[MUD-Dev] Expected value and standard deviation.

[Jeff Cole]

NB: Raph's quotes are taken from two different posts.

From: Koster, Raph

> I must say that the fact that players prefer to play a boring way
> that gives them advancement over a fun way that gives slower
> advancement seems to be well-proven over decades of online games.

> Here are the assumptions I am operating under: players seeking
> advancement will be driving towards optimal advancement. Optimal
> advancement will include making the activity as predictable as
> possible. Predictable activities become less fun over time.

But is it a Law that the advancement strategy must so obviously
(strictly) dominate all other strategies?  About the only
circumstance in which a "fun" strategy can even *approach* the
"grind" strategy is if a player is fortunate enough to be a member
of a group of players who play together effectively *and* who know
the world well enough to find the "fun" camps.  But even then, such
a group sacrifices some amount of EXP/hour.

Were you to construct a game out of the strategies as implemented
and rewarded by design, it would likely look something like this:

                     P2
               Grind      Fun
            +---------+---------+
     Grind  |( 75, 75)|(100,-50)|
  P1        +---------+---------+
       Fun  |(-50,100)|( 10, 10)|
            +---------+---------+
                   (P1, P2)

Not too difficult to pick out the best strategy, there.

> I don't think it's in the Laws, but I've always treated it as a
> Law:

>    Players will do the boring thing rather than the fun thing, if
>    they advance faster that way.

Not a particularly useful expression for designers because it
assumes those assumptions above.  Perhaps a more useful expression
might be:

     Reward it, and players will do it: even if it is boring.

> Generally, any given game has multiple near-optimal paths. One of
> these paths will be the one that minimizes risk to the point of it
> being non-existent.

But these "paths" aren't distinct "strategies," and at this point,
you're talking about the player choosing the "safest" camp.  The
player has already resigned herself to the boring strategy.

> It's a slow but steady guaranteed return on time invested.  It's
> also "boring" in the sense that there is no challenge to it, no
> risk, and little variation in the activity.

> Most likely, this path is NOT one designed intentionally by the
> designer.  It's one that players find by manipulating the system.

This is where I think you are either wrong or in denial.  I think
the design is very much intentional--if only because designers can't
create content as quickly as players can devour it.  It is a problem
made geometrically (exponentially?) worse by the extreme domain of
power for the range of levels.

> I'd assert that the above dynamic is intrinsic to PEOPLE, and
> therefore what you're saying is "why on earth would we design a
> game accounting for human nature?" I'm not presenting it as a
> defeatist attitude, but as an acceptance of how players choose to
> play systems (not just games). In the real world, the vast
> majority of people choose to minimize risk and maximize return
> with their entire LIVES, to the point of choosing boring
> careers. They will also work to get ahead any time they can do
> so. Why is it a surprise that they will choose to do similar
> things in games?

I readily agree that people act that way.  The focus of this thread
has shifted.  To the extent that your point is that players will so
behave, we are in agreement.

My original point was that developers do not have to provide so
heavily bias player activity.

Yrs. affcty,
Jeff Cole
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev