I''ll follow through on the press idea, to show how it works. If a player builds a media organization, what is his motivation?

He gains power by having some control of the flow of information. He sways those of his choosing. He charges for the service of providing information, building wealth (and power). The thing is, he really provides information. He sets up some infrastructure to gather the information and transmit the information, and then reports it in whatever manner he chooses, putting a spin on it if he chooses.

Other players will come to rely on this information, but they may have to pay for it.

Interesting idea...

But what ways will a player have of finding out the truth, that don''t depend on other players?

Say you recieve a message saying "Quart fleet attacks planet Wubba" from another player...is there a way to ACTUALY find out if this is the truth? Not asking other players (reading player owned newspapers, etc..) but by actualy traveling to the planet and seeing for yourself?

Is there a way to conform information that has no reliance on other players?

If so then what is the point of listening to what the players say, as you can find out what the real truth is?

If you are going to "model" the truth in the game (i.e. send a bunch of ships to said planet) then there must be a way for the player to "give orders" to do these changes...even in your approch with commands trickleing down to other players...at some point a player will need to have axcess to the "game truth" and a way to modify it (move ships to planet)...this could be directly as in a RTS, or by giveing the command to some game system AI, or anything inbetween....at some level you will still need all the clunky features of a traditional game, ways to control/modify it, ways to view the "truth", etc...and if the "truth" is acessable, why bother listening to the "rumer mill"?

But what if you model the "truth"...but don''t let players view it...instead all thier information comes from other players...then what is the point of "modeling" the game world? If you send ships to attack a planet, but the only way you ever know if they succeed, fail, even leave the starbase; is through other players...then what is the point of even giveing the player controls to command such actions? If players are never given the ability to view the "modeled" game world, then what is the point of haveing it? If players can never find out the "truth" (as ''modeled'' in the game world) then how can they even be expected to think it''s important?

But if you don''t intend to "model" the game...there are no game modeled ships attacking a game modeled planet...no game world data structures...And the only "truth" is what you believe, basied on information from other players...well this is a bit chaotic...a new player could log into the game a shout "I''m the master of the universe!" and at least some percentage of the players may believe him/her...and without any way to find out the real "truth", then is there any real reason to doubt him/her either?



here is an idea...get a bunch of friends together...fire up some game...but turn the moniter around so you can''t see it but your friends can...then have then "guide" you through the game as you play "blind" (heck even turn the sound off)...just try to get a feel for haveing to depend on others for information...this is just an experiment...pick a game that needs keyboard input(something like Tic-Tac-Toe, for example)...and throw some notes into a hat and have your friends pick from them...notes that make one friend "have it in for you", another "wants to see you do well", etc...this way you don''t quite know who wants to see you fail or succeed...then give them some notepads to write thier comments on...some comments are "global" others are "private" (use two different colors of pads for example) all your friends can read the "global" comments...but only you can read the "private" ones (make it so you can only communicate the same way)...play the game like this for a while then stop and check the screen...see how well you have done...then swap positions with a friend so they control while you watch...just try it as an experiment, see what makes it fun, what doesn''t work, ect...

Perhaps you should also look a realistic engine to insert "random" occurances into the game environment. After all some of the most decisive incidents are caused not by man, but his reactions to environmental conditions (disease, climate). Also "free agents" to simulate religious upheaval and other such events...

Interesting project.



[edited by - debaser on October 27, 2002 7:48:21 PM]

MSW,
The "real truth" is gathered through infrastructure, which costs money: things like satelites, probes, spaceships, eyewitnesses, spies, investigators, media organizations, cameras, etc. Not everyone in the world is directly using or paying for these things. Those that directly manipulate such infrastructure naturally have a better handle on what they are seeing. But nobody can be in two places at once. Ninety nine percent of information is second hand.

Let''s say you are a player in the game. If you want the "real truth", build the infrastructure to gather it reliably. If you don''t do that, than you''re going to have to pay someone else for that service. And since your resources aren''t unlimited, even if you have built the infrastructure to gather information, you''re still going to pay others for information that you didn''t gather.

quote: Original post by MSW
If so then what is the point of listening to what the players say, as you can find out what the real truth is?

At great expense. Nobody knows everything.

quote: Original post by MSW
...and if the "truth" is acessable, why bother listening to the "rumer mill"?

Again, all "truth" is only available if you have the infrastructure to procure it.

quote: Original post by MSW
But what if you model the "truth"...but don''t let players view it...instead all thier information comes from other players...then what is the point of "modeling" the game world?

*sigh*

Of course the game world is modeled. But it''s only reported to those who see it, or have built the infrastructure to see it. And building the infrastructure requires finesse, money, technology, trust, and many things.

quote: Original post by MSW
But if you don''t intend to "model" the game...there are no game modeled ships attacking a game modeled planet...no game world data structures...And the only "truth" is what you believe, basied on information from other players...well this is a bit chaotic...a new player could log into the game a shout "I''m the master of the universe!" and at least some percentage of the players may believe him/her...and without any way to find out the real "truth", then is there any real reason to doubt him/her either?

Sure, you could shout that you are the master if you want. But existing power hierarchies and infrastructure will make it clear that isn''t the case. And beside, who the hell is going to hear you shout "I am the master!". Nobody''s going to hear you unless you pay someone else to propogate this information, or you build some type of transmission device to do so, or you have ten billion leaflets printed up and ship them out everywhere and have them dropped. If you feel such a campaign has merit, then by all means, do it.

quote: Original post by MSW here is an idea...get a bunch of friends together...fire up some game...but turn the moniter around so you can't see it but your friends can...then have then "guide" you through the game as you play "blind" (heck even turn the sound off)...just try to get a feel for haveing to depend on others for information...this is just an experiment...pick a game that needs keyboard input(something like Tic-Tac-Toe, for example)...and throw some notes into a hat and have your friends pick from them...notes that make one friend "have it in for you", another "wants to see you do well", etc...this way you don't quite know who wants to see you fail or succeed...then give them some notepads to write thier comments on...some comments are "global" others are "private" (use two different colors of pads for example) all your friends can read the "global" comments...but only you can read the "private" ones (make it so you can only communicate the same way)...play the game like this for a while then stop and check the screen...see how well you have done...then swap positions with a friend so they control while you watch...just try it as an experiment, see what makes it fun, what doesn't work, ect...

Your analogy doesn't entirely work. You're making it sound like the player shouldn't have access to graphics or video. This isn't the case. Let's say player A installs satelite technology to look down at planet X. The game engine produces graphics. Player A has access to those graphics. Now, player B is a paying customer of player A. Or perhaps player B is the defense minister of the same government to which player A is, and player A is head of the satelite program. Either way, player A can send the graphical imagery to player B. Or perhaps player A could modify the graphical data and then send it to player B. I don't mean modify as in Photoshop, but modify as in a game playing option.

[edited by - bishop_pass on October 27, 2002 8:15:55 PM]

quote:
Your analogy doesn''t entirely work. You''re making it sound like the player shouldn''t have access to graphics or video. This isn''t the case. Let''s say player A installs satelite technology to look down at planet X. The game engine produces graphics. Player A has access to those graphics. Now, player B is a paying customer of player A. Or perhaps player B is the defense minister of the same government to which player A is, and player A is head of the satelite program. Either way, player A can send the graphical imagery to player B. Or perhaps player A could modify the graphical data and then send it to player B. I don''t mean modify as in Photoshop, but modify as in a game playing option.

So how is player A to install such satelite technology to begin with...and how is to REALY know that it''s pointed at planet X...If player Z manufactures the satelite technology to sell to player A, then how does player A REALY know he is buying the correct technology to look down at a planet?...and could Player Z manufacture satelite technology that can mask his/her own agents if caught in the spyscope?

what happens if Player A is offline, but Player B is online? does player B still recieve the satelite images? and if Player A is offline, can Player Z make a "service call" on the satelite technology? Would such mechanisams as satelite technology always function, or could they break down as in real life?


I''m just trying to point out the "open" the game "model"...the more seemingly "trivial little details" like these will break the game...at some point you have to set absolute limits...a ''flight simmuation'' doesn''t also simulate driveing a car, or scuba diveing...games are no different, they focus on the task at hand and cut everything else out...

Don''t get me wrong...it''s a cool idea...but, I can just see established players feeding off of "blind" newbies like there is no tomorrow...there needs to be something to balance things out better.

quote: Original post by MSW
Don''t get me wrong...it''s a cool idea...but, I can just see established players feeding off of "blind" newbies like there is no tomorrow...

People need to cooperate to get anywhere. Go ahead and mess with satelite technology if you want and lie. How long will you stay in business?

quote: Original post by MSW
there needs to be something to balance things out better.

I don''t see the need to balance anything until there''s something to balance. You''re shooting at nonexistent things here. If we could first lay out some preliminary game elements and mechanics, then we might have something to balance.