1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

A Simple Mathematic Formula Is Starting To Explain The Bizarre Prevalence Of Altruism

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by EnigmaMaitreya, Jul 18, 2008.

  1. EnigmaMaitreya

    EnigmaMaitreya Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    While this does NOT reference UO directly, it does deal with an aspect of UO that I believe a number of people agree is important.

    How A Simple Mathematic Formula Is Starting To Explain The Bizarre Prevalence Of Altruism In Society

    An extract (One could view Diversity as Templates/Class's as well as a more conventional definition --- Human Beings)

     
  2. Fink

    Fink Guest

    I disagree. :twak:
     
  3. I disagree, both that it's viewed as important and that the mathematics are relavent, I think it's over stating somethng simple (in both cases). It's all very well using a formula to chart the effects in any given scenario but maths rarely takes in to account the 'human' factor. Consider this, if that article was true that would mean managers/bosses were the most cooperative people on the planet, in my view their not.

    In short that article doesn't take in to account pessemistic persolnality traits such as greed, it also doesn't take in to account that cooperation specifically in PGG's usually isn't done with any forethought and is done just because a group of friends want to do something together. (for fun or whatever other reason) As neither greed nor reason which are always random can be calculated it is (imo) impossible for a formula to predict especially when theres usually a mix of both which can change/increase/decrease at any given moment.
     
  4. Landicine

    Landicine Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    36
    A lot of game theory stuff is problematic since real people sometimes make really bad decisions or really strange decisions or no decisions. It can be interesting stuff when taken with other ideas from other fields. Raph Koster talked about it a bit in this talk I think (been a bit since I looked at it):

    http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/smallworlds_files/frame.htm
     
  5. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Heh, it got moved.

    This gets pretty complicated, no doubt why you didn't say much about it yourself.

    Suffice it to say that variety is good. Rewarding variety is a good thing.

    Elite powergamers that dominate games currently aren't going to be too keen about upsetting their applecart though.
     
  6. EnigmaMaitreya

    EnigmaMaitreya Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    The "Important" I was referring to was UO Communuity. I do believe most UO Player view Community as important.

    I am not going to disagree that if this gets to far down into detail predictions/modeling it probably wont float..

    But if one stands back and looks at the generalizations, then I do believe they may be on to something, in terms of Diversity having an impact on how the Community is.

    It would seem relatively clear,

    that if a Community were closed / of a finite makeup that Community then would tend to form vertical social structures.

    that if a Community were diverse, then that community would tend to form cooperative / horizontal social structures.

    I assume the driving force in both cases is ones perception of "I can do it all".

    If one is in a vertical social structure then one is probably with peers. Such as a Guild of Paladins, Guild of Necromancers etc.

    If one is in a horizontal social structure then one is probably amongst a diverse group. Some Paladins, some Necromancers etc.

    I would assume the horizontal structure would tend to pressure the people to specialize (but may be a generalist with specializations).

    I would assume the vertical structure would tend to pressure people to be tiered. First rank, Second Rank etc. This probably would tend to deny generalization.

    So if we have two structures, one tending toward generalization and one tending towards Ranking then they each would require a different rule set, to survive.

    I assume the generalization would favor cooperation.

    I assume the ranking would favor obedience.

    An analysis was published comparing (this was shortly after the Cold War Ended) U.S. and Soviet armed forces.

    In General, the U.S. forces have (since WW II) been more successful with fewer members. This is attributed to the delegation of decisions to the group (battalion, platoon, squad etc) performing the action. These groups tend to be generalized rather than specialized OR if you will generalized with specializations.

    The Soviet forces tended to be Ranking and as such there was little to no delegation.

    Were I believe it is relevant to UO is based in my beleif that what is best for UO is a strong community, both in game and on the message boards.

    For this community to be at its best, I believe there needs to be a diverse set of people. I believe these people need to be able to advocate for a diverse set of templates.

    *Steps off the Soap Box*
     
  7. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    I pretty much agree with you except that you don't need to look at a single player and say that their choice, such as being in a guild that's not diverse, means much here. It's the overall diversity that you want for more socialization and cooperation. Let people specialize, but as part of a bigger picture of variety.

    Your final point about diverse templates is on the money. But equally important is play styles. UO used to be filled with a wide variety. The cooperative events included things like stage plays, chess competitions, buy-a-date auctions, roleplay events of all kinds such as murder mysteries, public and private auctions, PvP competitions, repair arms events, tamer competitions, and on and on.

    Now, UO is specialized in items powergaming. And lost is the wide variety of anything else.
     
  8. Landicine

    Landicine Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    36
    I think powergaming and item collection are a big part of many online games out there. I also think that UO does have other parts. PvP and Roleplaying are the big ones. Having talked to a few friends on a "roleplaying" server for WoW, I can say more actual roleplaying goes on even on the deadest UO shard.

    I think looking at individual character's specialization isn't as important as looking a player's account's makeup. I would say most accounts follow a similar breakdown of characters. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but maybe something like this:

    1. Warrior
    2. Mage
    3. Crafter
    4. PvM Template (bard, tamer, treasure hunter) or Gatherer (lumberjack,fisher)
    5. Secondary of one of the above

    My main account for example:
    1. Warrior (Paladin Swordfighter)
    2. Mage (Treasure Hunter)
    3. Crafter (Smith/Tailor)
    4. Gatherer (Fisher)
    5. Secondary Warrior (Ninja)
    6. Secondary Mage (Tank Mage in training)
    7. Holder Character

    Since most people use their accounts to do everything, they have less need of others.
     
  9. Salty Pete

    Salty Pete Guest

    Mine is kind of similar I guess...

    1. Beggar (stealth/mage/fisherman/beggar)
    2. Tamer (mage tamer)
    3. Necromage (necro/mage)
    4. scribe (magery/inscription)
    5. Bard (mage/bard)
    6. crafter (a character I never use and should just delete.)
     
  10. Coppelia

    Coppelia Guest

    I disagree, when collaboration is needed and that people doing it well are rewarded, others don't magically start to imitate them to get the same. They ASK to get the same while not changing their behavior.
    That formula forgot the great power of the attraction of the comfort. "I do that perfectly well with my method, I sure don't want to try anything else".