People who want more are basically not in it for the social relationship and said experience can be easily replicated using NPCs because its more static after 150.
anyway...I see people moving away from MMOs and moving toward Private Servers as in I have LITERALLY seen people do that, I have heard of many people doing this. In part because the games are simply better but I dont think the big budget MMOs are going to return to fill that gap.
Others have stated around 80 but then we are talking close and personal friends. More then a few of us acctually enjoy meeting new people and interact with others then just our close friends and I think social medias back me up there.
As you said, the reason people go for smaller games with personal servers is because the games are generally better there now. As I see it are both good, sometimes I want to spend quality time with my friends, othertimes I like to go out and meet new people.
There is also a genre that is a mix, CORPGs like Guildwars and DDO. There you meet new people in the outposts but still get the close and personal experience most of the time, I think we will see a few new games like that in the future as well.
I do hope we will get a few new good AAA MMORPGs in the future
I listen to this lecture that illustrated how in the states its taught that what a person thinks (without or even contrary to empirical data) is just as valid as research is because of the 'opinion clause' so to speak.
thats another way of saying just because one own personal world view contradicts Dunbars number it doesnt mean the substance of Dunbars number which I am sure most have not even read is not valid ...;)
I know I've explained it to you a number of times already, but I'll try once more to see if it will sink in this time:
Dunbars number refers to the maximum number of stable social relationships that a person can maintain.
In order to reach dunbars number of stable relationships, one has to meet many times that number of people. The magnitude entirely depends on your personality. For some people, you may only need to meet 500 people in order to form 150 stable relationships because you're friendly and get on with most people. For others, you might need to meet 5000 people in order to form 150 stable social relationships, because you find other people mostly irritating.
You are also assuming that a player needs to form a stable social relationship with another person in order to get value from that person. That is also an incorrect assumption. For us PvPers, I don't need to know the person I'm killing. I certainly don't need to be friends with them! There is also pleasure to be taken from random meetings - I used to lead pug groups all the time with people I'd never met before. I would get enjoyment out of meeting new people and playing through a dungeon together, but would rarely form a stable relationship.
So please, for the love of god, stop throwing around Dunbars number as if it magically validates your incorrect view of private servers. A person will only ever reach Dunbars number on a private server if they are already friends with everyone. If they are a stranger when they join a private server, chances are extremely remote that they'll ever get close to Dunbars number. Finally, there is also a load of evidence and research to suggest that Dunbar's number is wrong, so also try to remember that Dunbar's number is a theory - it is not a proven fact.
People who want more are basically not in it for the social relationship and said experience can be easily replicated using NPCs because its more static after 150.
anyway...I see people moving away from MMOs and moving toward Private Servers as in I have LITERALLY seen people do that, I have heard of many people doing this. In part because the games are simply better but I dont think the big budget MMOs are going to return to fill that gap.
Others have stated around 80 but then we are talking close and personal friends. More then a few of us acctually enjoy meeting new people and interact with others then just our close friends and I think social medias back me up there.
As you said, the reason people go for smaller games with personal servers is because the games are generally better there now. As I see it are both good, sometimes I want to spend quality time with my friends, othertimes I like to go out and meet new people.
There is also a genre that is a mix, CORPGs like Guildwars and DDO. There you meet new people in the outposts but still get the close and personal experience most of the time, I think we will see a few new games like that in the future as well.
I do hope we will get a few new good AAA MMORPGs in the future
I listen to this lecture that illustrated how in the states its taught that what a person thinks (without or even contrary to empirical data) is just as valid as research is because of the 'opinion clause' so to speak.
thats another way of saying just because one own personal world view contradicts Dunbars number it doesnt mean the substance of Dunbars number which I am sure most have not even read is not valid ...;)
I know I've explained it to you a number of times already, but I'll try once more to see if it will sink in this time:
Dunbars number refers to the maximum number of stable social relationships that a person can maintain.
In order to reach dunbars number of stable relationships, one has to meet many times that number of people. The magnitude entirely depends on your personality. For some people, you may only need to meet 500 people in order to form 150 stable relationships because you're friendly and get on with most people. For others, you might need to meet 5000 people in order to form 150 stable social relationships, because you find other people mostly irritating.
You are also assuming that a player needs to form a stable social relationship with another person in order to get value from that person. That is also an incorrect assumption. For us PvPers, I don't need to know the person I'm killing. I certainly don't need to be friends with them! There is also pleasure to be taken from random meetings - I used to lead pug groups all the time with people I'd never met before. I would get enjoyment out of meeting new people and playing through a dungeon together, but would rarely form a stable relationship.
So please, for the love of god, stop throwing around Dunbars number as if it magically validates your incorrect view of private servers. A person will only ever reach Dunbars number on a private server if they are already friends with everyone. If they are a stranger when they join a private server, chances are extremely remote that they'll ever get close to Dunbars number. Finally, there is also a load of evidence and research to suggest that Dunbar's number is wrong, so also try to remember that Dunbar's number is a theory - it is not a proven fact.
Here is the problem with all that, if the relationship is not a 'stable relationship' I assure you with 100000% confidence that the need can be filled with NPCs. I am absolutely positive of that
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
People who want more are basically not in it for the social relationship and said experience can be easily replicated using NPCs because its more static after 150.
anyway...I see people moving away from MMOs and moving toward Private Servers as in I have LITERALLY seen people do that, I have heard of many people doing this. In part because the games are simply better but I dont think the big budget MMOs are going to return to fill that gap.
Others have stated around 80 but then we are talking close and personal friends. More then a few of us acctually enjoy meeting new people and interact with others then just our close friends and I think social medias back me up there.
As you said, the reason people go for smaller games with personal servers is because the games are generally better there now. As I see it are both good, sometimes I want to spend quality time with my friends, othertimes I like to go out and meet new people.
There is also a genre that is a mix, CORPGs like Guildwars and DDO. There you meet new people in the outposts but still get the close and personal experience most of the time, I think we will see a few new games like that in the future as well.
I do hope we will get a few new good AAA MMORPGs in the future
I listen to this lecture that illustrated how in the states its taught that what a person thinks (without or even contrary to empirical data) is just as valid as research is because of the 'opinion clause' so to speak.
thats another way of saying just because one own personal world view contradicts Dunbars number it doesnt mean the substance of Dunbars number which I am sure most have not even read is not valid ...;)
I know I've explained it to you a number of times already, but I'll try once more to see if it will sink in this time:
Dunbars number refers to the maximum number of stable social relationships that a person can maintain.
In order to reach dunbars number of stable relationships, one has to meet many times that number of people. The magnitude entirely depends on your personality. For some people, you may only need to meet 500 people in order to form 150 stable relationships because you're friendly and get on with most people. For others, you might need to meet 5000 people in order to form 150 stable social relationships, because you find other people mostly irritating.
You are also assuming that a player needs to form a stable social relationship with another person in order to get value from that person. That is also an incorrect assumption. For us PvPers, I don't need to know the person I'm killing. I certainly don't need to be friends with them! There is also pleasure to be taken from random meetings - I used to lead pug groups all the time with people I'd never met before. I would get enjoyment out of meeting new people and playing through a dungeon together, but would rarely form a stable relationship.
So please, for the love of god, stop throwing around Dunbars number as if it magically validates your incorrect view of private servers. A person will only ever reach Dunbars number on a private server if they are already friends with everyone. If they are a stranger when they join a private server, chances are extremely remote that they'll ever get close to Dunbars number. Finally, there is also a load of evidence and research to suggest that Dunbar's number is wrong, so also try to remember that Dunbar's number is a theory - it is not a proven fact.
Here is the problem with all that, if the relationship is not a 'stable relationship' I assure you with 100000% confidence that the need can be filled with NPCs. I am absolutely positive of that
Really?
I've personally never played a shooter where bots can replicate real people. I've never played an RPG where my NPC companions are even remotely close to as good as a real person. I've never played a sports game where my NPC teammates acted in similar fashion to real players.
Maybe I'm playing the wrong games? Please could you tell me which games have NPCs that are just as good as players?
Beyond that, you've haven't even begun to address the issue of what it takes to actually form a stable social relationship. I mean, you don't expect us to believe that you form a stable social bond with every single person you ever meet, right? When I was playing LotRO, I probably maintained a stable social bond with maybe 1 in 20 people that I actively interacted with. In SW:TOR, it was more like 1 in 100 due to terrible community.
I've personally never played a shooter where bots can replicate real people. I've never played an RPG where my NPC companions are even remotely close to as good as a real person. I've never played a sports game where my NPC teammates acted in similar fashion to real players.
Maybe I'm playing the wrong games? Please could you tell me which games have NPCs that are just as good as players?
Beyond that, you've haven't even begun to address the issue of what it takes to actually form a stable social relationship. I mean, you don't expect us to believe that you form a stable social bond with every single person you ever meet, right? When I was playing LotRO, I probably maintained a stable social bond with maybe 1 in 20 people that I actively interacted with. In SW:TOR, it was more like 1 in 100 due to terrible community.
yes....really
market economics, casual NPC city life, casual NPC interaction and yes even combat can be AI done and I have seen it done really well and certiantly good enough for the needs of 'social interaction' outside of the requirements of Dunbars number AND very likely do it BETTER than humans.
Just what I need to believe the city is real.. a bunch of kids literally jumping around and trying to dry hump me...yeah...no....AI is better
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I've personally never played a shooter where bots can replicate real people. I've never played an RPG where my NPC companions are even remotely close to as good as a real person. I've never played a sports game where my NPC teammates acted in similar fashion to real players.
Maybe I'm playing the wrong games? Please could you tell me which games have NPCs that are just as good as players?
Beyond that, you've haven't even begun to address the issue of what it takes to actually form a stable social relationship. I mean, you don't expect us to believe that you form a stable social bond with every single person you ever meet, right? When I was playing LotRO, I probably maintained a stable social bond with maybe 1 in 20 people that I actively interacted with. In SW:TOR, it was more like 1 in 100 due to terrible community.
And that doesn't even take up PUGs, that can be the most fun and worst experience in a MMO. I certainly don't always PUG but I do them often enough, recruited many good guild members through PUGs and join a few guilds that way myself during the years.
I don't think other people have the right or competence to tell me what I like and I like having many players around. A few becomes friends, other associates, some I just chat with once, some I ignore and some becomes enemies. That I can't become true friends with everyone on my server is really no problem for me.
And I at least think many of the people drawn to the genre share this with me. I could be wrong, maybe people are just drawn to it because the games are so incredible good but I doubt that.
market economics, casual NPC city life, casual NPC interaction and yes even combat can be AI done and I have seen it done really well and certiantly good enough for the needs of 'social interaction' outside of the requirements of Dunbars number AND very likely do it BETTER than humans.
Just what I need to believe the city is real.. a bunch of kids literally jumping around and trying to dry hump me...yeah...no....AI is better
And that is fine for you, but the problem is that you are saying everyone feels the same and we don't.
Heck, I like a single player or regular multiplayert game as well as the next person but I also like MMOs.
My best fights in MMOs have been against other players or as a team. You can argue that it is because the PvE difficulty generally is too easy but the reason PvP is so fun is that people are unpredictable, some are bad while others are brilliant.
When I win a 1 Vs 1 PvP combat in a good game it is because I played better (in a bad game it can that I just had too much edge due to gear and level). I love that type of combat.
market economics, casual NPC city life, casual NPC interaction and yes even combat can be AI done and I have seen it done really well and certiantly good enough for the needs of 'social interaction' outside of the requirements of Dunbars number AND very likely do it BETTER than humans.
Just what I need to believe the city is real.. a bunch of kids literally jumping around and trying to dry hump me...yeah...no....AI is better
And that is fine for you, but the problem is that you are saying everyone feels the same and we don't.
Heck, I like a single player or regular multiplayert game as well as the next person but I also like MMOs.
My best fights in MMOs have been against other players or as a team. You can argue that it is because the PvE difficulty generally is too easy but the reason PvP is so fun is that people are unpredictable, some are bad while others are brilliant.
When I win a 1 Vs 1 PvP combat in a good game it is because I played better (in a bad game it can that I just had too much edge due to gear and level). I love that type of combat.
I am 1000% positive that others are not aware of what they want in this respect.
I can assure you with absolute certainty that a city filled with NPCs walking around that you can interact with will be more engaging and more immersive then 100 people jumping around all over town trolling people and getting into in city pvp fights.
I know a lot of people THINK they would have a better experience but they are full of it.
and I consider this factual, not based on opinion and not up for debate as an opinion of preference anymore pulling back fingernails is a dicusssion about 'opinion'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'll some up this thread for anyone coming in as I have unfortunately read all of it. It's a bunch of old bitter people basically saying "Get off my lawn"
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
I've personally never played a shooter where bots can replicate real people. I've never played an RPG where my NPC companions are even remotely close to as good as a real person. I've never played a sports game where my NPC teammates acted in similar fashion to real players.
Maybe I'm playing the wrong games? Please could you tell me which games have NPCs that are just as good as players?
Beyond that, you've haven't even begun to address the issue of what it takes to actually form a stable social relationship. I mean, you don't expect us to believe that you form a stable social bond with every single person you ever meet, right? When I was playing LotRO, I probably maintained a stable social bond with maybe 1 in 20 people that I actively interacted with. In SW:TOR, it was more like 1 in 100 due to terrible community.
yes....really
market economics, casual NPC city life, casual NPC interaction and yes even combat can be AI done and I have seen it done really well and certiantly good enough for the needs of 'social interaction' outside of the requirements of Dunbars number AND very likely do it BETTER than humans.
Just what I need to believe the city is real.. a bunch of kids literally jumping around and trying to dry hump me...yeah...no....AI is better
Seeing as you didn't answer the questions, I'll ask again:
Please name a shooter where the AI bots accurately replicate human players.
Please name an RPG where NPC companions accurately replicate human players.
Please name a sports game where NPC teammates accurately replicate human players.
The RPG one is the most important, because that is what you are saying can be done in MMO-type games - removing the large community in favour of a small private server and using NPCs to replicate all the social interactions you would normally have outside of your guild / friends list. You always ask for specifics yourself, but never provide any to back up your points. Maybe this time will be different and you can show me a game in existence where this happens.
I do hope we will get a few new good AAA MMORPGs in the future
Destiny 2 sounds like fun. And if it is, do you really care whether it is a MMORPG or not? (It is clearly AAA though).
For the record I think Destiny 2 and 1 both look horrid
If your not into that type of game then chances are new versions of the game your unlikely to enjoy either, in which case you can probably write off Anthem too on your least likely to enjoy list. Personally, i don't know which i will choose out of Anthem or Destiny 2, as long as they both work on my Win7 PC i might even end up getting both, eventually
I've personally never played a shooter where bots can replicate real people. I've never played an RPG where my NPC companions are even remotely close to as good as a real person. I've never played a sports game where my NPC teammates acted in similar fashion to real players.
Maybe I'm playing the wrong games? Please could you tell me which games have NPCs that are just as good as players?
Beyond that, you've haven't even begun to address the issue of what it takes to actually form a stable social relationship. I mean, you don't expect us to believe that you form a stable social bond with every single person you ever meet, right? When I was playing LotRO, I probably maintained a stable social bond with maybe 1 in 20 people that I actively interacted with. In SW:TOR, it was more like 1 in 100 due to terrible community.
yes....really
market economics, casual NPC city life, casual NPC interaction and yes even combat can be AI done and I have seen it done really well and certiantly good enough for the needs of 'social interaction' outside of the requirements of Dunbars number AND very likely do it BETTER than humans.
Just what I need to believe the city is real.. a bunch of kids literally jumping around and trying to dry hump me...yeah...no....AI is better
Seeing as you didn't answer the questions, I'll ask again:
Please name a shooter where the AI bots accurately replicate human players.
Please name an RPG where NPC companions accurately replicate human players.
Please name a sports game where NPC teammates accurately replicate human players.
The RPG one is the most important, because that is what you are saying can be done in MMO-type games - removing the large community in favour of a small private server and using NPCs to replicate all the social interactions you would normally have outside of your guild / friends list. You always ask for specifics yourself, but never provide any to back up your points. Maybe this time will be different and you can show me a game in existence where this happens.
There are two levels of social interaction.
First Level: falls into the category of Dunbars number in which you need real people
Second Level: mostly static noise in which AI can do a BETTER job replicating then real people can in a video game. Example: GTA city, imagine if you will that city instead of filled with AI it was filled with real gamers, the experience would be absolutely horrible. Unless you give all those people tasks that make sense in the context of the game they are going to be distracting noise. AI in GTA are doing things like going to the store, waiting on the bus, singing songs for cash. AI is going to be MUCH better job then real people at those virtual activities.
ARMA 3 AI is EXTREEMLY good...EXTREEMLY AND they dont rage chat when they loose
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You have changed...Yo uwent from good games like EQ and AO to crap like SWTOR, STO, and TSW... No wonder you aren't thrilled if those are your main games.
I've personally never played a shooter where bots can replicate real people. I've never played an RPG where my NPC companions are even remotely close to as good as a real person. I've never played a sports game where my NPC teammates acted in similar fashion to real players.
Maybe I'm playing the wrong games? Please could you tell me which games have NPCs that are just as good as players?
Beyond that, you've haven't even begun to address the issue of what it takes to actually form a stable social relationship. I mean, you don't expect us to believe that you form a stable social bond with every single person you ever meet, right? When I was playing LotRO, I probably maintained a stable social bond with maybe 1 in 20 people that I actively interacted with. In SW:TOR, it was more like 1 in 100 due to terrible community.
yes....really
market economics, casual NPC city life, casual NPC interaction and yes even combat can be AI done and I have seen it done really well and certiantly good enough for the needs of 'social interaction' outside of the requirements of Dunbars number AND very likely do it BETTER than humans.
Just what I need to believe the city is real.. a bunch of kids literally jumping around and trying to dry hump me...yeah...no....AI is better
Seeing as you didn't answer the questions, I'll ask again:
Please name a shooter where the AI bots accurately replicate human players.
Please name an RPG where NPC companions accurately replicate human players.
Please name a sports game where NPC teammates accurately replicate human players.
The RPG one is the most important, because that is what you are saying can be done in MMO-type games - removing the large community in favour of a small private server and using NPCs to replicate all the social interactions you would normally have outside of your guild / friends list. You always ask for specifics yourself, but never provide any to back up your points. Maybe this time will be different and you can show me a game in existence where this happens.
There are two levels of social interaction.
First Level: falls into the category of Dunbars number in which you need real people
Second Level: mostly static noise in which AI can do a BETTER job replicating then real people can in a video game. Example: GTA city, imagine if you will that city instead of filled with AI it was filled with real gamers, the experience would be absolutely horrible. Unless you give all those people tasks that make sense in the context of the game they are going to be distracting noise. AI in GTA are doing things like going to the store, waiting on the bus, singing songs for cash. AI is going to be MUCH better job then real people at those virtual activities.
ARMA 3 AI is EXTREEMLY good...EXTREEMLY AND they dont rage chat when they loose
/facepalm
Dunbars number refers to the stability of a social bond. It is about your ability to maintain a social connection over time. It has absolutely nothing to do with the type of social interaction you are having with another person. Perhaps you should go back and read up on what Dunbars number actually means?
For example, when I form a pug with 5 other people to do a dungeon, I might have an hour of chatting to them, forming tactics, working together in combat, anticipating each others needs, adapting to changing conditions etc. It can be a deep social experience, but it is a one-off: those 5 other players do not automatically become part of my social group. It is only if I maintain a social bond with them long term that they become part of Dunbars number.
Is it starting to sink in yet?
I'll try to dumb it down even more.
Example A: You have a friend who you meet up with once a fortnight for a few beers in a sports bar. You've been doing this for years. This person is included in Dunbar's number.
Example B: You go to a friend's dinner party and they have friends visiting from Australia. You spend the evening chatting to the Aussies and having a great time, but never speak to them again. The Aussies are not included in Dunbars number.
In both these examples, you are having a deep social experience and both add value and joy to your life. However, only 1 is included in Dunbar's number because you are only able to maintain that one social bond.
This is exactly the same as MMOs. Whether it be through random roleplaying encounters, pick up groups, pvping or anything else, having 1000s of people on your server greatly increases the chances of you having meaningful and enjoyable multiplayer experiences without those other people necessarily forming a long term social bond.
(For the record, I agree that a lot of casual / background social interaction can be replicated by NPCs and agree with your GTA example. However, that is not what we've been talking about at all).
Dunbars number refers to the stability of a social bond. It is about your ability to maintain a social connection over time. It has absolutely nothing to do with the type of social interaction you are having with another person. Perhaps you should go back and read up on what Dunbars number actually means?
For example, when I form a pug with 5 other people to do a dungeon, I might have an hour of chatting to them, forming tactics, working together in combat, anticipating each others needs, adapting to changing conditions etc. It can be a deep social experience, but it is a one-off: those 5 other players do not automatically become part of my social group. It is only if I maintain a social bond with them long term that they become part of Dunbars number.
Is it starting to sink in yet?
I'll try to dumb it down even more.
Example A: You have a friend who you meet up with once a fortnight for a few beers in a sports bar. You've been doing this for years. This person is included in Dunbar's number.
Example B: You go to a friend's dinner party and they have friends visiting from Australia. You spend the evening chatting to the Aussies and having a great time, but never speak to them again. The Aussies are not included in Dunbars number.
In both these examples, you are having a deep social experience and both add value and joy to your life. However, only 1 is included in Dunbar's number because you are only able to maintain that one social bond.
This is exactly the same as MMOs. Whether it be through random roleplaying encounters, pick up groups, pvping or anything else, having 1000s of people on your server greatly increases the chances of you having meaningful and enjoyable multiplayer experiences without those other people necessarily forming a long term social bond.
(For the record, I agree that a lot of casual / background social interaction can be replicated by NPCs and agree with your GTA example. However, that is not what we've been talking about at all).
your not folllowing me and I cant say it in any other way then I just did.
1. There are two levels of social interaction (which I have illustrated) 2. in the context of a virtual world the second level of social interaction (in my list) AI WILL BE BETTER. without zero question will be absolutely better, including combat on average.
EDIT: for the sake of completness it is possible for a person to be more intresting in combat then AI. However, on average, your human combat senerios with any random group of real people will be shitballs compared to AI and in the case of humans the average is important, with AI its not because you can copy it
and YES in the context of the virtual world you are playing in AI will be more socially compelling at level 2 then real people because that vast majority of real people do not play with role playing in mind AND their actions are not in context to the living world they are in (aka they are not spending all day waiting for a bus for example) . AI will always have the context of your world into play.100% of the time
I think we should now just go our different ways, I know I am right on this and its not a matter of opinion up for debate
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Dunbars number refers to the stability of a social bond. It is about your ability to maintain a social connection over time. It has absolutely nothing to do with the type of social interaction you are having with another person. Perhaps you should go back and read up on what Dunbars number actually means?
For example, when I form a pug with 5 other people to do a dungeon, I might have an hour of chatting to them, forming tactics, working together in combat, anticipating each others needs, adapting to changing conditions etc. It can be a deep social experience, but it is a one-off: those 5 other players do not automatically become part of my social group. It is only if I maintain a social bond with them long term that they become part of Dunbars number.
Is it starting to sink in yet?
I'll try to dumb it down even more.
Example A: You have a friend who you meet up with once a fortnight for a few beers in a sports bar. You've been doing this for years. This person is included in Dunbar's number.
Example B: You go to a friend's dinner party and they have friends visiting from Australia. You spend the evening chatting to the Aussies and having a great time, but never speak to them again. The Aussies are not included in Dunbars number.
In both these examples, you are having a deep social experience and both add value and joy to your life. However, only 1 is included in Dunbar's number because you are only able to maintain that one social bond.
This is exactly the same as MMOs. Whether it be through random roleplaying encounters, pick up groups, pvping or anything else, having 1000s of people on your server greatly increases the chances of you having meaningful and enjoyable multiplayer experiences without those other people necessarily forming a long term social bond.
(For the record, I agree that a lot of casual / background social interaction can be replicated by NPCs and agree with your GTA example. However, that is not what we've been talking about at all).
your not folllowing me and I cant say it in any other way then I just did.
1. There are two levels of social interaction (which I have illustrated) 2. in the context of a virtual world the second level of social interaction (in my list) AI WILL BE BETTER. without zero question will be absolutely better, including combat on average.
EDIT: for the sake of completness it is possible for a person to be more intresting in combat then AI. However, on average, your human combat senerios with any random group of real people will be shitballs compared to AI and in the case of humans the average is important, with AI its not because you can copy it
and YES in the context of the virtual world you are playing in AI will be more socially compelling at level 2 then real people because that vast majority of real people do not play with role playing in mind AND their actions are not in context to the living world they are in (aka they are not spending all day waiting for a bus for example) . AI will always have the context of your world into play.100% of the time
I think we should now just go our different ways, I know I am right on this and its not a matter of opinion up for debate
Why is it every conversation with you ends the same way?
You propose a point of view about gaming and back it up with some 3rd party theory or evidence
Someone on the forums will point out that the evidence you posted is in fact incorrect or is being misused by you
You then get defensive, fail to validate your point, then move the goal posts to try and make you seem right
As is exactly what has happened here:
You are promoting the idea that small scale, private servers with 150 player caps can provide the same or superior experiences to proper MMOs.
You use Dunbars theory to support your view, because Dunbar's number suggests that the average person can only maintain 150 social connections
Myself and a number of other posters then provide a load of concrete examples of why you are wrong
Instead of refuting the examples, you change the meaning of Dunbars theory from maintenance of social bonds (time) to type of social interaction (quality)
I then point that you have misunderstood Dunbar's theory, provide more examples
Instead of refuting anything I say, you then raise an entirely new point (that AI can increase immersion in comparison to random people running around in game - which I agree with)
You then insist you are right, despite not being able to provide any evidence for your original argument
Its OK to admit when you're wrong. Its how we grow as human beings. Its also OK to start new conversations - for example, I agree with you that NPCs are much better at providing background noise and immersion than real people, because real people in games tend not to roleplay and thus break immersion. But to hold onto a narrow minded view, backed up by faulty logic, then try to push it on other people....its just not civilised!
Why is it every conversation with you ends the same way?
You propose a point of view about gaming and back it up with some 3rd party theory or evidence
Someone on the forums will point out that the evidence you posted is in fact incorrect or is being misused by you
You then get defensive, fail to validate your point, then move the goal posts to try and make you seem right
As is exactly what has happened here:
You are promoting the idea that small scale, private servers with 150 player caps can provide the same or superior experiences to proper MMOs.
You use Dunbars theory to support your view, because Dunbar's number suggests that the average person can only maintain 150 social connections
Myself and a number of other posters then provide a load of concrete examples of why you are wrong
Instead of refuting the examples, you change the meaning of Dunbars theory from maintenance of social bonds (time) to type of social interaction (quality)
I then point that you have misunderstood Dunbar's theory, provide more examples
Instead of refuting anything I say, you then raise an entirely new point (that AI can increase immersion in comparison to random people running around in game - which I agree with)
You then insist you are right, despite not being able to provide any evidence for your original argument
Its OK to admit when you're wrong. Its how we grow as human beings. Its also OK to start new conversations - for example, I agree with you that NPCs are much better at providing background noise and immersion than real people, because real people in games tend not to roleplay and thus break immersion. But to hold onto a narrow minded view, backed up by faulty logic, then try to push it on other people....its just not civilised!
I know I am right on this for reasons i have illustrated. I can get data for you but its rather painfully obvious it doesnt need it.
If you have a problem with me and think I am stubborn and not going to change my view then here is a hint...stop replying
--------------READ HERE--------------------- anyone with any gaming experience at all should be able to figure out that a city filled with NPCs doing their RP tasks is going to be FAR more compelling then thousand of real life people wander the streets jumping around looking for something to do because they dont have to bake breaD like the AI does.
PLEASE RESPOND TO MY DIRECT EXAMPLES OR STOP REPLYING...PLEASE --------------STOP------------------------
now if you are ready to address my POINTS and examples specifically instead of dancing around them let me know, until then I am not reading what you have to say
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think the only real need MMOs will serve in the future is as a dating site and a site to flesh out which gaming guild to join. After that, its private server time
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Sadly my use of Sadly has been taken out of context which is kind of sad
It is sad in a way because I remember all those times spent on raids/guild meetings, parties, adventures with many many people, 10 to 12 groups of us in Kunark on the plains up against the cliffs slowly pulling the Spider creatures one at a time trying to push through a hell level, sitting in freeport complaining about the boat as we fished, danced, joked and got to know people, killing my first hill giant solo with my earth pet.
But not sorrow, just like the sadness you can have remembering amazing times had as children, adventures taken before time moved on.
how do I explain this...
if 10 years ago you (and everyone) lived without electricity and with no cars then 2 years ago space aliens came down and gave you the ability to live forever, travel anywhere you could, and never die or never feel pain.
Would you be sad about the days no longer being like the good old days?
what I am trying to illustrate here is that the gaming of today is so good its silly to be sad or lament or anything other then be idly curious about the past.
at least speaking for me I dont think I can express how profound the change to my gaming life has been in the past 3 years, its major, its like turning it up to 11, its like discovering warp drive...
A better analogy is that we used to have electricity and lived forever, and then aliens infected us with stupid and now we electrocute ourselves trying to use it.
Sadly my use of Sadly has been taken out of context which is kind of sad
It is sad in a way because I remember all those times spent on raids/guild meetings, parties, adventures with many many people, 10 to 12 groups of us in Kunark on the plains up against the cliffs slowly pulling the Spider creatures one at a time trying to push through a hell level, sitting in freeport complaining about the boat as we fished, danced, joked and got to know people, killing my first hill giant solo with my earth pet.
But not sorrow, just like the sadness you can have remembering amazing times had as children, adventures taken before time moved on.
how do I explain this...
if 10 years ago you (and everyone) lived without electricity and with no cars then 2 years ago space aliens came down and gave you the ability to live forever, travel anywhere you could, and never die or never feel pain.
Would you be sad about the days no longer being like the good old days?
what I am trying to illustrate here is that the gaming of today is so good its silly to be sad or lament or anything other then be idly curious about the past.
at least speaking for me I dont think I can express how profound the change to my gaming life has been in the past 3 years, its major, its like turning it up to 11, its like discovering warp drive...
A better analogy is that we used to have electricity and lived forever, and then aliens infected us with stupid and now we electrocute ourselves trying to use it.
and your statement is a perfect example of what I am trying to illustrate on how my view of the current gaming industry is RADICALLY different from the one you illustrated. However, there is another aspect.
The person who is having the fun doesnt need to change pattern to find fun.
The person who is NOT having fun should be asking for some guidance from those who ARE having fun.
see? (I assume you dont)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I feel like I have played online games forever, beginning in the 80's with BBS games and evolving into primitive college MUD games, in then came full text based online games with 10-500 people playing, soon myself and wife moved on to Meridian 59 server 102, from there we avoided WoW but played nearly every other one that came up, apart from EVE had no interest in PVP (in fact EVE PVP probably made it impossible for us to take pvp in any other game seriously) enjoyed questing and role play, loved open world exploration and interesting story lines.
We grew up but time never became limited for us as a couple (my wife is disabled and I am her primary carer) so time limitation can not be blamed.
We settled in Anarchy online, Everquest, Neocron, Matrix online, City of Heroes/Villains, Star Wars Galaxies, tried many others.
My favourite current MMO games are Star Trek Online, SWTOR and TSW Legends.
But I realized last night that I no longer play any of them as an MMO, I am not a member of a group or guild, I do not do raids or any high level content that can not be solo friendly instead I play them as a Social Single player game.
I love games like Mass effect and Dragon Age, love the Witcher games and the only sad part is when I complete them, they can engross me for weeks at at time but always there is an end, those characters and relationships I built up over time, always there is a last time I load up my save game and it is like I am saying good bye to a piece of me.
Now games like Swtor, TSW and STO taken as a single player game have many hundreds of hours of content and some of it is quite good.
The conclusion I have come to is, there is no point me looking for a new MMO to play as an MMO, instead stick to those three unless some one out there can suggest an MMO with great single player story and content that is pretty much free to play.
I'm surprised ESO isn't on your list. I've also played for a very long time and remember being on AOL and CompuServe when they were popular, I also enjoyed being on Prodigy. I also play like you do, mostly solo but do enjoy community events and world boss fights. However, my conclusion is that I will always be looking for another unique experience in MMO's as well as RPG's. Now I just don't pre-order and wait to actually play the game first before putting money into it, usually through a beta or free weekend.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Large scale MMOs will be replaced with Private server games. There is something called Dunbars number which illustrates that the number of people you can hold a social relationship to is limited. MMO servers far exceed that limit, thus private servers can give a player all that they are looking for. This in addition to data collection so that the game universe can respond to players actions.
I by no stretch of the imagination mean people are not going to be playing together.
I have responded directly to this post and I refute your claim that MMOs will be replaced by private server games. I have always acknowledged that private servers have a valid and valued place within the gaming industry, but that they cannot replace MMOs.
I have given you examples of PvP, pugging, roleplaying and forming guilds as valid examples of why private servers cannot replace MMOs - without a large community, these activities will either be greatly reduced or not exist at all
I listen to this lecture that illustrated how in the states its taught that what a person thinks (without or even contrary to empirical data) is just as valid as research is because of the 'opinion clause' so to speak.
thats another way of saying just because one own personal world view contradicts Dunbars number it doesnt mean the substance of Dunbars number which I am sure most have not even read is not valid ...;)
Here, your defensive attitude kicks in. Loke provided you with valid, real world examples that refute your personal opinion, as well as referencing opposing research to Dunbar's theory.
Instead of acting like an adult, you insinuated a poor education, demonstrated your own lack of understanding of scientific theory, effectively saying "la la la can't hear you!"
Here is the problem with all that, if the relationship is not a 'stable
relationship' I assure you with 100000% confidence that the need can be
filled with NPCs. I am absolutely positive of that
I responded to this post directly, asking you to explain to me how a pug, taking on a difficult dungeon, could be replaced with an NPC. I asked you to explain how the explanation and discussion of tactics, the socialising, the executing of complicated tactics, the adapting to changing combat conditions could all be replaced by NPCs.
You couldn't.
I then re-iterated how your understanding of Dunbars number is wrong - you have completely misunderstood the theory. You were unable to refute anything I said.
I am 1000% positive that others are not aware of what they want in this respect.
I can assure you with absolute certainty that a city filled with NPCs walking around that you can interact with will be more engaging and more immersive then 100 people jumping around all over town trolling people and getting into in city pvp fights.
This is where you changed the goal posts.
Where before we were all talking about examples of interacting with real people - via roleplaying, pvp, pick up groups etc - and how a private server would drastically reduce, if not kill off, these activities, you now change the goal posts to state that having NPCs in the background is better than having real people in the background.
Whilst that is a valid point, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion we were having. Do you understand that?
--------------READ HERE--------------------- anyone with any gaming experience at all should be able to figure out that a city filled with NPCs doing their RP tasks is going to be FAR more compelling then thousand of real life people wander the streets jumping around looking for something to do because they dont have to bake breaD like the AI does.
PLEASE RESPOND TO MY DIRECT EXAMPLES OR STOP REPLYING...PLEASE --------------STOP------------------------
This is a direct response to the above quote.
I agree with you that a city filled with NPCs is highly likely to be more immersive / compelling than a city filled with 1000 players.
I had already agreed with you on this point earlier in this thread. Perhaps you missed it?
However, your point is irrelevant to the discussion we have been having, as I hope I have illustrated by collating your quotes into one place. You have been insisting that NPCs can replace ALL social interaction that occurs with players outside of dunbars number.
I have consistently provided you examples of why you're wrong. So have others in this thread. I have provided you with an explanation of why you have failed to comprehend Dunbar's theory.
So far, you have been unable to refute anything I, or the other posters, have said.
Want to try again? Feel free to respond to my direct examples
--------------READ HERE--------------------- anyone with any gaming experience at all should be able to figure out that a city filled with NPCs doing their RP tasks is going to be FAR more compelling then thousand of real life people wander the streets jumping around looking for something to do because they dont have to bake breaD like the AI does.
PLEASE RESPOND TO MY DIRECT EXAMPLES OR STOP REPLYING...PLEASE --------------STOP------------------------
This is a direct response to the above quote.
I agree with you that a city filled with NPCs is highly likely to be more immersive / compelling than a city filled with 1000 players.
I had already agreed with you on this point earlier in this thread. Perhaps you missed it?
However, your point is irrelevant to the discussion ...
this is all I care about at the moment.
it is very relevant to my core point that I think moving forward 'massive' is a trend that is going to die out in favor for smaller private servers.
what does Massive bring to the table? I am illustrating here by concrete examples that 'massive' doent bring anything of value to the table.
It does however in data collection (like Elite does) but not beyond that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
We all grew up, we don't play hide and seek anymore either. Your tastes have changed. Try something else. I've been playing PlayerUnknonws battlegrounds for weeks now. Its like a 30 minute MMO experience. You drop in with 100 people on a giant island, you scour houses looking for guns and "gear" and then try to survive and kill as the play area gets randomly smaller and smaller until you're in a 10 foot circle.
i don't play shooters much at all, but this is 99% MMO style stealthy build up with 3 minutes of absolute adranaline sprinkled in
Comments
Dunbars number refers to the maximum number of stable social relationships that a person can maintain.
In order to reach dunbars number of stable relationships, one has to meet many times that number of people. The magnitude entirely depends on your personality. For some people, you may only need to meet 500 people in order to form 150 stable relationships because you're friendly and get on with most people. For others, you might need to meet 5000 people in order to form 150 stable social relationships, because you find other people mostly irritating.
You are also assuming that a player needs to form a stable social relationship with another person in order to get value from that person. That is also an incorrect assumption. For us PvPers, I don't need to know the person I'm killing. I certainly don't need to be friends with them! There is also pleasure to be taken from random meetings - I used to lead pug groups all the time with people I'd never met before. I would get enjoyment out of meeting new people and playing through a dungeon together, but would rarely form a stable relationship.
So please, for the love of god, stop throwing around Dunbars number as if it magically validates your incorrect view of private servers. A person will only ever reach Dunbars number on a private server if they are already friends with everyone. If they are a stranger when they join a private server, chances are extremely remote that they'll ever get close to Dunbars number. Finally, there is also a load of evidence and research to suggest that Dunbar's number is wrong, so also try to remember that Dunbar's number is a theory - it is not a proven fact.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I've personally never played a shooter where bots can replicate real people.
I've never played an RPG where my NPC companions are even remotely close to as good as a real person.
I've never played a sports game where my NPC teammates acted in similar fashion to real players.
Maybe I'm playing the wrong games? Please could you tell me which games have NPCs that are just as good as players?
Beyond that, you've haven't even begun to address the issue of what it takes to actually form a stable social relationship. I mean, you don't expect us to believe that you form a stable social bond with every single person you ever meet, right? When I was playing LotRO, I probably maintained a stable social bond with maybe 1 in 20 people that I actively interacted with. In SW:TOR, it was more like 1 in 100 due to terrible community.
market economics, casual NPC city life, casual NPC interaction and yes even combat can be AI done and I have seen it done really well and certiantly good enough for the needs of 'social interaction' outside of the requirements of Dunbars number AND very likely do it BETTER than humans.
Just what I need to believe the city is real.. a bunch of kids literally jumping around and trying to dry hump me...yeah...no....AI is better
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I don't think other people have the right or competence to tell me what I like and I like having many players around.
A few becomes friends, other associates, some I just chat with once, some I ignore and some becomes enemies. That I can't become true friends with everyone on my server is really no problem for me.
And I at least think many of the people drawn to the genre share this with me. I could be wrong, maybe people are just drawn to it because the games are so incredible good but I doubt that.
Heck, I like a single player or regular multiplayert game as well as the next person but I also like MMOs.
My best fights in MMOs have been against other players or as a team. You can argue that it is because the PvE difficulty generally is too easy but the reason PvP is so fun is that people are unpredictable, some are bad while others are brilliant.
When I win a 1 Vs 1 PvP combat in a good game it is because I played better (in a bad game it can that I just had too much edge due to gear and level). I love that type of combat.
I can assure you with absolute certainty that a city filled with NPCs walking around that you can interact with will be more engaging and more immersive then 100 people jumping around all over town trolling people and getting into in city pvp fights.
I know a lot of people THINK they would have a better experience but they are full of it.
and I consider this factual, not based on opinion and not up for debate as an opinion of preference anymore pulling back fingernails is a dicusssion about 'opinion'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please name a shooter where the AI bots accurately replicate human players.
Please name an RPG where NPC companions accurately replicate human players.
Please name a sports game where NPC teammates accurately replicate human players.
The RPG one is the most important, because that is what you are saying can be done in MMO-type games - removing the large community in favour of a small private server and using NPCs to replicate all the social interactions you would normally have outside of your guild / friends list. You always ask for specifics yourself, but never provide any to back up your points. Maybe this time will be different and you can show me a game in existence where this happens.
Personally, i don't know which i will choose out of Anthem or Destiny 2, as long as they both work on my Win7 PC i might even end up getting both, eventually
First Level: falls into the category of Dunbars number in which you need real people
Second Level: mostly static noise in which AI can do a BETTER job replicating then real people can in a video game. Example: GTA city, imagine if you will that city instead of filled with AI it was filled with real gamers, the experience would be absolutely horrible. Unless you give all those people tasks that make sense in the context of the game they are going to be distracting noise. AI in GTA are doing things like going to the store, waiting on the bus, singing songs for cash. AI is going to be MUCH better job then real people at those virtual activities.
ARMA 3 AI is EXTREEMLY good...EXTREEMLY AND they dont rage chat when they loose
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Dunbars number refers to the stability of a social bond. It is about your ability to maintain a social connection over time. It has absolutely nothing to do with the type of social interaction you are having with another person. Perhaps you should go back and read up on what Dunbars number actually means?
For example, when I form a pug with 5 other people to do a dungeon, I might have an hour of chatting to them, forming tactics, working together in combat, anticipating each others needs, adapting to changing conditions etc. It can be a deep social experience, but it is a one-off: those 5 other players do not automatically become part of my social group. It is only if I maintain a social bond with them long term that they become part of Dunbars number.
Is it starting to sink in yet?
I'll try to dumb it down even more.
Example A: You have a friend who you meet up with once a fortnight for a few beers in a sports bar. You've been doing this for years. This person is included in Dunbar's number.
Example B: You go to a friend's dinner party and they have friends visiting from Australia. You spend the evening chatting to the Aussies and having a great time, but never speak to them again. The Aussies are not included in Dunbars number.
In both these examples, you are having a deep social experience and both add value and joy to your life. However, only 1 is included in Dunbar's number because you are only able to maintain that one social bond.
This is exactly the same as MMOs. Whether it be through random roleplaying encounters, pick up groups, pvping or anything else, having 1000s of people on your server greatly increases the chances of you having meaningful and enjoyable multiplayer experiences without those other people necessarily forming a long term social bond.
(For the record, I agree that a lot of casual / background social interaction can be replicated by NPCs and agree with your GTA example. However, that is not what we've been talking about at all).
1. There are two levels of social interaction (which I have illustrated)
2. in the context of a virtual world the second level of social interaction (in my list) AI WILL BE BETTER. without zero question will be absolutely better, including combat on average.
EDIT: for the sake of completness it is possible for a person to be more intresting in combat then AI. However, on average, your human combat senerios with any random group of real people will be shitballs compared to AI and in the case of humans the average is important, with AI its not because you can copy it
and YES in the context of the virtual world you are playing in AI will be more socially compelling at level 2 then real people because that vast majority of real people do not play with role playing in mind AND their actions are not in context to the living world they are in (aka they are not spending all day waiting for a bus for example) . AI will always have the context of your world into play.100% of the time
I think we should now just go our different ways, I know I am right on this and its not a matter of opinion up for debate
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As is exactly what has happened here:
Its OK to admit when you're wrong. Its how we grow as human beings. Its also OK to start new conversations - for example, I agree with you that NPCs are much better at providing background noise and immersion than real people, because real people in games tend not to roleplay and thus break immersion. But to hold onto a narrow minded view, backed up by faulty logic, then try to push it on other people....its just not civilised!
If you have a problem with me and think I am stubborn and not going to change my view then here is a hint...stop replying
--------------READ HERE---------------------
anyone with any gaming experience at all should be able to figure out that a city filled with NPCs doing their RP tasks is going to be FAR more compelling then thousand of real life people wander the streets jumping around looking for something to do because they dont have to bake breaD like the AI does.
PLEASE RESPOND TO MY DIRECT EXAMPLES OR STOP REPLYING...PLEASE
--------------STOP------------------------
now if you are ready to address my POINTS and examples specifically instead of dancing around them let me know, until then I am not reading what you have to say
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The person who is having the fun doesnt need to change pattern to find fun.
The person who is NOT having fun should be asking for some guidance from those who ARE having fun.
see? (I assume you dont)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
- I have given you examples of PvP, pugging, roleplaying and forming guilds as valid examples of why private servers cannot replace MMOs - without a large community, these activities will either be greatly reduced or not exist at all
- You have failed to refute these examples.
Here, your defensive attitude kicks in. Loke provided you with valid, real world examples that refute your personal opinion, as well as referencing opposing research to Dunbar's theory.Instead of acting like an adult, you insinuated a poor education, demonstrated your own lack of understanding of scientific theory, effectively saying "la la la can't hear you!"
I responded to this post directly, asking you to explain to me how a pug, taking on a difficult dungeon, could be replaced with an NPC. I asked you to explain how the explanation and discussion of tactics, the socialising, the executing of complicated tactics, the adapting to changing combat conditions could all be replaced by NPCs.
You couldn't.
I then re-iterated how your understanding of Dunbars number is wrong - you have completely misunderstood the theory. You were unable to refute anything I said.
This is where you changed the goal posts.
Where before we were all talking about examples of interacting with real people - via roleplaying, pvp, pick up groups etc - and how a private server would drastically reduce, if not kill off, these activities, you now change the goal posts to state that having NPCs in the background is better than having real people in the background.
Whilst that is a valid point, it is completely irrelevant to the discussion we were having. Do you understand that?
This is a direct response to the above quote.
I agree with you that a city filled with NPCs is highly likely to be more immersive / compelling than a city filled with 1000 players.
I had already agreed with you on this point earlier in this thread. Perhaps you missed it?
However, your point is irrelevant to the discussion we have been having, as I hope I have illustrated by collating your quotes into one place. You have been insisting that NPCs can replace ALL social interaction that occurs with players outside of dunbars number.
I have consistently provided you examples of why you're wrong. So have others in this thread. I have provided you with an explanation of why you have failed to comprehend Dunbar's theory.
So far, you have been unable to refute anything I, or the other posters, have said.
Want to try again? Feel free to respond to my direct examples
it is very relevant to my core point that I think moving forward 'massive' is a trend that is going to die out in favor for smaller private servers.
what does Massive bring to the table? I am illustrating here by concrete examples that 'massive' doent bring anything of value to the table.
It does however in data collection (like Elite does) but not beyond that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
i don't play shooters much at all, but this is 99% MMO style stealthy build up with 3 minutes of absolute adranaline sprinkled in
http://baronsofthegalaxy.com/ An MMO game I created, solo. It's live now and absolutely free to play!