MUD
ecology models that *inherently* leads to catastrophes for the game,
I really suggest doing some trial runs without any playerfiles
involved first, just like you do with any other feature of a MUD
that you're worried about.

Of course, it won't fly if you make incoherent demands. One cannot
ask for dynamic population simulations in which supply of critters
never fluctuates, one cannot ask that players be able to kill
critters easily but that extinction should not occur even though
birth rate and population are both low (unless you can ensure that
they don't feel like it), one cannot ask for man-eating wolves that
don't eat men, etc.

I still haven't seen any indication that simulation is inherently
unstable. Dynamics are inherently dynamic and not static, but they
can certainly be stable; it's a foregone conclusion that they can be
stable enough for game use. It also isn't obvious that perfect
stability in every respect is even desirable.

Sasha



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