Relatively new site on MMOG theory and design.

[Lindorn]

I don't know what to say about emergence after this point because it seems most people disagree on what emergence means.

[Venkman]

If we stick with "social based emergent gameplay" as Stephen put it, we're mostly all close enough on agreement to prevent fires and pitchforks. It's when that's extended into the wierd/alienating realm, or misapplied to a misunderstanding of design vision, when the fights break out.

No kidding. Everyone binds in Shattrah because then you can get everywhere in Outland without hassling with the Dark Portal AND it has portals to all three main cities in the Azeroth.

Exactly. Forget that Darnassus was never popular for a second (compared to IF and then maybe SW). Shattrah was designed to draw people there. It's just normal expansion-selling design direction, like the new races and starting zone (buy the expansion!), jewelcraftin (buy the expansion!), flight only in the new zones (buy the expansion! {yes, I know the tech limits on old world}), Arenas (buy the expansion!), Netherstorm (buy the expansion!), new quests, profession skill caps, materials, and so on. It was all designed to give people reasons to go there, which could only be done by?

This is the very essence of intended gameplay, the absolute opposite of designers being surprised by unintended ones.

It's like when the EQ1 Bazaar was launched a few months after Shadows of Luclin. This didn't displace EC Tunnel as the spot for auctions because people collectively decided to move. It's because the Bazaar was designed to bring them there by offering features they otherwise wouldn't have.

[Stephen Zepp]

It's like when the EQ1 Bazaar was launched a few months after Shadows of Luclin. This didn't displace EC Tunnel as the spot for auctions because people collectively decided to move. It's because the Bazaar was designed to bring them there by offering features they otherwise wouldn't have.

To follow this analogy further, I would suggest that the original player aggregation at the EC Tunnel into a bazaar was in fact emergent behavior, but not necessarily emergent gameplay.

[Venkman]

I absolutely agree. EQ1 and UO are replete with unintended examples, like all of the points in EQ1 old world where players grouped: Docks in Oasis Del Mar, Orc Lift in Greater Faydark, Windmill at Lake of Ill Omen etc. Most of these seemed due to players finding safe havens from mob spawn points that were also conveniently near them. And it became more obvious in later zones that the devs were pushing players around smarter (or maybe I just became more aware of it). UO's player sales at West Brit Bank is another one. Behaviors in these games probably stemmed from worlds that preceded them, but I only personally witnessed how they migrated to games that followed.

[Amaron]

Let me ask a different question: Was the origins of RMT a "surprise", or an emergent event

A surprise.  If you broke it down enough you could say there are multiple factors involved but emergency basically demands that the emergent portion has to be more complex than it's contributing factors.

If you break down each of the steps of the RMT process all of them can be carried out basically independent of each other and nothing new arises when you perform each step together in any way.

If you were to expand your question to ask if RMT companies are an emergent event then the answer might be yes.   Personally if I were you I'd never give a philosopher such an opening though.

[Venkman]

I disagree. RMT is more complex than its contributing factors because it brings them altogether. I don't think anyone foresaw the the emergence of RMTing, but that was probably due to focusing entirely on the existing userbase of the day. That, like earlier stuff in this thread, is simply a lack of scope. It wasn't predicted who else would come to this genre and what personalities/desires they would bring, and the genre has evolved since in three clear directions: a) accept it and move on (many); b) actively and publicly ban to such a degree that it actually diminishes the practice in your game; or, c) embrace it and call it micro-transactions.

To me, looking at evolution within a system, whether contrived or based on emergent behavior, you must understand the external factors that many would consider irrelevant.

Like, say, the success of DIKU to retain a playerbase combined with the usual speed of play the average Battle.net user is accustomed to.

[Arthur_Parker]

I don't think I've had one sore word to say about UO...ever...in fact I think it get's shortchanged all too often.  I make my issues with WoW and MMORPG.com known, but how does that relate to the people who play WoW...or who frequent MMORPG.com?  Hell I still post regularly on MMORPG.com...I may not like their journalistic style but that doesn't mean I hate them as individuals.  I guess I don't see where you are going with this.

You don't say much about UO because, even though it's listed in your previous game history on the darkfall forums, you have never played it, right?  First game was daoc (briefly, as you didn't like leveling up) and then straight to SB.  You registered on the uo forums just to spam your web link, same thing as you and Mayson have done on a dozen other forums, even when you don't really like your audience.

MMORPG.com is a corporate lapdog from what I've seen. They aren't going to mention Darkfall in fear that they might lose some of their militant carebear site traffic.

[Ironwood]

Wow.

[Reg]

Sheesh. That Darkfall forum is just chock full of stupid isn't it?

[Arthur_Parker]

Wow.

Check out your evil twin brother talking to Lindorn about Darkfall in this thread yesterday.

[lamaros]

Oh, there's no need for this. Leave poor Lindorn alone!

Still I have learned that using empty words and terms is a great way to attract red names to discussions. I'll be sure to toss out some wankery in future if I think I'm being ignored.

GREEN TEXT, by the way. For truly only Lindorn has the reading comprehension to know without the disclaimer.

[Trippy]

Wow.

Check out your evil twin brother talking to Lindorn about Darkfall in this thread yesterday.

Evil twin? More like his kinder and gentler twin :-D

[Venkman]

Starting to see a recurring theme here...

[Ironwood]

Wow.

Check out your evil twin brother talking to Lindorn about Darkfall in this thread yesterday.

Evil twin? More like his kinder and gentler twin :-D

Yeah, it's probably clear, but I'd like to make it explicit :  That ain't me.

[Merusk]

Starting to see a recurring theme here...

The vaporware fanboism or the Zod avatars? I'm confused.

Mesmerizing Zod was amusing, in case you missed it.

[Lindorn]

don't really like your audience

You keep insinuating that because I don't appreciate MMORPG.com's reporting style that I somehow dislike the community.

You don't say much about UO because, even though it's listed in your previous game history on the darkfall forums, you have never played it, right?

I say a lot about UO actually.  When you posted this I figured you had read a lot of the things I've written...but I guess you've only seen a bit.

Arthur I really have no idea what exactly your motives are.  We've somehow detracted from a discussion about games to you basically digging up random posts about my website or me personally in order to selectively use them to attack me.  Do you want me to stop posting here?  Do you want me to admit I'm wrong in some way?

I am failing to see the reasoning behind any of this, and I feel all I'm doing by responding to it is making it worse.  Yet I also feel like if I don't respond you'll continue.  Is there something in particular you are looking for me to say?  I really don't get it.

[Megrim]

So, how do you really feel about it?

[Lindorn]

Well I think I've stepped past (maybe a long time ago) the point where there was any possibility of anything I say doing any good here.  So I'll bow out (as cordially as I can).  Arthur....I have no idea where I went wrong that got us on the current topic, but maybe you'll tell me here or elsewhere sometime down the road.

At any rate, I'll let you guys go back to whatever you'd be doing if you weren't posting on this thread.

Thanks for the discussion and despite the fighting, I hope all goes well.

Sorry for the interruption guys.

[Oban]

first.

[cmlancas]

FUCK FUCK GOD DAMNIT!



Edit: That was from the collegehumor.com video btw, if you missed the joke :)

[Arthur_Parker]

I say a lot about UO actually. 

I think it's only fair that you provide some links for a change.

Edit to add, I know you mention UO in this link (but it's just a passing reference) and doesn't really comment on UO pvp.

[Oban]

FUCK FUCK GOD DAMNIT!



Edit: That was from the collegehumor.com video btw, if you missed the joke :)

Forgot how to link to the previous post, so here it is again:

Offensive language warning::

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1771556

[UnSub]

And thus does Lindhorn join grunk in the pinata poster annals of f13.net.

[Amaron]

I disagree. RMT is more complex than its contributing factors because it brings them altogether.

No it's not.  On a basic level it is simply trading.   Trading is the only dependent factor in the equation.  It is not more complex than other forms of trading in the game either.  It's surprising because nobody thought one end would trade something of real value for in game money but it's not more complex.

The real world effects of RMT are emergent in some ways, but the actual act of RMT itself is not emergent.   That's why I said a RMT company might be considered emergent in this case.

[cmlancas]

<3 Oban. Thanks :D

[Oban]

The real world effects of RMT are emergent in some ways, but the actual act of RMT itself is not emergent.   That's why I said a RMT company might be considered emergent in this case.

RMT companies are like pimps and phone sex advertisers.  Pay a premium so you can skip all the work and get straight to the good stuff. 

Not emergent.

[Arthur_Parker]

Well I think I've stepped past (maybe a long time ago) the point where there was any possibility of anything I say doing any good here.  So I'll bow out (as cordially as I can).  Arthur....I have no idea where I went wrong that got us on the current topic, but maybe you'll tell me here or elsewhere sometime down the road.

At any rate, I'll let you guys go back to whatever you'd be doing if you weren't posting on this thread.

Thanks for the discussion and despite the fighting, I hope all goes well.

Sorry for the interruption guys.

I was happy to let this lie but considering you just sent me a wall of text private message, I'll explain a few things.

You are not causing disruption on these boards because this whole thread has been fun, true it's been mostly at your expense but I can't help that.  A lot your ideas are a throw back to years ago when UO r'pking discussions were at their height and when Shadowbane was the holy grail of the hardcore pvp crowd.  The fact that you have only tried UO very recently explains an awful lot.

If you quit posting here that's your decision, just as posting a link to your mmorpg discussion site here (of all places) while you aren't really that experienced (by your own admission) was your decision.

[Venkman]

No it's not.  On a basic level it is simply trading.   Trading is the only dependent factor in the equation.  It is not more complex than other forms of trading in the game either.  It's surprising because nobody thought one end would trade something of real value for in game money but it's not more complex.

Simple trading yes, but using tools not previously thought to relate to each other. Virtual and real world economies were completely separate. I'm sure there's an analogy that could be drawn to the real world, possibly between some isolated self-sufficient insular country and a world economy at some point in history. But I'm not up on that stuff.

Nobody conceived that virtual goods would have a real world value afaik. The "complexity" is in the early thought process and use of external tools the developers didn't design nor ever intended to have affect their game. In my opinion anyway :)

[lamaros]

Nobody conceived that virtual goods would have a real world value afaik.

Is that a joke?

[UnSub]

Nobody conceived that virtual goods would have a real world value afaik.

Is that a joke?

I think Darniaq means as part of the "early" developer thoughts on the issue. It probably wasn't a big consideration until virtual items started being sold on eBay.

[Venkman]

Thanks UnSub. That is what I meant.

Lamaros, at some point in time there were games in which player trading was possible but not with goods deemed so valuable as to be worth paying real world cash for them. People did not design RMT into games back then so were unprepared to deal with the practice when it started to emerge. Even now you see the three distinct schools of thought I mentioned earlier.

[Fordel]

How would be selling a +5 sword in a MMO be different from selling a +5 Sword Card for MTG or something similar?


Maybe I'm just not understanding what is being discussed   

[lamaros]

How would be selling a +5 sword in a MMO be different from selling a +5 Sword Card for MTG or something similar?


Maybe I'm just not understanding what is being discussed   

I think I have the same confusion.

I'm sure many people right from the start had a conscious knowledge that virtual goods had real world value.

There are games now where player trading is possible but the goods are not deemed to be worth real world value (or, not valuable enough to offset the costs of trading), but that doesn't change the fact that there are games where these 'virtual' goods have real value.

I put 's around virtual because I think the term is stupid. The difference between these so called virtual items and other things in the real world is not nearly great enough to have such a distinction (Fordel provides a nice example). The fact that some people have thought of game worlds and real worlds as having a genuine rather that artificial separation and thus found the application of common aspects of the 'real' world to them unexpected doesn't mean it was in any way beyond conception.

I don't see how the ignorance of some people, developers or otherwise, actually changes reality.

[UnSub]

How would be selling a +5 sword in a MMO be different from selling a +5 Sword Card for MTG or something similar?


Maybe I'm just not understanding what is being discussed   

I think I have the same confusion.

I'm sure many people right from the start had a conscious knowledge that virtual goods had real world value.

There are games now where player trading is possible but the goods are not deemed to be worth real world value (or, not valuable enough to offset the costs of trading), but that doesn't change the fact that there are games where these 'virtual' goods have real value.

I put 's around virtual because I think the term is stupid. The difference between these so called virtual items and other things in the real world is not nearly great enough to have such a distinction (Fordel provides a nice example). The fact that some people have thought of game worlds and real worlds as having a genuine rather that artificial separation and thus found the application of common aspects of the 'real' world to them unexpected doesn't mean it was in any way beyond conception.

I don't see how the ignorance of some people, developers or otherwise, actually changes reality.

Going all the way back to UO (at least), it wasn't thought out loud by a lot of people that players would be willing to pay real money for items in-game. Or even pay for someone else's accounts. Which is why people were suprised when suddenly things started popping up on eBay (which was also new-ish) that sold for big money, rare drops and high level accounts especially.

This led to companies rapidly developing policies regarding selling in-game items on an out-of-game auction site. And who actually owned the item - the player or the company.

This is all obvious in hindsight, but at the time there was some amazement that people would play $50 for a pot of hard to get dye, or could actually generate an income off supplying in-game items to others for real dollars. I'm sure some dev somewhere went, "Hey, maybe people will pay money for these things," but no-one was game enough to try for it or to perhaps think through the ramifications of such player actions.

But then lots of things seem incredibly naive at this point in time if you look back a decade or so. Just like a decade hence will see issues surrounding RMT resolved.

[lamaros]

But I don't think you can say just because some people were surprised that their surprise is well founded. Lots of people were not surprised - the original buyers and sellers of these accounts and items, for instance.

You can find "some amazement" for lots of things (I'm constantly surprised by popular music) but that isn't a sound basis for arguing that something is essentially surprising.