MMO Communities (was RE: [MUD-Dev] MMORPG Cancellations: Thesky isfalling?)

[Aaron Switzer]

On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 11:06, Sean Howard wrote:
> "Aaron Switzer" <aaron at neteffect.ca> wrote:

>> Just because a community breaks down into smaller communities
>> doesn't mean that the larger community ceases to exist.

> Of course not. It just means that the individual contributions
> matter less to the greater community than to the immediate
> one. The question is, as designers, is it more important to look
> at the immediate community of individuals, or the bigger picture
> of communities of communities? Or is it even worth that sort of
> organization, so we have ONE community of THOUSANDS?

I agree that it would not be possible to have one community of
10,000 members without having any sub-communities.

>> Yes, in every group or community sub-groups will form, but a lot
>> of the time that only serves to strengthen the larger community.

> I don't think anyone is arguing that this is a bad thing. We are
> just disagreeing with the significance of it.

In terms of MMOG design I would argue that it is very important to
make players feel that they are part of the top level community.  If
too much effort is spent in helping players segment off into their
sub-communities, then there is less connection to the game itself
and therefore less holding that sub-community to the game.  If a
guild feels no connection to the larger game community there will be
nothing to stop them from moving wholesale to a new game.  On the
other hand if they feel that they have a real say in how the game
and the game's overall community is run, then they will have a
vested interest in sticking with the game, even if they have grown
tired of the game play.  There are numerous personal accounts of
players that have all but given up on the game itself, but keep
playing every day in order to manage their in-game relationships and
other community "assets".

>> I don't think that he was changing the subject here.  The bond of
>> nationalism can be very strong, especially when the nation in
>> question is threatened in some way.  And if the common act of
>> voting doesn't constitute a community then I don't know what
>> does.

> It is because the bond of nationalism is so strong that I lack
> faith in people's ability to discuss it with rational coldness. I
> think there is a fascinating discussion there, but it is one I
> would have only with close friends.

I still believe that nationalism is a valid addition to this
discusion, because people can get just as worked up about general
gameplay machanics and specific games.  I think that there are a lot
of parallels between the connection people feel to their in-game
communities and nationalism.

But having said that I can also understand your reluctance to
potentially muddy the waters with real-world politics.

>> I'm curious about your allusion to "better social organization",
>> would something like Friendster allow for more scalable
>> communities in your eyes?

> I am not familiar with Friendster. Assuming it is something like
> LiveJournal links, I think you'll find that communities still
> fraction - but more on degrees of separation than physical or
> topical separations.

I was just curious about what you felt "better social organization"
would entail.

>> Which doesn't take away from the fact that if one teamster were
>> to travel to another city and attend a meeting of another local
>> union that they would be greeted as a member.  This to me is a
>> community.

> He would still be a stranger to them. They would treat him with
> dignity and respect, but he would still be an outsider to them. If
> he went int here and started throwing his weight around, you'd see
> quite quickly how inclusive the community is.

Point taken.  But it does then bring up the topic of a person's
standing within a given community.  If this fictional traveling
Teamster were a high-level member of the Teamster organization, then
the local union would most likely be lot more tolerant of said
traveler throwing his weight around.

>> So even though you have broken that "community" into smaller
>> groups, those papers have not lost their common theme, and can
>> still be commonly refered to by that theme.

> Communities can be made of smaller communities. I'm not convinced
> that communities can be made of 10,000 individuals though.

I agree with you based on the idea that "community" == "people that
know each other personally".

> I would not be above calling a "community" a social circle. But
> the matter of facts here is that there are communities of
> communities - circles made from smaller circles. It goes top to
> bottom. You can not have a small community that includes a large
> one. Boxes within boxes within boxes.

> The only difference is that each leaf of the tree can be on
> multiple branches at the same time. It's quantum nature :) This
> complicates things because two people can be part of two separate
> communities, but they know each other personally, so... what's
> that mean to the bigger picture?

> It may be better to think of each leaf as a community of
> individuals, rather than the individuals themselves.

I think that this is a good analogy for a couple of reasons.  Based
on what I said at the top of the email, the analogy shows the
importance of nurturing the top level community, ie. the tree
itself.  And it also illustrates how complicated the situation gets
when you have tightly interconnected sub-communites.

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