Topic

Choices and Consequences [LONG]

If it's too long, don't read it :)

Glitch is a game in which the choices that players make influence each other: If Player A decides to go one way in the Ancestral Lands, Player B might decide to go another way. How Player A harvests barnacles might depend on how Player B harvests barnacles. What tree Player A plants in an empty patch may depend on what trees other players have planted in other patches.  In his book "Micromotives and Macrobehavior" nobel prize winner Thomas Schelling uses the term interdependent decision making to describe situations in which people make choices based on what they know or believe about the choices of others.

Interdependent decision making can produce some interesting outcomes. Consider, for example, the case of 10 people having a meal together in a restaurant, all of whom prefer steak, but none of whom is willing to be the only person ordering steak. For purposes of the example, assume that they're not able to discuss what they'd like to order or say things like "I'll order steak if you will" while orders are being taken. So when the waiter comes, the first person to order chooses chicken, so as to be sure they are not the only person ordering steak. The same thing happens with every other person, and so all 10 people end up eating chicken. I've used this example because it's simple and easy to understand. If you read Schelling's book, you will find more complicated real-life examples which illustrate how interdependent decision making leads to a variety of cases in which choices that seem neutral or desirable at an individual level lead to a collective outcome that's negative or undesirable for everyone.

Here's one way in which such a negative outcome may occur:  (1) There is a choice Q that will produce a negative outcome if many people make that choice, but will have no impact, little impact, or positive impact if only a few people make that choice. (2) Some people choose Q, believing that this is a choice that few people will make.  (3) The choice of Q is seen by others as giving an advantage to those who make it. (4) This leads others to make choice Q in order to avoid being at a disadvantage. (5) As the percentage of people making a choice that's seen to give an advantage increases, more people alter their choice to avoid being at a disadvantage relative to others. (5) In the end, many people have chosen Q, even though most think it a negative thing that many people have chosen Q.*

Is the negative outcome the "fault" of those who chose Q for what they believed to be good reasons having nothing to do with gaining an advantage, or is it the negative outcome the "fault" of those who then chose Q to avoid being at a disadvantage?  Is the "fault" with those see the relative advantage as something important, or is the "fault" with those who believe the perceived advantage is not important and will not or should not be the basis for making choices?

The answer is "none of the above" if you understand that a system designed to provide choice Q is a system in which some people might make choice Q, and others might then respond to that choice by changing their choices, and so on. Just because a negative outcome might occur doesn't mean it will occur -- but it might. So if you are the designer of the system, you have to be careful about offering choices like Q, especially if the potential negative consequences are more like toothpaste than chicken. 

Now you might think I had a specific thing in mind when I wrote this, and you might be right about that, but you also might be wrong about what the specific thing is that I had in mind. So just for the record: I wrote most of this months back.  I had wanted the option of making a part of my house (or a second house) open to the public, but with some controls. It seemed to me there were a lot of great things players could do if we had this option, especially if it was combined with a more flexible permission system. For example, I had what I thought was a great plan for setting up a Community Kitchen. However, discussions with others resulted in my thinking further about all the things TS has to take into account when considering such requests, and I wrote the above to help me in thinking things through.

I still think some of us could do great things if we had more options for privacy and permissions, but I also understand that adding such choices may have consequences that are difficult to predict or control or undo. So I found a different way to pursue the goal of setting up a Community Kitchen.

---------- 
*When the negative outcome from this kind of choice process results in the depletion or degradation of a shared resource, this is referred to as The Tragedy of the Commons. Schelling's book describes other ways in which interdependent decision making can lead to unexpected negative outcomes, one of the most interesting examples being that of ethnically segregated neighborhoods.

Posted 7 months ago by Splendora Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • Are there milkshakes?
    Posted 7 months ago by ☣ elf ☣ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ elf...No Milkshakes

    @ Splendora...I always love your posts, you have a way of expressing a lot of my jumbled thoughts. I wasn't able to express my concerns on these issues due to lack of eloquence.
    Posted 7 months ago by Anya Karenya Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "So I found a different way to pursue the goal of setting up a Community Kitchen."

    I like this strategy!
    Posted 7 months ago by Miss Portinari Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Interesting!  I would argue that all multiplayer games have states where the choices that players make influence/affect other players of the game. Glitch isn't necessarily "the only game in town" in this regard.

    In the specific case you mention (making part of your house open to the public with controls), there is no choice offered by the game in this matter, so would it be fair to say that applying the context of Interdependent decision making is invalid? We could make the claim that since home streets are public, there then is a choice offered by the game in this matter. A negative outcome is indeed possible if we expand the range of the case to include not just the house but the house and public street.

    I suppose that prepared food (constructed from in-game recipes, and any non-basic, non-locked resource for that matter) left available on the home street would be susceptible to a tragedy of the commons. However would we be able to claim Successful Capitalism with Basic Resources, since there exists individual property rights (i do have the choice to decide what is and is not on my street) and (near)limitless Basic Resources available?
    Posted 7 months ago by CleverCharacterName Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I enjoyed reading this since the take away is: If you really think about it, it is not black and white. Most things are more complicated than that.

    I think the discussion of ideas is so great. And TS reads them. Some ideas they may have thought of and tossed out for resons we don't know. Other ideas they may still be mulling but look to how players feel about them. Other ideas may never have occurred to them, even ones that seem simple to a given player.

    Keep talking.
    Posted 7 months ago by Lord Bacon-o Subscriber! | Permalink
  • But i want milkshake..
    Posted 7 months ago by ☣ elf ☣ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I would really like it if you had to be on a floor of a house to interact with items on that floor, even if it would mean having to carry stuff up and down stairs.  Along with that?  Lockable doors.   You could then open the ground floor of your house, even the first two floors, without having to allow or be concerned about access to the third floor.  
    Posted 7 months ago by WalruZ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @WalruZ Lockable doors within our homes would be Ideal!!! We could open our ground floor to guests while assured any valuables were stored upstairs.
    Posted 7 months ago by Anya Karenya Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Wow Splendora you said it perfectly. Much better than I ever could in my other thread about home streets.

    Does it matter if just a few glitchen lock their street and hoard resources? Of course not. Does it matter if most do? Yes, very much. And would there be enough people who see locked home streets as an advantage to upset the balance of the game? Very possibly.

    It's really a brilliant post in more contexts than just home streets of course. It just voices my concern in a way I wasn't able to do properly on the other thread.

    Thank you for being awesome.

    (sent from my iPhone, excuse any typos please.)
    Posted 7 months ago by SkyWaitress Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 SkyWaitress
    Posted 7 months ago by Anya Karenya Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The question of choices and consequences applies on an individual as well as a global level.

    I really like games that DO have consequences. It's okay with me, and I think it's actually beneficial if players cannot easily (if ever) have it all.

    I liked it that when you chose a region and a house, that made it easy to do some things (grow a certain thing) and difficult to do others on your own. I liked it that you had to choose what you would carry around with you, because going back to get more or different stuff was a PITA. There were a lot of trade-offs and strategic choices, and real benefits to interacting in a cooperative manner with folks who had made the other choices.

    I miss many of those trade-offs now. Partly it's due to the fact that I'm a high-level player with all the skillz I care to learn, a bazillion (more than enough, anyway) currants, a big ol' energy tank, and a house that is as developed as I'm inspired to make it thus far.

    I'm rich, RICH, I tell you!!! (Really, the only things I don't have that I'd quite like to acquire are the dolls—but I have no desire to buy them. Some day the darn Rube is going to offer them to me, dang it!)

    And it's not so interesting. It's a bit dull not to have any constraints, not to have to strategize and struggle a bit. Although I wasn't particularly persuaded that it was a great idea, that's why I tossed out the notion of reciprocal home-street privacy (make your public street private, only be able to visit other home streets for which you have house keys). Just to add a level of game-play choice & consequence—not to be punitive.

    It is a very tricky business to combine abundance (which Glitch has in… urgh… spades!) with consequences. But I hope that we can come to see that there are sometimes interesting consequences, not just bad ones, and eventually embrace them.
    Posted 7 months ago by Pascale Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I've been thinking about this a lot and dwelling on a possible post, so I was glad to see this one come up. We all need to examine the consequences that our demands will make on the whole game. This reasoning cascade is really common here:

    1. Some players don't like Game Mechanic Z, therefore...
    2. Game Mechanic Z should be made optional, so that people who don't like it can choose a new option, and people who do can keep it as is, therefore... 
    3. People who liked Game Mechanic Z as-is "will not be impacted," therefore...
    4. The only motivation for wanting to keep Game Mechanic Z is intolerance/ignorance/lack of understanding of people with different play styles. 

    The place where that cascade sometimes jumps the tracks is in regards to #3: "People who liked Game Mechanic Z as-is will not be impacted." As described in the OP, that just isn't true a lot of the time.
    Posted 7 months ago by Pomegrandy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Grumble grumble.
    Posted 7 months ago by Volkov Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I could well be misreading this, so please correct me if I am, but the boiled down argument seems to be we should be careful about letting people do X, because if everyone really likes X and does it, it will fundamentally change the game.

    If, hypothetically, we are talking about making home streets private, (not saying we are, just for the sake of this particular thought experiment), that would mean: 

    We should not make home streets private, because if we do and everyone makes their street private, the game will change [for the worse].

    I don't necessarily disagree with that statement, but I do wonder: If everyone wants and adopts a new feature, why does that make the feature wrong? A parallel would be: 

    We should not create new housing, because if we do and everyone gets rid of their old houses, the game will change.

    Yes, any change will have an impact - large or small. That's a given. And yes, change is terrifying, especially in a beta game. But if it's something that a large number of people want and think is important, enough so to drastically change the game dynamics, doesn't that indicate that maybe it actually is important?

    Okay, thought experiment over.

    What I really think would happen if users had the option to make home streets private, and users adopted that feature on a grand scale? I think resource routes would be more valuable and more special. I think people who chose to share their resources would become more important in the community. I think communities would develop around such people and such places. In that respect, I don't think it would change - there's a tangible social reward to remaining public and sharing. 

    Even if I, as a private person, were not interested in keeping my street open, in the event that the world flipped on its head and everyone's street was private, I would be motivated to make mine public and share because of that scarcity. I would be rewarded with status and importance as a member of the community, even if there was no financial benefit.

    Don't be so frightened of people behaving or reacting to something in a way you don't think is good. It often presents new opportunities for you and helps the community as a whole learn something.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Xev I think a big part of the point of the OP was that even if a large amount of people don't want something they may end up choosing that thing because they see others gaining a perceived advantage.

    Unlike new housing which opened up vastly more options and virtually eliminated most resource fights (ie. herbs, sparkly, tree wars etc) making home streets private has the very real potential to not only resurrect old wars but create new ones.

    Sure someone may be rewarded with status or popularity by being one of a few with a public home street. Does the status or popularity of a few outweigh the potential explosion of resource wars?

    There aren't very many people out in the world right now because we're in beta. I however remember the teams of people that were out and about in Ur when Glitch went public the last time. Considering the chomping at the bit I've seen over invites I expect the new launch to be even crazier which means limited resources in Ur proper. That will make resource routes and public home streets no longer a nice bonus but actually a vital source of resources, especially for new players.

    Now of course it's not a guarantee that everyone would reluctantly jump on the private street bandwagon. Maybe not much would change at all. The thing is we really don't know and that's why TS has to weigh the consequences of each decision. Worst case scenario for keeping streets public? A few very upset players and some others that aren't thrilled but will quickly get over it. Worst case scenario for allowing private home streets? Vicious resource wars with new players taking the hardest hit.

    Change isn't always bad, it's often good. I think in most other situations (including various other privacy settings) the potential for good outweighs the potential for bad. I just don't think home street privacy is one of those instances.
    Posted 7 months ago by SkyWaitress Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @SkyWaitress: I'm puzzled by a few things you said: 

    "Does the status or popularity of a few outweigh the potential explosion of resource wars? "

    Given that resources, whether in world or on private / public home streets are virtually infinite, and there are, arguably, some advantages [edited per posts below, please reference  Windborn and Carl if you are reading for the first time] to having a street be public when it comes to replenishing a resource, what would the resource wars be over?

    There are a few resources that do get used up by players (e.g. rocks), but there are tons that do not (e.g. trees). Were we in a situation of a shortage, surely a player could stock up on the resources that weren't infinite in the world? Resource wars, as far as I can tell, were a symptom of something other than an actual shortage.

    "even if a large amount of people don't want something they may end up choosing that thing because they see others gaining a perceived advantage."

    In this scenario, what would that advantage be? And given how many people are strongly opposed to private streets, why is that a risk should the option exist? That's like saying, "We can't make x legal because then everyone will do x, and I will also have to do x because everyone else is."

    Why is this such an all or nothing debate?

    I'm not saying I don't see that point, I do, but I also have a lot more faith in the players of the game. I don't see everyone jumping on a giant bandwagon that makes them miserable.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Xev, I think you missed the OP.  Sky Waitress is simply pointing out how the OP might play out in a specific Glitch instance.

    There is not a "clear cut advantage" in having a street public. Not even for renewing resources.  Once you remove that assumption, your post isn't quite so logical. On a home street, all resources get used up.  Whether or not someone helps you restore them is a matter of happenstance.

    For example, there is now a player who keeps planting purple in my street herb garden.  Because the plants are locked to that player for harvest, they can return, harvest and replant over and over again, essentially keeping me or anyone else from using that street resource. And yet, when the resource is used up, they have no need or obligation to pay any of the restoration costs.  They can sit back and wait for me to restore it, and then use it up again without my being able to stop it.

    Unfortunately, I know from the previous beta that this player has at least 8 alts, so blocking is not an option.  There's no way to tell which alt has planted or even what that alt's current user name is.  
    Posted 7 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hmm. I'm clearly not getting it. No worries. Sorry about that.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Xev, I edited while you were posting.

    Can you explain what the "clear cut advantage" is for me keeping a public herb garden?
    Posted 7 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh wow, that's interesting. I had no idea resources were locked to planters on home streets. I'm not sure how that really impacts my post. But it's extremely useful and relevant to the conversations overall (not just this one). 

    I definitely see your point and will rethink the clear cut advantage perspective. Beyond that, I stand by my final thought. I think this community is more powerful than it really understands, and I have a lot of faith in the people who play this game, as well as TS. I think it's still early days and some of the kinks, like your example, are still coming to light.

    I digress though, this is tangential and not directly related to the OP, so let's continue this conversation elsewhere as needed. :)

    Thanks for clarifying!
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • An interesting wrinkle in this argument, which I'm sharing not to negate any point but to further illustrate it, is that you gain iMG back when you restore a resource on your street.  Because of this, to some people, it may be worth it to put a resource down, let someone exploit it, then restore it to gain the iMG, and let that cycle continue for a while.  Although the resource costs resources to restore, you gain iMG nearly every step of the way, harvesting what you need, processing it, and then getting the final reward of completing the project.  So, investing iMG in your street leads to a greater opportunity for iMG returns later.

    And, that person who doesn't work to help restore a project?  He gets no iMG for it.

    I believe the devs implemented this dynamic in order to encourage cooperation over exploitation, but it also mitigates exploitation.

    So, maybe the moral of the story is that there can be subtle remedies to a problem that aren't so cut and dry.  Or, maybe it's something different.
    Posted 7 months ago by Carl Projectorinski Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Just to be clear:  the "locked to planter" feature works exactly like the public gardens:  the planter has 1 minute to after the crops mature to return and harvest.  After that, anyone may harvest.
    Posted 7 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Gotcha. I've updated my initial post to address that in the clunkiest way imaginable. 

    I think my questions still have merit in regards to SkyWaitress' post, but I do think this is getting very specific to home streets, which is what the OP very specifically tried to avoid. I don't want to hijack this thread in favor of that topic, so I'm gonna bow out of this particular line of conversation. Anyone who wants to keep talking about it is more than welcome to IM me or mail me (or start a new thread).
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • One major point of the OP, however, is that seemingly "harmless' features , which are often defended as "there's no need for you to use that feature if you don't want to" have consequences far beyond any single person's choice to use or not use the feature.  

    What to you is a "clear cut advantage" may have detrimental consequences whether or not any of us can point to a specific game mechanic that illustrates our frustration with the "it won't hurt you" argument. It very well may hurt us, and everyone who plays the game.  
    Posted 7 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Gotcha. But by that rationale, everything in the game is a potential hazard. I get this on a grander scale, but I also see a lot of creative innovation around game mechanics. The strategies and social constructs created by users never cease to amaze and delight me. 

    I'm a total optimist, though, so I will absolutely gtfo if that's not helping the conversation along. Not to sound snide at all - I know how annoying happy feel good shit can be when it doesn't suit the mood.

    In other words, I feel awkward as hell in this thread. Feels bad, man. :(
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Pangloss has nothing on you, dear Xev.
    Posted 7 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think what's hard to convey is that individuals can suffer from gaps in the game mechanics. But overall, the community tends to prosper by creatively adapting to changes. So while I am optimistic about the game in general, I am very aware and sympathetic to the cost at the individual user's expense. It's a fine line that we have to walk when making choices that affect game play. 

    Still, if we are too cautious, we will stagnate.
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I would like to expand this discussion to the question of skill learning.  Some people want to be able to easily learn every skill, or at least make doing so within the realm of reason.  Others (including me) think that specialization will make Glitch a more interesting place and favor the current brain caps and learning penalty.    Sticking with the design has one outcome and a group of unhappy players.  Accommodating the unhappy players has a significantly different outcome and may well result in it it's own group of unhappy players.   Not only are the aspects of the feature (learning penalties / specialization) a choice, but the topic of the feature is all about wanting to and having to make choices. 
    Posted 7 months ago by WalruZ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Holy verbage people!
    Posted 7 months ago by Gordon Lughsen Subscriber! | Permalink
  • While one small change may have "detrimental consequences that none of us can predict," so may it have wonderful consequences that none of us can predict. Yes, the butterfly flapping its wings in Africa may cause a hurricane in North America, but it could also inspire a child who later becomes a world class poet.

    My point is: I agree that it's true we don't know every possible effect from every change. There may be unanticipated bad results, but there is an equal possibility of unanticipated good results. The resource routes are a good example of this. As far as I can tell, nobody predicted that outcome. So, while we should be aware that there is a possibility of negative side effects from change, we should also be open to the possibility of positive side effects. We should not let the FEAR of a POSSIBILITY stop us from making changes.
    Posted 7 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 WalruZ! I agree--I like how difficult it is to collect all the skills. 

    I see a lot of these different mechanic changes/requests having an incremental but important effect on the game, not from "Good to bad," but in one direction or the other on the following scale:

    Imagination Sandbox [----------------X---------------] Player vs. Environment / Cooperative PvE

    Somebody please let me know if there's a better term for the latter one, because I sense it's going to turn some people off just because it sounds less friendly. (I'm also going to try to be as neutral as possible, since my personal hopes for the game lean to the PvE-ier.) Note that both sides have social and solitary play styles, neither is more social or more solitary.

    "Imagination Sandbox" Direction

    - Players choose between infinite intrinsic (player-driven) goals
    - "I shouldn't be punished for switching goals."
    - Fewer limits on gathering basic resources (things can be planted in more places; more ability to create resource generating areas)
    - "Stickiness" of dropped items is inherently tied to dropper's intent, supportive of decoration and street art
    - "Notes should be left where they were found for others to enjoy"
    - Fewer artificial limits on performing ingame tasks (ex., brain capacity)
    - There should be reasonable economic controls in place to prevent basic resources from costing too much
    - "Restrictions on achieving my vision are frustrating."

    "PvE / Coop PvE" Direction

    - Players choose between many extrinsic (game-driven) goals
    - "I should be rewarded for sticking to a goal."
    - Resource scarcity is possible (things can only be grown in certain places; balance is subject to actions by the community)
    - "Stickiness" of dropped items is left up to game mechanics
    - "Rook attacks should have lasting effects on the area"
    - Brain capacity limits that require focused character choices are a good thing
    - Few constraints on ingame economics
    - "Restrictions on achieving my vision make my vision more valuable."

    [Edited to clarify that I don't necessarily think it's moving all in one direction or the other, but the changes we request could tip the slider in one of the two directions.]
    Posted 7 months ago by Pomegrandy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't have much to add, just want to say I think Pomegrandy made a really great point and an excellent distinction (without assigning value) between the two general play styles in the game. 
    Posted 7 months ago by Xev Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Audaria, when the suggested changes are based on blithe assumptions that the change will have 'no impact'  then there is a lot of reason to hesitate.  

    Simply stating that 'it won't impact you if you don't choose that option' is demonstrably a wrong assumption.  
    Posted 7 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Windborn, I concede the point that proposed changes may have an impact. I agree that we cannot state unequivocally that it "won't impact you if you don't choose that option." My point was merely that we shouldn't assume that any unintended side effects will be negative.
    Posted 7 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 Audaria.  It seems almost impossible to predict how changes will impact the game and we should not be afraid to ask for them. 
    If we cannot see how they will adversely affect others we can say so, then it it up to anyone who may feel they will be adversely affected to point out how this will affect them.
    If we do not, as you say, we will never ask for changes, just in case they adversely affect someone else.
    Every request and suggestion is here to be discussed and if we can see no negative effects then there would seem no good reason not to hope and ask for it to be made.  If later on it does have a negative impact it can be tweaked again.   This has happened many times already and is bound to happen again.
    (Sorry, slightly derailing the original point, but it seemed appropriate)

    Edited to say, Thanks Splendora, fascinating post, need to think on it.  :-)
    Posted 7 months ago by Jolycan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • My brain asploded. Loving it, wish I had some useful input. I like playing mostly alone, and in a sandboxy get everything once kind of way. I could get an alt if the game limited my skill set, but I really don't mind waiting days and or weeks to learn stuf to try it all for myself. Seeing this thread I can see the possibilities each way and understand more how the very complex balances must be met for all players. Great thread.
    Posted 7 months ago by jiva Subscriber! | Permalink