<!-- MHonArc v2.4.4 --> <!--X-Subject: [MUD-Dev] FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun --> <!--X-From-R13: "Ybfgre, Dncu" <exbfgreNbevtva.rn.pbz> --> <!--X-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 15:38:58 -0700 --> <!--X-Message-Id: 11A17AA2B9EAD111BCEA00A0C9B417937609F1#forest,origin.ea.com --> <!--X-Content-Type: text/plain --> <!--X-Head-End--> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <html> <head> <title>MUD-Dev message, [MUD-Dev] FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun</title> <!-- meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" --> <link rev="made" href="mailto:rkoster#origin,ea.com"> </head> <body background="/backgrounds/paperback.gif" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000" vlink="#006000"> <font size="+4" color="#804040"> <strong><em>MUD-Dev<br>mailing list archive</em></strong> </font> <br> [ <a href="../">Other Periods</a> | <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a> | <a href="/search.php3">Search</a> ] <br clear=all><hr> <!--X-Body-Begin--> <!--X-User-Header--> <!--X-User-Header-End--> <!--X-TopPNI--> Date: [ <a href="msg00725.html">Previous</a> | <a href="msg00727.html">Next</a> ] Thread: [ <a href="msg00745.html">Previous</a> | <a href="msg00739.html">Next</a> ] Index: [ <A HREF="author.html#00726">Author</A> | <A HREF="#00726">Date</A> | <A HREF="thread.html#00726">Thread</A> ] <!--X-TopPNI-End--> <!--X-MsgBody--> <!--X-Subject-Header-Begin--> <H1>[MUD-Dev] FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun</H1> <HR> <!--X-Subject-Header-End--> <!--X-Head-of-Message--> <UL> <LI><em>To</em>: "'<A HREF="mailto:mud-dev#kanga,nu">mud-dev#kanga,nu</A>'" <<A HREF="mailto:mud-dev#kanga,nu">mud-dev#kanga,nu</A>></LI> <LI><em>Subject</em>: [MUD-Dev] FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun</LI> <LI><em>From</em>: "Koster, Raph" <<A HREF="mailto:rkoster#origin,ea.com">rkoster#origin,ea.com</A>></LI> <LI><em>Date</em>: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:36:29 -0500</LI> <LI><em>Reply-To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:mud-dev#kanga,nu">mud-dev#kanga,nu</A></LI> </UL> <!--X-Head-of-Message-End--> <!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin--> <HR> <!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End--> <!--X-Body-of-Message--> <PRE> Dr. Cat sent this to me accidentally when he meant to send it to the whole list. Sorry about the extra level of attribution on everything! -Raph > -----Original Message----- > From: cat#bga,com [<A HREF="mailto:cat#bga,com">mailto:cat#bga,com</A>] > Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 3:59 PM > To: rkoster#origin,ea.com > Subject: Re: UBE/high: [MUD-Dev] Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun > > > Ok, the list's been spamming me with these "message-like objects" for > the last month. In fact, I think they''re actual messages, though I > haven't > consulted with the local university's messageologist to be certain. > Anyway > I'm going to take "revenge" by spamming the list back for a > little bit. > > Raph Koster wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Marian Griffith [<A HREF="mailto:gryphon#iaehv,nl">mailto:gryphon#iaehv,nl</A>] > > They'll only realize it if the cost of paying for the cop > is covered by > > the money saved by not having those people quit. Which is > an equation > > that is as yet very very fuzzy. You might save fifty > people, but the cop > > cost you 100 people's subscriptions worth. > > The tacit assumption here is that the cops are paid. This is not a > requirement, but an option. Using carefully selected player > volunteers > has potential drawbacks, mainly that you can't necessarily count on > the same level of quality and reliability of performance. > But the cost > equation is a lot more favorable. (They're not 100% free, because of > whatever cost their is in paid staff's time spent managing them.) > > I was told by some kid from Furcadia that he was an Ultima Online GM, > that he wasn't in Austin and wasn't paid any money, that players were > just chosen from the game to do that. I didn't have any way to verify > whether he was telling the truth or not, though. He also > bragged to me > about his non-GM character who he claimed was a highly powerful > playerkiller, which seemed a little ironic to me. :X) > > > Absolutely. Massive quantities of them. And as I have > stated before, I > > have a LOT of respect for Dr Cat and his work, and think > his comments on > > overdesign, and on attention as currency, are dead on. In > fact, I feel > > somewhat uncomfortable feeling put in opposition to him, as > this thread > > seems to have done... > > Well it's a clear case of "oppose the ideas, and not the > person", and I > hope > you don't take it personally. I do admire some of the design > goals that > you > are pursuing and I'm not, and think that someone ought to be pursuing > them. > I just think that some of the elements of your approach > aren't going to > work > out the way you hope, because of factors you're not viewing > from the same > perspective I am. Anyway you're still near the top of my > list of people > I'd like > to go out to lunch with since I got back to town, if I weren't so > distracted > trying to find some way to earn two nickels to rub together > these days. : > X) > > > If we are working towards virtual realities, as I think we > are, then I > > think that there's a problem set there to solve. And we can > reduce it by > > going with a smaller design, sure--one tailored to that > vast group of > > people who would rather not deal with certain aspects it is > possible to > > simulate, such as violence. As Dr Cat said, we can choose > not to add in > > combat. > > > > But *somebody* is gonna add combat. And since I was (and still am, > > though my interest is shifting) interested in tackling many of the > > problems that arise with an environment that includes as many of the > > experiences life offers as can be made interesting, I regard it as > > "leaving it out." That's not intended to be derogatory > towards those who > > leave it out; they are not trying to address the same > problem set, is > > all. I want to tackle the problem set of the day when we have a MUD > > (read: spatial, multi-user) interface to the entire > Internet, which I > > don't think is that far away. > > If you're trying to explore a larger, more complex and > interesting problem > space and/or solution space, I think there's a point that's > very easy to > miss > here. Which is that there are things you can add to a system that > increase > its diversity, and things that can DECREASE the diversity if > you add them. > If you operate Joe's online service, or a real-world shopping > mall for > that > matter, and you add in a place for stamp collectors, you've > increased the > diversity a little, and probably without adding any problems. > People that > don't like stamp collecting will most likely ignore it rather > than being > bothered by it. > > But try adding something labelled "free sex, free beer, and > free money!" > If the initial flood of people into there discovers that you're not > kidding and > you actually provide those things, you will see usage decline > in the other > areas. Both because some people will prefer that so much > they won't go > to the other places any more, and also because other people will be so > offended they'll just leave entirely. Some of the places and > activities > that > used to draw steady amounts of usage will dry up and vanish. World > building is not a game where you can only "add" by putting > new things in. > You can add or subtract, or in some cases do some amount of both. > > The "free sex" thing is an imperfect analogy to combat in a > virtual world, > though. The people who insist upon being offended have to choose to > let it affect their life, by going and looking at it and being upset > about it. > They could go to the stamp collector's place and hang out > there all the > time, and not worry about it. Introducing combat, though, > leaves you no > such choice, at least when done in the relatively > unrestricted fashion it' > s > seen in Ultima Online. If some of the stamp collectors have > a fair amount > of money, or if someone even thinks that they might, then the > activity of > fighting to the death will be brought to them and imposed upon them. > > Putting universally available combat capabilities into a game has the > potential to drown out many, many non-combat activities. If > this happens, > you're not making your environment more diverse. You're not covering > more of the problems and challenges of making a sophisticated online > world. You're covering less of them. Because you put in one > thing that > wiped out a hundred other things, all in the name of "leaving nothing > out". > > I still don't think anyone really understands Marian's classic Tailor > Problem. > Except maybe Marian. (Hi again, Marian!) > > Consider some more that MUD interface to the entire net that you > postulate. > Imagine that I'm walking through Virtual Walmart with my nice > Doom style > interface displayed in my VR helmet. (Or imagine I'm typing > "go west, go > north", for you text MUD purists.) I have a desire to purchase lawn > furniture. Walmart has a desire to receive some of my hard > earned cash. > We clearly have a basis for a meaningful relationship here, > even if we're > being a bit emotionally shallow about it. Hey, it's > consensual, don't > pick > on us! > > So anyway, let's say Boffo leaps out from between the > sporting goods and > the hardware section. He's wearing football pads and a hockey mask, > brandishing a rake, and to his sides and back he's got > strapped a nail > gun, > two hockey sticks, a chainsaw, and a ballpeen hammer. He > yells "Kreegah!" > and viciously attacks me. I'm dead. > > Now, quite apart from how I might feel about this, Walmart is clearly > going > to be upset at the slight reduction in the odds that I will > spend money on > their lawn furniture because of this. What's their solution? > Is it one > of the > kinds of answers people have popped up with in reply to > Marian? Will the > players - er, I'm sorry, "users", many net users won't be > interested in > gaming > as such... Will the users form posses to lynch the sporting > goods bandit? > Will Walmart give 5% discounts to people who patrol their virtual > corridors > at least N hours per week, attacking and slaying any know thieves and > murderers they encounter? Will this graphic violence hurt > sales in the > food aisle? > > Or will Virtual Walmart be programmed from day one in such a > manner that > it simply isn't possible for one person to attack or kill > another person, > ever? > This is a no-brainer for me. They'll probably be in a > virtual mall where > you > can't attack and kill someone the moment they take one step > outside the > Walmart doors, either. You'll probably have to head for some kind of > Virtual > Arcade or Castle or whatever where combat is enabled, because most > Internet users are not really going to want to be able to kill or be > killed. > And most of those that do aren't going to want it to be a > possibility 100% > or the time that they're online. Those that do, much like > the college > kids > that play Assassin games, will probably get some add on > program to play > Virtual Assassin whilst running all over in cyberspace. > Instead of ICQ > it'll > be called KillMeToo or something. And elderly shoppers will > perhaps wave > an angry fist at the two kids who insist on running through > the hallways > of > Virtual Walmart, knocking over boxes and bumping people aside as they > insist on playing their rowdy game someplace that wasn't > meant for it. > But > the fist-waving curmudgeon won't be in any danger of having > their avatar > virtually disemboweled, I'm pretty confident. And if rowdy > kids became > too > much of a problem, I imagine the store manager would start > banning them > from entry to the store any time he caught some. > > If you really want to tackle the problem set of the virtual internet, > then violent > forms of conflict aren't the big issue. Social and spatial forms of > harrassment, > along with hacking, those are your issues. Some kid will program his > avatar > to move around in front of you, always hovering in the air > right in front > of your > face, so you never see anything anywhere in cyberspace except for his > virtual > belly-button. There has to be some way to deal with that kid. > Programming in > a way to lop off his virtual head and send him to the virtual > temple isn' > t it. Even > if grandma who just wants to buy lawn furniture can overcome > any personal > reluctance that she has to lopping someone's head off, and > tries to do it, > she's > probably going to lose that fight to the quick, gaming-experienced 16 > year old > virtual street punk. If granny has to be dependent on 16 > year old Good > Guy > street punks to protect her, and has to witness them > decapitating the Bad > Guy > street punks right in front of her virtual eyes, I think > we've made our > virtual > society a step backwards many centuries in terms of the level of > civilization > that we've acheived there. Stepping back into the middle > ages for fun is > great > for people that want to play Dungeons and Dragons or join the > SCA. But do > we have to require that everyone goes back there, even the > people that > just > want to buy lawn furniture? Is our modern level of progress > in making > societies > where violent attacks are less common something that we don't want to > replicate in cyberspace, or something we do want but don't > know how to do > there? > > I think I remember reading a design essay about Ultima > Online, saying that > it had roughly recreated the course of social and cultural > evolution that > occurred > in the real world from 500 AD to 1000 AD, over a six month > period. That' > s a > neat thought, and it's certainly a big time savings - a > thousand to one > ratio! > Still, I couldn't help but think, on reading it... Why start > at 500 AD? > Don't we > know enough from having done all that before to be able to > start a virtual > society at the point mankind had reached in 1500, 1800, or > 1900? Maybe > even 1990? Well, 1990 would be pretty hard - we don't understand how > 1990 works clearly enough in the real world, and a virtual world is > likely to > start further back because it's required to do some things > differently > because > of the different nature of the place. I'd still hope we > could do better > than 500 AD > for a starting point. (Civilization and Age of Empires style games > notwithstanding.) > > > Quite beyond that, I have serious doubts about the commercial > > feasibility of a server that's completely safe. Not because > of the lack > > of interest, but because of the amount of cops you have to > pay to keep > > it safe. I use as my rule of thumb whether or not we're > willing to pay > > enough cops to keep us safe in the real world, where the > stakes are a > > lot higher. :( Yeah, we can code Toontown laws of physics, > and people > > will still find ways to screw each other over. Because > fundamentally, > > that's what a safe environment is promising: nobody will > screw you over. > > And I can't currently design a way around that. I doubt I > will ever be > > able to. You can reduce the problem set, but the problem doesn't go > > away... what's worse, the safer you say you are, the more > of a target > > you paint on your chest. A nasty dilemma. > > The fact that you can't reduce "possibility of being screwed > over" to zero > doesn't make this an insoluble problem. Indeed, if you take measures > that reduce either the frequency OR the severity of incidents > of people > being screwed over, you can reduce the cost of policing enormously. > This can be done not only by making it harder to screw people over, > but also by making it less appealing to the tastes of those who love > to screw people over, and/or by providing other activities > that tend to > appeal to that type of person without screwing anyone over > (or at least, > not anyone who didn't choose to take such a risk in order to get a > chance to nail someone themselves.) > > As for the stakes, they will continue to grow. I'm sure we'll someday > have over a billion people online, and at that point the > value of having > things like a safe, clean, friendly Disney Online environment will be > so high that companies like them will throw pretty hefty amount of > cash at figuring out ways to keep it safe. > > I hope they'll throw some of it at me. :X) > > I also think that the availability of free or nearly-free > cops will grow > as > the amount of wealth and leisure time that people have continues to > grow. > > > Whew, that was an outpouring. Basically, I cheer on the "safe game" > > designs. Love to see how you do it. Am openly skeptical > about how you'll > > do it. Hope you prove me wrong. And I go about it in a more > cynical way. > > ;) UO was intended as just a microcosm, you see. The fact > that it is as > > dangerous as it is speaks, IMHO, more to human nature than anything > > else... > > Indeed. I'll conceed I'm not interested solely in catering to human > nature as > it exists now, but rather in contributing to its evolution to > whatever it > will > develop into in the next century or two. I do view it as malleable. > Still, > there's usually a LOT more money to be made in catering to it > exactly as > it stands at any given moment in history... I probably need > to cater to > it > some more and make my fortune before I try to think TOO far ahead. > > *-----------------------------------------**------------------ > -----------* > Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test: > *-----------------------------------------** > <A HREF="http://www.bga.com/furcadia">http://www.bga.com/furcadia</A> > Furcadia - a new graphic mud > for PCs! || Let your imagination soar! > *-----------------------------------------**------------------ > -----------* > </PRE> <!--X-Body-of-Message-End--> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <HR> <ul compact><li><strong>Follow-Ups</strong>: <ul> <li><strong><A NAME="00749" HREF="msg00749.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong> <ul compact><li><em>From:</em> Marian Griffith <gryphon#iaehv,nl></li></ul> <li><strong><A NAME="00739" HREF="msg00739.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong> <ul compact><li><em>From:</em> "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com></li></ul> </UL></LI></UL> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00725.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: [Mud-Dev] Re: Affordances and social method</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00727.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: clients anyone?...</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00745.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: Yet another update on threads and signals</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00739.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="index.html#00726"><STRONG>Date</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thread.html#00726"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> <ul><li>Thread context: <BLOCKQUOTE><UL> <LI><STRONG>[MUD-Dev] Re: Yet another update on threads and signals</STRONG>, <EM>(continued)</EM> <ul compact> <LI><strong><A NAME="00736" HREF="msg00736.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: Yet another update on threads and signals</A></strong>, Chris Gray <a href="mailto:cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA">cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA</a>, Sat 15 Aug 1998, 15:31 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00741" HREF="msg00741.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: Yet another update on threads and signals</A></strong>, Adam J. Thornton <a href="mailto:adam#phoenix,Princeton.EDU">adam#phoenix,Princeton.EDU</a>, Sat 15 Aug 1998, 19:22 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="00742" HREF="msg00742.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: Yet another update on threads and signals</A></strong>, Chris Gray <a href="mailto:cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA">cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA</a>, Sat 15 Aug 1998, 20:54 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00745" HREF="msg00745.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: Yet another update on threads and signals</A></strong>, Adam J. Thornton <a href="mailto:adam#phoenix,Princeton.EDU">adam#phoenix,Princeton.EDU</a>, Sun 16 Aug 1998, 16:08 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> </ul> </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="00726" HREF="msg00726.html">[MUD-Dev] FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Koster, Raph <a href="mailto:rkoster#origin,ea.com">rkoster#origin,ea.com</a>, Fri 14 Aug 1998, 22:38 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00739" HREF="msg00739.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Jon A. Lambert <a href="mailto:jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com">jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com</a>, Sat 15 Aug 1998, 18:18 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00793" HREF="msg00793.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: UBE/high: Re: FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Dr. Cat <a href="mailto:cat#bga,com">cat#bga,com</a>, Fri 21 Aug 1998, 04:26 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="00749" HREF="msg00749.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Marian Griffith <a href="mailto:gryphon#iaehv,nl">gryphon#iaehv,nl</a>, Sun 16 Aug 1998, 21:21 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00751" HREF="msg00751.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: UBE/high: Re: FW: UBE/high: Re: W IRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Dr. Cat <a href="mailto:cat#bga,com">cat#bga,com</a>, Mon 17 Aug 1998, 07:04 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL></BLOCKQUOTE> </ul> <hr> <center> [ <a href="../">Other Periods</a> | <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a> | <a href="/search.php3">Search</a> ] </center> <hr> </body> </html>