Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alpha is HERE and expanding likely on the 16th and even more after that. Goblinworks isn't going to do any major overhauls of their code because one of us was righter than everyone else in a heated forum thread during the next month. We should be spending our time on things that we can do something about.
Culture - learned knowledge passed from one generation to the next
This is what we are in charge of. GW does the code, we decide to approve and applaud, or ignore (functionally the same as approval), or disapprove and correct what our fellow players are doing around us in the game we play together.
In Murder Simulator Online, when Jack A. can find a relatively new character and completely overpower them causing death and loss of goods or use the threat of character death to extort behavior, he gets applauded by his peers for pwning. The more loss he can cause to others while keeping his own losses low he gains status among his peers. These are traits of murder simulator culture, what Jack is taught by the other players in the game (by their accolades and awarding of status) that are signs of success.
If Jack entered the game rolling hard and everyone around him asked "What was the point of that?", said "Don't do that or the best guilds won't accept you if you get the reputation as THAT GUY", or mocked him for seeking fights with characters that had no real ability to fight back, the players around Jack would be teaching him those are actions that get him nothing good so are a waste of his time.
Are you with me how more established peers teach cultural attitudes and belief systems to the newborns? Good let's take it up a step.
That old code of conduct has been reinforced for Jack, possibly for years and over several games, as "what winners do" and gaining him rewards even in the face of hate from the losers he pwned. If he comes to yet another game and gets hate from some Carebear miner he killed that's completely expected. If he is corrected by a group of bandits and pirates, Jack will think they are mistaken; the first few times.
When something works people don't give it up easily. Jack needs time to have multiple experiences repeated over and over again where the majority of time his old code of conduct does not reward him like he expected, even got him left out or disadvantaged, before he starts to learn a new set of tools for how to be successful in the new environment.
1.) Consistency - It has to be most of the time, so the old code never has a chance to work, for the new one to become meaningful.
2.) Correcting when he does things that are taboo.
3.) Educating what things actually do lead to success, to replace the corrected actions.
4.) Education from peers carries more weight than from enemies - while a consequence is a consequence, they're felt more strongly from people Jack identifies with, not the loser "others" he preys on. This makes good bad guys especially important.
-------
I want a situation like the old Western movies. For most of the movie you know what the sides are, what their interests and goals are, but the entire thing isn't a cacophony of random gunshots. The sides butt up against each other with more and more pressure until the friction gives out launching the climactic shootout scene at the end. Just a small portion of the movie, with the results for winners and losers well known ahead of time.
If little brother Jeb went around shooting everyone he saw that didn't kow tow, big brother Willy would slap him over the head and tell him to stop making things harder for the gang.
-------
Normally I try to keep posts brief so y'all don't roll a save vs. wall of text, but in this case this is what was needed to get the full explanation out. As always, contribute on-topic ideas and principles, but keep it civil or so help me I will pull this thread over and we won't go to EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what we might need is a player commitment (not one proposed by one of the major players) to do our best to make it possible for GW not to need to use rep at all, or to use it sparingly. A commitment to avoid play styles that drive paying customers away. To avoid encouraging such play styles in others.
I'm well aware that there have been several such agreements proposed, but each one somehow gets partially eaten by group prejudices and side-agendas. Mutual support and protection have no business in any such agreement. Not about characters or companies or settlements or nations. It needs to be simple and clean. On the order of:
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Your theory is sound. But when the people that read/post on this forum become the minority in terms of people playing the game, do you think it's going to make much of a different. No troll here, I'm honestly just curious if you think it's realistically possible.
The thing is going into Alpha and the start of EE the minority that post on the forums are the majority that will be playing the game. Further, the minority on the forum are also a number of the key players in the majority of chartered companies, settlements, nations etc.
I think there are very sound points addressed here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it is only possible because of the scaled launch of Early Enrollment. There will be a few thousand players in the game on day one, and it will ramp up slowly. If we can start to establish a culture and set up the norms of behavior, then we *might* be able to keep them consistent. A lot of this is going to fall to the UNC and her related companies. They'll be having to show new bandits how the ropes work, either by showing them how to be profitable and joining them, or stomping them flat if they don't get the hint.
Meanwhile, Good settlements/groups will be needing to take in players who aren't experienced in PvP and teach them survival tactics and not to take things personally.
Its going to take the community, and I mean *all* of the community, to do this. Lawful and Chaotic, Good and Evil, Roseblood Accord and Northern Coalition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guurzak say you cannot sell shiny turd by calling it gold.
Regardless of culture, game mechanics must ensure that it is actually and objectively detrimental to engage in murder sim behaviors. No account of culture will dissuade someone from realizing mechanical benefit if it is there to be realized.
With those mechanics in place, the culture will happen organically.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your theory is sound. But when the people that read/post on this forum become the minority in terms of people playing the game, do you think it's going to make much of a different. No troll here, I'm honestly just curious if you think it's realistically possible.
Yes. Because it requires exactly zero of the newcomers to read any forums.
It's going to be us talking, trading, contracting, grouping (and withholding all of that), interacting in-game and teaching something to everyone else coming in whether we're cognizant of it or not. I'm saying if we stay aware of what it is we're teaching we can shape the message sent to what we want.
When the next generation internalizes it because that is what makes them successful, they view it as the way things should be and pass it on to the third generation. The third generation internalizes it and passes it on etc. etc. etc. That is literally the (ad hoc) process that occurred for the creation of murder simulator culture.
It stands a chance of carrying force because we're going to be the ones recruiting and promoting in companys and settlements, the ones in charge of trade conglomerates and rolling in wealth, the ones commanding militarys and bandit empires. When newcomers begin they can either try to start from scratch alone out in the woods, or they're going to come work for us.
Establishing the specific customs and techniques that nurture economic and political success while ostracizing arbitrary ganking without rival cultures distracting attention during EE is the critical part. So the mores (mor-ay, as they're called) get codified, at least "we know them when we see them", and we are prepared to pass them on as the game starts expanding population.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what we might need is a player commitment (not one proposed by one of the major players) to do our best to make it possible for GW not to need to use rep at all, or to use it sparingly. A commitment to avoid play styles that drive paying customers away. To avoid encouraging such play styles in others.
I'm well aware that there have been several such agreements proposed, but each one somehow gets partially eaten by group prejudices and side-agendas. Mutual support and protection have no business in any such agreement. Not about characters or companies or settlements or nations. It needs to be simple and clean. On the order of:
I think you mean *fanfare* The River Kingdoms Pledge. It stays noncontroversial and keeps getting buried under the far more visceral threads of verbal combat and drama.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this would fail for the same reason Bluddwolf keeps saying the Reputation System will fail: "If the majority of the population choose to ignore reputation, the reputation system has no meaning."
The system requires powerful and repeated shocks. We can repeat them, but we can't make them powerful enough to alter behavior on our own. The shocks we can give are too fragile - all it takes is one Settlement willing to stand apart and offer training to random killers and our collective power is irreparably diminished. Or do you think there's a snowball's chance that the rest would all band together to take that Settlement out? That seems exceedingly unlikely to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this would fail for the same reason Bluddwolf keeps saying the Reputation System will fail: "If the majority of the population choose to ignore reputation, the reputation system has no meaning."
The shocks we can give are too fragile - all it takes is one Settlement willing to stand apart and offer training to random killers and our collective power is irreparably diminished.
Really? 32 settlements are cool but that 1 can just tear down the whole house? Man if we had a 32:1 ratio of RKP to murder hobo players in the game that's about 3% bad apples which anybody reasonable will call a big success.
This thread isn't to say we should ignore mechanics in the equation, just that we can't change anything about them right now no matter how hard we type until we've played them and have new opinions to share. So let's spend our energy right now on something we CAN control.
I think we're having a disagreement about the motivation of this kind of person. Most of these guys aren't married to the act of obnoxious stabbing for its own sake, they're seeking the power and status they expect to get from it. Power and status are derived from how other players treat them; applause from their peers and tears from the miners that don't want them around for obvious reasons etc.
"Who cares about a stupid killboard of farmers? Have you gotten any Influence for our company today? Are you useful?" That is shifting the source of where to find power and status, relearning how to get what they really want.
If Jack is pwning farmers all day long, and just nobody in his company cares, and everyone is talking about how Thorandil got 732 Influence in one day and how did he do that? Day after day after day, from one company to the next. There's inertia to previously learned expectations like I said, but Jack will start to go out seeking what the people are talking about so he can get his piece of the pie.
Social currency is such water to the fish (fish are so used to water just being there they don't even realize they're in a bunch of water) I think its push one direction or another is getting underestimated.
@Ashgan If it was purely naysaying, "don't do this, don't do that" I would be most of the way to agreeing with you. That leaves an empty spot of what should be done so usually nothing new gets done and the old takes over again. While people focus on it, I've never ever endorsed putting up a bunch of Don't Do This signs.
I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum. This is what we pay attention to, this is who we give the recognition to ("this" being what most people call appropriate gameplay), we don't have time for people who do THAT, that's pretty pointless and takes away from this. Even if there's no resistance, people won't spend the energy if they don't get enough reward, or they see others getting more reward for the energy from doing something else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing is going into Alpha and the start of EE the minority that post on the forums are the majority that will be playing the game. Further, the minority on the forum are also a number of the key players in the majority of chartered companies, settlements, nations etc.I think there are very sound points addressed here.
Right. Yes, I get your point. That's why I said: When we become the minority. Because we will. It doesn't matter if we're in key places, or key settlement leaders. Look, the largest group right now has what? 200ish people? There's way more people out there that belong to larger groups. And even the unorganized mass (the zerg) will make those numbers look small. I do understand what you're saying. But I've played way too many games to truly believe that the people we have here, now, on these forums will really create that much of an impact going forward. Sure, a few groups might retain their land, their numbers. But the smaller groups will be picked off by larger ones who will wait for the game to be in full release before picking it up.
Yes. Because it requires exactly zero of the newcomers to read any forums.
I wasn't talking about them being required to read the forums. This idea you want to put into play is only going to be put into play by those who read the forums. That's what I meant.
It stands a chance of carrying force because we're going to be the ones recruiting and promoting in companys and settlements, the ones in charge of trade conglomerates and rolling in wealth, the ones commanding militarys and bandit empires. When newcomers begin they can either try to start from scratch alone out in the woods, or they're going to come work for us.
Here is the main thing I want to touch on. For all of your rolling in wealth, and militaries that you're commanding. The bandit empires, viking hordes, knightly orders, etc. Those are all options. But plenty of people won't choose any of those. They'll choose to start off in the woods. They'll play with their friends, their buddies, their guilds that are coming into the game from elsewhere. They'll ignore us, and advance on their own. They'll pick off the smaller groups and steadily get larger. It wouldn't take me more than a few seconds to find another guild that, if they shifted their focus to this game, would easily crush any group or alliance that currently exists. I've been a part of that several times.
Groups that like, and much of the zerg mass that comes into the game, will likely end up ignoring whatever you try to teach them. I'll wish you the best of luck with trying to implement this strategy. Hey, I may even kill a few of the people who need killing. But I don't think it's going to work. I think the total population of the game would have to stay incredibly small for it to succeed. I think distancing the murder hobos instead of trying to bring them over to your side is a mistake. But honestly, no passive aggressive anything behind it: Good luck. If you succeed, I'll happily eat my words.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is what we pay attention to, this is who we give the recognition to ("this" being what most people call appropriate gameplay), we don't have time for people who do THAT, that's pretty pointless and takes away from this.
Yeah, I get it. And I'm certainly not trying to discourage you from what you're doing. I think you're right about a lot of it.
But you said it yourself:
When something works people don't give it up easily. Jack needs time to have multiple experiences repeated over and over again where the majority of time his old code of conduct does not reward him like he expected, even got him left out or disadvantaged, before he starts to learn a new set of tools for how to be successful in the new environment.
As long as there's someone around to pat Jack on the head for being a murder hobo - and apparently there will always be someone to do that - then Jack doesn't get the experience he "needs" to learn the new set of tools.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So are you already resigned to the inevitability after OE of it turning into another form of Murderball with different terrain?
I'm guessing about as much as you're expecting it to be a utopia where every person that murders someone can be spanked and taught the proper way to behave.
Reality will likely fall somewhere in the middle. RPK will happen. Mechanics will cause consequences for it. Said consequences will limit it. Much like reds in UO (the murderers) those types will be around. But how many or how few will likely be determined by the penalties associated with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Broad strokes. Broad strokes.
I am hereafter known as the lady that will give you a good spanking. Good thing there's only one way to interpret that.
Here's the thing: Matter and energy are the same thing, there's a planet where it rains glass... sideways, and spiders hunt with physics. THAT blows my mind. Tell me people like being congratulated and looked up to, or they put their energy proportionally where the rewards can be found, I am not at all surprised.
So the non-rhetorical question is what are we going to reward?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Doggan, you now sound exactly as Ryan does. The mis-behavers won't go away, but they will learn what the consequences of their actions are, and they'll decide what to do in the face of those consequences.
Ugh. But yeah, if Ryan said it first then I'll just agree with him. That's what my gaming experience tells me will happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's what my gaming experience tells me will happen.
To follow on: if Goblinworks believes there are "too many" or "too few" predators, they'll adjust the operating parameters, and thus the consequences, to drive things the direction they deem best. They'll ask us for input (Crowdforging), but that input will often not be considered voting--although there's room for them to offer us votes, on things like "on which of the following three features should we work first?"--it will be input that's listened to and used in the design process.
They're deliberately starting with a small player-population, and increasing that population in a controlled manner, not aiming for the "everyone in the pool" approach of a themepark game. Our voices will *count*, and that's one of the things that've gotten some of us to start playing this game two years (or more) before there's an actual application for us to run.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is anyone here saying,
"Because things are bound to go in the wrong direction part of the time, directing our favor towards appropriate gameplay will have no measurable affect on making the game more enjoyable so therefore we shouldn't do it and completely ignore half the game environment in our multi-layered approach to the issue."?
there are a lot of ppl out there that kills for the lolz and, imo, is a good reason as any. no words(or culture) in this world gonna change what pleases them(RKP).These ppl are smart... U better hope the consequences are enough to keep some of them in control for some lenght of time. anyway, want to stop them? EXTERMINATE THEM! :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm sure many will jump with you on the exterminate bandwagon. Others will see what we can do about getting them to play nice with the rest of the children, and some will hope they depart quietly.
We're going to see lots of everything before most of us get sick of this place :-).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is anyone here saying,
"Because things are bound to go in the wrong direction part of the time, directing our favor towards appropriate gameplay will have no measurable affect on making the game more enjoyable so therefore we shouldn't do it and completely ignore half the game environment in our multi-layered approach to the issue."?
Nope, not saying that. Just saying that if you do put some effort into that sort of gameplay, don't be disappointed if it has no impact on the greater playerbase.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you mean *fanfare* The River Kingdoms Pledge. It stays noncontroversial and keeps getting buried under the far more visceral threads of verbal combat and drama.So what we might need is a player commitment (not one proposed by one of the major players) to do our best to make it possible for GW not to need to use rep at all, or to use it sparingly. A commitment to avoid play styles that drive paying customers away. To avoid encouraging such play styles in others.
I'm well aware that there have been several such agreements proposed, but each one somehow gets partially eaten by group prejudices and side-agendas. Mutual support and protection have no business in any such agreement. Not about characters or companies or settlements or nations. It needs to be simple and clean. On the order of:
Sorry, Proxima, but close as it was, I don't. It became tainted by association, it got complained about because of the language, it got complained about because it referred to Wheaton.
My propposal has nothing to do with Golarion, or the River Kingdoms, or anything in the game or any specific person anywhere. It doesn't require anyone to agree with anybody they don't like. Just a pledge that we the players will do our best to make this fun for everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is anyone here saying,
"Because things are bound to go in the wrong direction part of the time, directing our favor towards appropriate gameplay will have no measurable affect on making the game more enjoyable so therefore we shouldn't do it and completely ignore half the game environment in our multi-layered approach to the issue."?
I am most certainly not saying that. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe what is needed is both a mechanical method and a social (community) method to detour ingrained behavior.
The mechanical method (such as a robust and effective Reputation) will provide the support and base. While the community stigmatize those that wish to make PFO a murder-sim will strengthen positive play.
Neither will be enough by itself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instead of saying that general idea and leaving it there, let's think of something specific that starts getting that ball rolling.
The big problem I've found when contemplating how this would play out is that, the instant it changes from being a general principle to a specific application, there's a huge breakdown. Once you identify Jack, and start trying to tell him "that's not cool", the whole dynamic changes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Proxima are you an anthropology student too?
anyway, nihimon. The flip side is as long as we do it then it remains important. I talked about the conversion process before, and hopefully you all remember.
if not: we exist as majority. minority is let into game. we convert them. rinse. repeat.
So as long as we, the majority, keep up with upholding and enforcing these virtues then it will always be important and critical to the game. Basically kill, destroy, and shred those who would usurp us. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instead of saying that general idea and leaving it there, let's think of something specific that starts getting that ball rolling.
Theodum the chronicler was preparing extra paper and ink. There would be lots to be told. Heroes worthy of their deeds would be chronicled and gain fame.
Worthwhile villains would find a way into his chronicles as well.Random bandits - they would get what they deserve - silence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Theodum isn't omnipotent and can't fix what is wrong in the game - but I know some people read him and this is one small but specific contribution that should help to push in the right direction.
It just needs enough people to do their own bit and we can succeed - not in reaching utopia - but to proof the doomsayers wrong and to have a game most of us will enjoy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm coming into this thread a bit too late to add much that hasn't been said already. In fact, this is at least the fourth thread on this topic.
I agree with what Doggan has been saying. I woukd add, it us the height of arrogance or naïveté to believe that our small number will continue to mold the community into the image we want, after the swarm of OE arrives.
If enough of that population has in their mind to mold this community into something different, it will. Ryan's vision will give way to the investor's vision of $$ rolling in. That really is the truth of the matter.
Now I know there is that quote of Ryan's that he'd rather shut it down then see that happen. We all should know that will never happen. If this project is a financial success, far beyond investors dreams, and Ryan said he wanted to shut it down.... Well, we all know CEOs hold their positions at the grace of investors.
I'm hoping above all else that PFO is a financial success. This would mean that the game has mass appeal, and is not some niche game by hope and design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The system requires powerful and repeated shocks.
<embed=Young Frankenstein theme>It's alive!,</embed>
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Proxima, I like the way you think! Nobody knows what's going to happen years down the road, hell we haven't even started Alpha yet. But in the coming weeks and months - during the time frame we can at least see somewhat clearly into - I am looking forward to standing elbow to elbow with you working towards this.
There are no guarantees, nothing is for sure, but it is a noble goal and certainly in the near term the deck is stacked towards that goal because the folks holding the keys to the game mechanics are champions of the ideal.
The only path that certainly leads to complete failure is to not try at all.
CEO
|
| 38 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now I know there is that quote of Ryan's that he'd rather shut it down then see that happen. We all should know that will never happen. If this project is a financial success, far beyond investors dreams, and Ryan said he wanted to shut it down.... Well, we all know CEOs hold their positions at the grace of investors.
Between myself, Mark, Ryan and Paizo, we own a majority of the company. As long as the four entities believe in the dream that is PFO, I think that dream is not likely to be beholden to investors looking for a quick buck.
Many of you know me, and know that I run Paizo in a way where we often choose the right way over the most lucrative way. As the owner of Paizo and the person who has the largest vested interest in the Pathfinder brand, I can tell you that I would never have done this MMO if the vision of a murder simulation was the most likely one. We never would have started. I am not interested in a murder simulation representing the Pathfinder brand. Ryan is right, we would just shut it down. The Pathfinder brand is worth more to me than all the money we might hypothetically make off of this MMO if it was one that I am not proud of.
We have a strong vision for the world we want to create in PFO. Most of you get that vision. We are going to have to fight for that vision. It isn't going to be easy. But I can tell you, as an investor, we are laser focused on winning this battle. We will fight to create the game we have been talking about since 2011. All of Goblinworks and Paizo are united in this fight.
Thanks to everyone who has joined us in this fight. We will not be deterred!
-Lisa
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Instead of saying that general idea and leaving it there, let's think of something specific that starts getting that ball rolling.The big problem I've found when contemplating how this would play out is that, the instant it changes from being a general principle to a specific application, there's a huge breakdown. Once you identify Jack, and start trying to tell him "that's not cool", the whole dynamic changes.
Perhaps the key is to refrain from saying "That's not cool" at all. Simply say nothing at all. A lack of positive reinforcement can be just as powerful as any sort of negative reinforcement.
Having something broad and widely-visible like an influence leader board, or company influence leader board or even a series of leader boards for influence, settlement size (insert size does matter joke here>, trade profits, whatever...and NOT having a kill leader board...would be a good step in the right direction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now I know there is that quote of Ryan's that he'd rather shut it down then see that happen. We all should know that will never happen. If this project is a financial success, far beyond investors dreams, and Ryan said he wanted to shut it down.... Well, we all know CEOs hold their positions at the grace of investors.Between myself, Mark, Ryan and Paizo, we own a majority of the company. As long as the four entities believe in the dream that is PFO, I think that dream is not likely to be beholden to investors looking for a quick buck.
Many of you know me, and know that I run Paizo in a way where we often choose the right way over the most lucrative way. As the owner of Paizo and the person who has the largest vested interest in the Pathfinder brand, I can tell you that I would never have done this MMO if the vision of a murder simulation was the most likely one. We never would have started. I am not interested in a murder simulation representing the Pathfinder brand. Ryan is right, we would just shut it down. The Pathfinder brand is worth more to me than all the money we might hypothetically make off of this MMO if it was one that I am not proud of.
We have a strong vision for the world we want to create in PFO. Most of you get that vision. We are going to have to fight for that vision. It isn't going to be easy. But I can tell you, as an investor, we are laser focused on winning this battle. We will fight to create the game we have been talking about since 2011. All of Goblinworks and Paizo are united in this fight.
Thanks to everyone who has joined us in this fight. We will not be deterred!
-Lisa
I'm not trying to deter the vision, I just don't see the tools in place to secure it. I see the mechanics suggested as potentially hitting the wrong target. The true griefer won't care about those systems.
One thing that could be done to add more teeth to the banning of an account is to attach the account to a pass key. The pass key is a one time use number that has a cost. Now if you ban an account, the griefer would not only lose the remainder of their monthly subscription, but they would have to purchase a new key.
Would someone be willing to lose potentially $65 for the opportunity to grief a few times, I doubt it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't expect a complete elimination of griefing/ganking/whatever. In my opinion, that isn't reasonable or even desirable. Quite the opposite, this game is supposed to be a little dangerous, and such people add to that kind of spice. The goal, as I see it at least, is to keep down to a level where it is an unfortunate cost of doing "game business" (is that an oxymoron?), and not letting it take over the game. A little cayenne makes the gumbo...too much and toss it in the trash...
It would be a shame if we didn't try to find ways this side of game mechanics to influence game culture. How often are we going to get that kind of opportunity? It is part of what I'm here for and as I see it part of what's going to make this game fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The big problem I've found when contemplating how this would play out is that, the instant it changes from being a general principle to a specific application, there's a huge breakdown. Once you identify Jack, and start trying to tell him "that's not cool", the whole dynamic changes.
What is this fascination on these forums with Don't Do It signs? Any comment about influencing player culture is immediately reduced to "Don't do this. Don't do that. Oh, that will never work!" GW has put up plenty of those through mechanics, we don't need to supply more that don't have teeth anyway. That has never been on the table as a suggestion.
Perhaps the key is to refrain from saying "That's not cool" at all. Simply say nothing at all. A lack of positive reinforcement can be just as powerful as any sort of negative reinforcement.
On the field, ignoring someone usually has the same practical affect as approving. The person "knows" they're right because it's been reinforced so many times before, we just become the jerks for not doing our part of the script, but they still know they're right.
That's why I'm focusing on coming up with our own customs and habits that work in the game and become second nature and get passed on. If nothing else they crowd out the old things. Even better, doing the new customs would be mutually exclusive to the old ways.
@Bluddwolf If OE exposed the 6000 EE to an immediate influx of 20,000 more players you'd have a point; but that's not the growth plan is it? It's a much shallower curve where the uninitiated remain outnumbered by the established and self-reinforcing. Plenty of opportunity to flay minds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I just don't see the tools in place to secure it.
Perhaps, given that we as-yet have no game to play, we're not supposed to see the tools, like a bear-trap in those weeds over there. We've been *repeatedly* told there will be tools, so maybe we wait until we're in-game, walking through the weeds, and look for them then.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Perhaps the key is to refrain from saying "That's not cool" at all. Simply say nothing at all. A lack of positive reinforcement can be just as powerful as any sort of negative reinforcement.On the field, ignoring someone usually has the same practical affect as approving. The person "knows" they're right because it's been reinforced so many times before, we just become the jerks for not doing our part of the script, but they still know they're right.
That's why I'm focusing on coming up with our own customs and habits that work in the game and become second nature and get passed on. If nothing else they crowd out the old things. Even better, doing the new customs would be mutually exclusive to the old ways.
I agree. I'm not talking about "on the field"...but rather more of an institutionalized approach, as you suggest in your second paragraph. So I think we're saying the same thing. It's a group behavior dynamic that can swing things the way we'd like them to swing. Shall we call it passive discouragement?
The leadership of any group in game, whether fundamentally "good" or "evil", can find many perfectly legitimate reasons to discourage ganking by encouraging other behaviors. This won't stop independent gankers who just do it for kicks, but it will discourage lots of group members.
And that is how cultures change.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf If OE exposed the 6000 EE to an immediate influx of 20,000 more players you'd have a point; but that's not the growth plan is it? It's a much shallower curve where the uninitiated remain outnumbered by the established and self-reinforcing. Plenty of opportunity to flay minds.
Like Bluddwolf, I'm thinking that Ryan isn't planning to keep the population at 6000 or 8000 for however many months EE lasts. Here's what he said Tuesday, though there may be better quotes. He doesn't talk about OE:
Settlement size will be a function of density. If there are 100 settlements and 50,000 players, it's not unreasonable to expect that the average settlement would have hundreds of players. We hope to get to that point in reasonably short order - maybe 6-12 months....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The big problem I've found when contemplating how this would play out is that, the instant it changes from being a general principle to a specific application, there's a huge breakdown. Once you identify Jack, and start trying to tell him "that's not cool", the whole dynamic changes.What is this fascination on these forums with Don't Do It signs? Any comment about influencing player culture is immediately reduced to "Don't do this. Don't do that. Oh, that will never work!" GW has put up plenty of those through mechanics, we don't need to supply more that don't have teeth anyway. That has never been on the table as a suggestion.
I must have misunderstood this:
If Jack entered the game rolling hard and everyone around him asked "What was the point of that?", said "Don't do that or the best guilds won't accept you if you get the reputation as THAT GUY", or mocked him for seeking fights with characters that had no real ability to fight back, the players around Jack would be teaching him those are actions that get him nothing good so are a waste of his time.
My apologies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like Bluddwolf, I'm thinking that Ryan isn't planning to keep the population at 6000 or 8000 for however many months EE lasts.
The best Ryan quote on this I recall is:
I expect we'll be around 100k by the time we transition to Open Enrollment but that's a guess.