   Creating Dynamic Living Worlds from the Bottom-Up !    
  Hi Gamedev community,This thread builds on the discussion started in the thread 'Creating Constructive/Social Behaviour in Online Worlds'.It was Kylotan who correctly gave the argument that although you may create dynamic living societies based on deep simulation you will never get rid of the grief player. He was right. Therefore I started this new thread and restated the purpose of the discussion.What we want is not getting rid of the grief player. An action of grief, of aggression is absolutely normal in a living dynamic society. What we want is a world where thanks to the deep simulation in the world there is no need for scripted adventures created by the gamedesigner as the world already allows for massive experimentation and possibilities.Simcity is a good example here. It took Will Wright 4 years after that game already was created to get it in production as the financers didn't understand that there was no goal set forth by the gamedesigner. It was just a simplified simulation of how it would work in real life if you could build a city like that. The fun emerged from all the interdepended relations that drived the simulation and the consequences that came out of every action you undertook. As a gamedesigner you could set forth advetures or goals that the player should reach, such as build a city of 50.000 people but this is not necessary as the player set forth those goals themselves.So this thread should be a discussion about how do I create such a deep simulation that is interesting to the player? Or even beter, How do I create a living dynamic Society existing of real players. A scenarios could be a simulation of today's New York where you can do all kind of activities and very important where all your actions have real-like consequences!Jay, who was a very active poster in that previous thread is already bussy trying to create a deep simulation of an environment. All his creatures, human beings and fauna and flora are driven by simple rules. This is an ai world and has not yet been transformed in a game for one player or several players or thousands of players but he is definitely getting an understanding of how you create such a living dynamic enviroment.Until now there has not yet been created a living society of real players. Alphaworld was one of the first 3d environments were people could run around, chat and even build there own houses. But what it missed were activities so that in the end it was not more than a chatterbox where people did not even take the effort to walk around. A lot of people were just standing still in the entrance of the world not even looking to the one they were speaking to.To make a big leap, than we had the current MMORPG's. Here you had the activity but it was based on a single player experience of going on an adventure or doing a quest. So what you got was a lot of players not playing together but mostly next to eachother each one going for the maximum points to win in the game. Others used it as a chatterbox like in alphaworld. The next leap should be people playing together were the challenge are the other players. Growing a virtual society inspired on the dynamic we know from real life societies, that's the way to go!I am quite surprised that there are so much MMORPG's in development (all of them as far as I know) that build on this same gameplay experience and not on a simulation based approach that allows for much more open-ended gameplay.I invite you all to discuss this issue and even beter to discuss ideas of scenarios of environments you want to simulate, how deep you want to go and how you will build it up.MarcDM[edited by - MarcDM on June 11, 2002 6:59:24 AM]
  I think that this is a pretty good idea and I''ve allready formed a few scenarios from it in my mind. But before I bring up any serious comments, I have one question I''d like to have answered. How open are you to opposing, consevative or contrary viewpoints?Thanks for answering. And I''m looking forward to replying.  ;  I suggest anyone interested in this topic should at least browse the original thread.  Warning: it''s rather long.One point I''d like to make on this is that I (and I''m SURE I speak for Marc on this) am not looking for advice on whether or not this is a money making idea or if people will play it.  I think we are both looking for input on what you would like to see in a MMORPG and an emergent social system.  What questions I personally have are as follows:How much interest do you have in such social gameplay where the world emerges from player actions and interactions (ability to build homes and businesses, ability to trade, flexible item system that allows you to design and create items that are within your resource, etc.)?What do you think such a system should feature?What do you see as the future of MMORPG''s?I don''t want this to be a flame war on whether or not current RPG''s and MMORPG''s suck.  They have their place but I''m looking at going in a different direction.  My ideas follow more of a RPG/RTS style.Also, Marc, I left a reply in the old thread about Asheron''s Call.  Check it out.  It''s very much like what you are talking about.  The world seemed somewhat uninspiring from what I could see (and it IS based on the old RPG gameplay) but some features, such as spells a social interaction, are very interesting.- Jay    "Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu SuzukiGet Tranced!;  Contrary viewpoints are welcome as far as I''m concerned... as long as you don''t mention money! =)Also, keep in mind that I have created working models (These will be posted in the near future).  I know that such systems can be balanced and I see a great potential for entertainment value.  So, I''m not looking to hear "Why are you bothering, it will never work" as I''ve more than done my homework and such comments will fall on deaf ears.  On the other hand, if you say "I hate society, I want to run around and kill other players", this would be acceptable as you are a) telling me what you like to do in MMORPG''s and b) allowing me room to explain how this system may actually appeal to you.  Whether or not you agree would be up to you.  I would like to get an idea of what people are looking for in games whether they like the idea or not.  If you want to tell us that our idea sucks, at least let us know why and what you see as a better solutions.  Also, I''m looking more for fact than opinion.  But, if you are already taking the time to provide an opinion, why not also be productive in doing so?Kylotan provided a lot of scepticism in the previous thread, which is good but he was unwilling to provide any details as to what would improve the idea or how he came to his conclusions.  This is like telling a builder that he shouldn''t build his own house as he''s finishing up the roof because you''re angry at him for doing it.  Why are you angry?  What would be a compromise?I''m looking for constructive criticism on a concept that is solidified but isn''t in game form yet.  I''d like to move it in that direction.  The question is, what do people find interesting?    "Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu SuzukiGet Tranced!;  I haven''t checked the other thread to see if this is posted over there (too lazy) but an easy way to encourage group action would be to enable forming groups like you can in a MUD; ie I form a group and anyone can join or leave and when i move everyone in the group automatically follows me.  Using a mechanism like this you could evolve story events such that only a group could proceed.  For example; in an isolated village there is a beggar on a corner that offers a hint about a quest and refers the player to a hermit in the woods.  Player goes to the hermit and the hermit won''t give him the quest saying, "Its too difficult for one person," or "Your party is not strong enough, come back when your stronger."  Thus encouraging 1) group to be formed 2)seeking out additional (stronger) members.  And it follows that once groups are important to progressing in the game, social interaction will evolve because who wants a jack *ss in their group?  ;  I think the place to start is with realistic physics. so many games (mmorpg''s especially) limit the players to very structured interaction with the environment around them. you can kill monsters, trade and talk. thats about it. without any way to have a lasting effect on the gameworld, it all becomes rather pointless.tef  ;quote:Original post by ThoughtBubble  I think that this is a pretty good idea and I''ve allready formed a few scenarios from it in my mind. But before I bring up any serious comments, I have one question I''d like to have answered. How open are you to opposing, consevative or contrary viewpoints?  I can handle them quite well ThoughtBubble1. :-) Feel free to speak out loud!;  One idea I''ve suggested before - remove money. All items would be either found or created, and trade would be between players by way of bartering. Your economy is automatically self-balancing that way, and you create numerous mini-goals for people in obtaining the components for whatever items they wish to acquire.If you balance it so there''s not quite enough resources, you can create some competition between players. On the other hand, if you balance it so that there''s just enough, but the world is fairly large, you should get a lot of exploration and trade going on.  Making sure no single part of the world has everything you could possibly need is important for this.    [ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files ]  ;quote:Original post by Kylotan  (FROM ORIGINAL THREAD)I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. In this whole thread, I have had AC''s hierarchical system in mind, and now you''re acting as if you''d never heard of it. Odd. And no, I don''t believe I ever said such a thing wouldn''t work. Please find the relevant quote. However, Asheron''s Call doesn''t do half of the things that have been asked for in this thread, which is a large part of why I''ve said that making clans and guilds is insufficient to create cooperative behaviour.  I''ve heard the name before, but no, I was not aware that Asheron''s Call already had a system with similarities to what Marc had described.  As I''ve said, I don''t play MMORPG''s.  I''ve tried but got bored too quickly (I''m not too easily impressed with games anymore which is why I have an interest in seeing things taken to the next level... whatever that may be).quote:Original post by Kylotan  One idea I''ve suggested before - remove money. All items would be either found or created, and trade would be between players by way of bartering. Your economy is automatically self-balancing that way, and you create numerous mini-goals for people in obtaining the components for whatever items they wish to acquire.If you balance it so there''s not quite enough resources, you can create some competition between players. On the other hand, if you balance it so that there''s just enough, but the world is fairly large, you should get a lot of exploration and trade going on.  Making sure no single part of the world has everything you could possibly need is important for this.  I agree!When you start with a world from scratch and expect a society to emerge, there is no money in the beginning and therefore, there has to be a way for the singular agent to put a value to an item and has to be able to trade other agents.  Although there is initially no money, I''ve made it possible for some valuable resources to be used to create coins.  The value of the coin fluctuates with the value of the resource (much like the value of the RLife dollar). =)Items are created with knowledge and resources.  A knowledgable agent may pool resources to create an item.  This allows for items that can be created to any spec, provided that the agent can meet the requirements.  This is balanced of course.Also, items are persistant.  An item remains in the world until it is destroyed.  So, they can be created, found, traded and destroyed.  Everything in my world is destructible.I''ve based my world in a futuristic setting.  I figured the sword and sorcery model has been done to death.  How does everyone feel about futuristic RPG''s?  I still planning having worlds with forests and (hopefully) pretty scenery but you''d have the capabilities of creating lasers, vehicles, etc.- Jay    "Strictly speaking, there is no need to teach the student, because the student himself is Buddha, even though he may not be aware of it." - Shunryu SuzukiGet Tranced!;quote:Original post by ThoughtBubble   I think that this is a pretty good idea and I've allready formed a few scenarios from it in my mind. But before I bring up any serious comments, I have one question I'd like to have answered. How open are you to opposing, consevative or contrary viewpoints?  Bring it on!quote:Original post by MarcDM   I am quite surprised that there are so much MMORPG's in development (all of them as far as I know) that build on this same gameplay experience and not on a simulation based approach that allows for much more open-ended gameplay.   Boggle.  Cooperate gameplay is nothing new.  Haven't you seen clans on EQ compete against one another for camping ground?quote:Original post by Kylotan   One idea I've suggested before - remove money. All items would be either found or created, and trade would be between players by way of bartering. Your economy is automatically self-balancing that way, and you create numerous mini-goals for people in obtaining the components for whatever items they wish to acquire.If you balance it so there's not quite enough resources, you can create some competition between players. On the other hand, if you balance it so that there's just enough, but the world is fairly large, you should get a lot of exploration and trade going on. Making sure no single part of the world has everything you could possibly need is important for this.    I have doubts that this will work.  A "not quite enough resources" system usually means a close economy system.  And this dosen't work because there are players out there that likes to hoard resources or whatever junk it may be.  So what you will be looking at is not trade, but giant monopolies guild/order controlling all the resource in the game.[edited by - mooglez on June 11, 2002 12:15:46 AM]