PDA

View Full Version : Logical argument why to be continually fun an MMORPG must be PVP based



KRIMINAL99
01-02-04, 00:36
Ok each of these premises could be broken down into several smaller ones but rather than have 30 odd of them I just kept them in related paragraphs together. Im no expert at philosophical argument so if I broke any rules about what can be in premises someone feel free to let me know...

The point of organizing an argument this way is that if you disagree, all you have to do is pick a premise and say what you think is wrong with it and the discussion can be kept constructive and meaningful.

Premise 1: The game aspect of any video game (ie not the social aspect) is fun in psychological terms because the player enjoys approaching a point where they will be respected for their accomplishments, although not by any real or specific person.

Premise 2: Upon reaching that point, the sought after respect hardly ever manifests itself in reality for the majority of players. (I E through other real people recognizing the players achievments) At this point the game ceases to be fun.

Premise 3: The end point is reached when the player sees that additional effort will not progress him towards recieving more respect. In single player games this is when the game is beat because there is nothing respectable about doing that which you have already done. Single player games are given replayability by allowing for multiple drastically different ways of playing the game succesfully.

Premise 4: However, different ways of playing a game which are still very similar do not acheive this goal. For example if the sole difference in an rpg between a melee character and say a gun character is the picture of the weapon and maybe a 2 second animation than it is not different enough to make the game fun to play again. In MMORPG's this means that the end point mentioned in Premise 3 can be reached before the game is anywhere near completed. For example in AO where the only thing in the game that changes at all between level 2 and 200 are numbers. Bottom line, trite tricks are not succesful in stretching a small amount of real content into a much larger amount of content for the purpose of making the game fun longer.

Premise 5: Players consume or advance through static precreated game content at an average rate of more than 10 times that which it takes to create it. This means that in order to sustain the fun level of a mmorpg just based on single player type static content you would need more than 10x the man hours that a player put into the game. I do not believe this is cost effective, and obviously neither do mmorpg developers as is evidence by their attempted use of cheap tricks to extend game content.

Premise 6: Following from all before, the only way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun is to have the player encounter setbacks or slow the player down. However to do this at any time when the player did not expect or have control over it is what psychologists call random punishment, and is about as far away from fun as you can get. To give the setback when the player DOES expect it is acceptable but usually just means that the player will avoid doing whatever it is the player will be setback for. The only time when a player will do something which might set him back is when the possible gains are worth the risk. This is gambling.

Premise 7: The only entity to date in video games unpredictable enough so that the player will not just assume he can beat it (and therefore dieing to it would be random punsihment) or that he has no chance against it (so he will just avoid it) is another player.

Premise 8: If people's perception of a gamble is that the risk is too great for the reward, then they will simply avoid the gamble. People's perception's will quickly move close to reality, but they will probably always overestimate their chances of winning somewhat. (The percieved chance of winning * the expected or average gain must be greater than the percieved chance of losing * the expected or average loss)

Premise 9: To minimize the sting of the setback to the player, the player should immediately be placed back on the normal track to gaining status in the game rather than suffer death specific time delays. If long death specific time delays are given, the association between them and the expected setback for losing becomes loose.

Conclusion: The only way to cost-effectively provide a sustained level of fun in an MMORPG is to have a PVP Based MMORPG where players take somewhat fair gambles on their battles between each other.


Afterpoints: The players must not have a just as easy alternative to aquire the wealth they could get through PVP or they will simply take the path of least resistance even though it will end up with the game not staying fun as long.

Nivag
01-02-04, 01:11
That makes sense, extending your argument; PvP in Neocron comprised of the respect and the risk, is flawed because although its possible to gain respect through duels and op fights, the fights themselves have little element of risk and the gains from fighting are so miniscule (nothing drops in a war zone, the benefits of owning an OP are well... not exactly stellar) that sometimes people feel that there’s nothing to be gained from fighting and tire of it quickly, you may be onto something old boy, this merits further discussion.

KRIMINAL99
01-02-04, 02:28
I agree pvp doesn't offer enough reward to be worth it even if the risk were not greater than the reward because anything that could be got from it could probably be gotten easier somewhere else.

I mean you are risking like what.. say you are a ppu monk...

you got 3 non safe slot spells maybe 35k each, plus maybe a expensive 100k powerarmour, a few 35k armour pieces, a 50k belt and a bunch of psi boosters or low value stuff to make up the rest of the 10 possible drop items. Factor in a .5 chance that you will recover your belt before hacked for the expensive stuff.

Thats like about 20k expected average loss, then add repoke costs like about 3k, then the SI and travel maybe 10k in terms of opportunity cost since you could have used that time to hunt. (5min per death, 2.5 min per gr)

So youre risking about 33k... but thats just what you have to lose not what the other person has to gain.

Most of the stuff you could drop can only be sold for like 1/10th what it costs to a NPC, although this will probably change when player NPC's come around. And obviously the winner doesn't get anything from the losers need to repoke or travel.

So possible reward from pvp is like, using this same ppu victim:

the powerarmour can maybe be sold to a player so keep that at 100k, the armour parts can be sold for 3.5k each, The heavy belt will still probably have to be sold to a vendor so 5k for that, The spells available to drop probably wont be slotted enough that you could sell them to another player so 3.5k each for them anything else probably isnt worth the effort so 0 for them. Then still a 50% chance he will recover anything useful before you are able to hack it (either cause he has friends there or pkers are around whatever) so thats like an average expected gain of a whopping:

6,300

So if two players are fighting each other that are equally skilled a player on average loses:

.5 *33k - .5 *6300 = approx 10k

It costs FREAKING 10k to pvp with someone. You can log on to quake 3 and pvp people without losing part of your ability to win every match. RPG versions of PVP are supposed to be more fun because you have a chance to aquire a manifested ability to do better and therefore gain more respect through it in the form of items or wealth. This makes pvp WORSE than playing quake.

On a side note, I am unsure as to weather the human mind is capable of processing risk reward this way (unconsiously that is, obviously I just did it consiously but most people don't bother) IE I don't know if people see a 20% chance of being ganked while hunting at MB as just it probably wont happen (and thus will get mad if it does) or if they can actually deal with the 2/10 times it happens as if they were expecting it and thought it was still worth it to hunt there. I think the latter but I am not sure and it is important to this stuff so I guess Ill have to think about it.

I think about all this stuff becuase one day I plan to run my own mmorpg. My dream is that the fallout franchise will become fairly worthless and I will be able to purchase that because it is perfect for the type of game I would like to make. But that is highly unlikely... oh well I can dream :)

John.nl
01-02-04, 02:58
No flame intended and I have no doubt that the set of premises solidly support the claim. However, a set of flawless logic rules can be right in a very wrong way. To illustrate:

"I fit in my briefcase".

1. I fit in my pyama.
2. My pyama fits in my briefcase.

Therefore, I fit in my briefcase.

Premise #7. I think somewhere in the 70's or 80's the MIT presented a question/response text based 'game' on a computer in an effort to build a 'Turing machine': a machine with human like response and behaviour undistinguisable from humans. Turing believed that true artificial intelligence will be found in such a machine.

After the experiment - iirc the progamm was called L.I.S.A - many people refused to believe the response was actually generated by a piece of software.

Anyway my argument against prem 7 to your claim - pvp is a must for continual fun: the existance of carebears. Much mocked upon but that aside. Carebears seem to enjoy a mmorpg without taking part in pvp. No need for a opponent in human form. To me that means pvp is not a neccesity for continual fun in a mmorpg.

The existance of carebears make me believe that a mmorpg does not need to be pvp based to be fun.

When it comes to pvp in mmorpgs: to me it seems more fun to play against a confirmed human. Who in a weightlifting match wants to compete with a crane?

Psycho Killa
01-02-04, 03:11
I agree that there should be more risk and reward in pvp.

Though you are insanely off in your ppu risk calculations WAY WAY off.

Power armor I havent seen it sold in shops yet but I beleive there suppose to be now but anyways you have to buy a cranh holy shelter vest 30k then an equivelant level tank power armor then gather other stuff and have it made.

35k for a slotted spell sure maybe that one spell is 35k but it took 350K-3,500k to get it made since you need very high slots and in some cases such as a shelter an ultima mod if you want to be the best of the best.

Then you have boosters which cost 50k a piece and can not be made which is the cheapest thing a ppu can ever lose we carry so many spells that you NEVER drop a booster or anything low level like that.

Almost forgot to mention multiple rares... antipoisin sanctum truseight sanctum catharsis sanctum holy paralysis. Each cost probably 500k+ if your lucky.

mdares
01-02-04, 03:27
Originally posted by John.nl
No flame intended and I have no doubt that the set of premises solidly support the claim. However, a set of flawless logic rules can be right in a very wrong way. To illustrate:

"I fit in my briefcase".

1. I fit in my pyama.
2. My pyama fits in my briefcase.

Therefore, I fit in my briefcase.

Premise #7. I think somewhere in the 70's or 80's the MIT presented a question/response text based 'game' on a computer in an effort to build a 'Turing machine': a machine with human like response and behaviour undistinguisable from humans. Turing believed that true artificial intelligence will be found in such a machine.

After the experiment - iirc the progamm was called L.I.S.A - many people refused to believe the response was actually generated by a piece of software.

Anyway my argument against prem 7 to your claim - pvp is a must for continual fun: the existance of carebears. Much mocked upon but that aside. Carebears seem to enjoy a mmorpg without taking part in pvp. No need for a opponent in human form. To me that means pvp is not a neccesity for continual fun in a mmorpg.

The existance of carebears make me believe that a mmorpg does not need to be pvp based to be fun.

When it comes to pvp in mmorpgs: to me it seems more fun to play against a confirmed human. Who in a weightlifting match wants to compete with a crane?

actually the Turing machine (purpose to was invented by a man lastname Turing who cracked the enigma code in WWII... and the program that was conjured up to pass that turing test was called ELISA (atually there were several programs; and ELISA is online now i think so u can actually talk to "her"). (personnally i believe the turing test was based completely incorrectly on the assumption

but back to pvp: i think wut kriminal is saying is that once u have done all there is in the game not counting pvp (alluding to his example of a single player game), then pretty much the fun is over. Hence a new type of "fun" must be integrated. Whether it is true PVP or simulated PVP where its more of a player vs. npc. doesnt matter. Point being that u need a "self propagating" form of "fun"... pvp seems to be the "easy" answer.

Parker
01-02-04, 03:42
Umm it's late so i apologise

Turing machine - a hypothetical machine which only uses an infinite tape as a memory but is provable to be equivalent to any computer logically possible (though much much slower)

Turing Test - a test for AI - where the computer fools a human into believing they are a human (which is pretty philosophically flawed in my opinion but that's another topic)

Turing machines are NOT things which pass Turing tests...

Oh and Eliza - a programme from the 60s which would take me about 1 hour to write and was never considered to be a serious contender for passing the turing test.

(incidently - i once worked on some of the code for a programme which won the Loebner prize - which is a kind of turing test)


Anyway - right - i had a point!

Why do we spend so much time justifying or arguing about pvp? it's not such a big deal and i can't see why anybody would require a philosphical debate about it. Sheesh

mdares
01-02-04, 03:49
oops ur right i meant turing test not machine =p

KRIMINAL99
01-02-04, 05:02
Originally posted by John.nl
No flame intended and I have no doubt that the set of premises solidly support the claim. However, a set of flawless logic rules can be right in a very wrong way. To illustrate:

"I fit in my briefcase".

1. I fit in my pyama.
2. My pyama fits in my briefcase.

Therefore, I fit in my briefcase.

Premise #7. I think somewhere in the 70's or 80's the MIT presented a question/response text based 'game' on a computer in an effort to build a 'Turing machine': a machine with human like response and behaviour undistinguisable from humans. Turing believed that true artificial intelligence will be found in such a machine.

After the experiment - iirc the progamm was called L.I.S.A - many people refused to believe the response was actually generated by a piece of software.

Anyway my argument against prem 7 to your claim - pvp is a must for continual fun: the existance of carebears. Much mocked upon but that aside. Carebears seem to enjoy a mmorpg without taking part in pvp. No need for a opponent in human form. To me that means pvp is not a neccesity for continual fun in a mmorpg.

The existance of carebears make me believe that a mmorpg does not need to be pvp based to be fun.

When it comes to pvp in mmorpgs: to me it seems more fun to play against a confirmed human. Who in a weightlifting match wants to compete with a crane?

To premise 7, Your right I was thinking as a requirement that the entity had to retain its unpredictability as to weather it can be defeated or not forever. The first time you fight an AI mob you don't know if you can defeat it, so I supposed it is gambling and can slow a person down. However this is encompassed in the premise that players consume premade content at a rate 10x greater than it is made.

Since the argument is that the game must be continually fun, the AI of whatever super program made to fill this role would have to retain its unpredictability at least as long as a interacting with different random people in a certain role would. Thats a pretty tall order, were talking about L.I.S.A say being someones internet girlfriend for a year without the person realizing shes not real.

I don't think the existance of carebears is a counterproof to this argument for 2 reasons. A game which is not fun forever can still be fun for a while. As it is people usually hop from mmo to mmo as they get boring. My conclusion was for a game to be continually fun: as a game. Which brings me to the other part.

My first premise differentiates between social value of a MMO and game value of a MMO. The social aspect of a game can keep a game remotely fun continually FOR SOME PEOPLE, Ill agree to that. AO would no longer exist if not for that truth. But that doesn't work for everyone because not all people have fun with social interaction or can have better social interaction with friends in real life.

And what then when a game comes that has both social value and is a great game?

I believe this does not contridict my argument either because the argument is for a mmorp"Game", if all that remains fun is the social aspect then it is not a game it is a vr chatroom.

Although I admit that this can be argued against, the reason why "carebears" play a game like neocron as opposed to a game like the sims online or one like AO where social interaction is the best aspect is because they want to play a fun game.

About the pajama thing haha thats funny, but I think such mistakes are limited to situations where they are easily spotted.

Also I wouldn't say thats a problem inherent to logic thought, because inherent to pajamas is the ability to contain a variable amount of volume, and if we did not know this then we would not know what pajamas were. So your argument is really saying that I can fit in this item which can hold a variable amount of volume, and this item of variable volume can fit in my suitcase therefore so can I. This is invalid deductive reasoning.

Psycho- Um the calculations were for the ppu I specified. I wasn't talking about a capped for 6 months with all 5 slotted rare ppu....
Although true I didn't know that boosters could no longer be constructed.

You have a point there though I suppose to be uber a ppu has to put a lot more at risk then anyone else.