Gaming/virtual economies (EVE online)

[daylen]

With generative language models and various other techniques, it is becoming more feasible to automate the pipeline from virtualization to reality (i.e. in both directions). More people can now program computer models through very expressive yet less precise channels. Virtual constraints that are easy to express with natural language can potentially be transformed into more immersive simulations with less human work (i.e. game development). Lowering the barrier for anyone to generate a world based on their own models or intuitions. In the opposite direction, scientific measurement and data collection in the real world can potentially be transformed into virtual models or statistical presentations with less human work (i.e. data science). Mathematics provides the infrastructure for this pipeline.

Game development goes from virtual to real, and data science goes from real to virtual. It isn't a coincidence that both run well on similar processing units (e.g. GPUs, TPU's, etc.) as tensor operations are very useful. The interactive edge between them possibly being ripe for mixed reality.

[7Wannabe5]

I wish there were more ecologically oriented sims that didn't empathize a particular set of objectives or goals but instead doubled down on a semi-organized, regenerative world that is predictably unpredictable. Economies are pervasive in gaming, but the combination of ecologies and economies could greatly diversify player role-play and strategy.

Yes, that would be more fun. Like if my 3-D Garden Design with Walk-Through/Growth Over 10 Year/Different Seasons View software also included AI, data science toolkit, and some data sets like these which could be used to create realistic breeding projects for terraforming.

https://useast.ensembl.org/info/docs/to ... index.html

Online Dating (AKA fishing for old guys in a barrel) is another activity that is kind of like real life augmented towards video game which I enjoy more than the old school totally real life version. However, what 3-D Garden Design and Online Dating have in common is that eventually I do plant the designed garden in the real world and meet the dates I lined up on my dance card in the real world, and that's when things get more interesting. It might even be interesting to see how the results of Online M.S. in Data/IT augmented reality "game" play out in the real world or expand further in the virtual world. Dunno.

One thing for sure is that my real life electronic inter-subjectively supported fiat currency reserves are currently running more towards affording the materials for 3-D Terrarium than 3-D Terraformed Planet of My Own

ETA: Crosspost. You expressed the same thought much better.

[daylen]

There is also the flip side of success by not doing something you shouldn't. Like don't try to implement a top-down city street plan without doing some traffic simulations first.

[daylen]

@7w5 You keep characterizing gaming as a male thing but my google search tells otherwise.

[7Wannabe5]

@daylen:

I'm sure the internet is correct. I have a bad habit of characterizing/dismissing activities I don't particularly enjoy, such as "video games", "Star Wars". "burpees", "porn", and "earning money in corporate setting" as boy-things. OTOH, I also tend to characterize/dismiss other activities I don't particularly enjoy, such as "shopping", "brushing hair every day", "green smoothies" and "conventional marriage" as mainly of interest to "bourgeois bipsy" females. Obviously anybody who wishes to maintain status/self-esteem while also practicing extreme frugality should tend towards belief that whatever free/low-cost actiities they personally most enjoy are the coolest, most beneficial to humanity, and most attractively in alignment with whatever sexual personae they prefer (or have ability) to exhibit.

[jacob]

@7wb5- You might find the following interesting, perhaps the whole page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and ... references

(It seems to me to mirror the same and not entirely unexpected imbalances for certain vocations.)

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

Interesting.

Compared to men, female MMORPG players tend to place more emphasis on socialization relative to achievement-oriented play. This emphasis on socialization extends beyond just the game itself: In a study published in the Journal of Communication in 2009, researchers found that 61% of female MMORPG players played with a romantic partner, compared to 24% of men.

-wikipedia "Women and Video Games"

Women, on the other hand, were about three to four times more likely to report a pattern of use that was primarily or completely couple-based in viewing pornography together with their partner (i.e., 25% alone, 75% with partner or 0% alone, 100% with partner).

-Wheatley Institute (trusted source??)

Other surveys indicate solo gaming and porn use by women are both on the rise, although as with gaming, the categories most often searched/played by women vary significantly. Since female characters are often sexualized in video games, this almost certainly worsens the lack of Venn diagram overlap in preferences.

Video games have also been determined to provide an easy lead-in to computer literacy for children, and correlations have been drawn between male video gaming and the predominance of male workers within the computer industry.[104] With the increasing importance of tech jobs in the 21st century and the increased role of online networking, the lack of female video game players suggests a loss of future career opportunities for women.

-Wikipedia

Yes, this reflects my personal perspective. Of course, there's also the feminist argument that if/when women become more interested/competent in a field, the field auto-magically becomes less lucrative. Classic example being that when typewriters were designed to require less muscular strength/endurance to operate, the profession became pink collar/low wage. IOW, if in Modern life, as reflected in video game preferences, males greatly prefer activities that require/improve Power, Competition, Challenge, and Strategy over Completion, Fantasy, Design, and Community and vice-versa, then they are bound to "win" in any zero-sum environment. Ken is submissive to Barbie, GI Joe, not so much.

[daylen]

Right, so by default civilization collapses in on itself fighting over natural resources. Though if virtual resources are always expanding then maybe comparative advantage keeps competitive advantage in check for a while. No barbarians at the gate.

In other words, give the wannabe conquerors some sex robots and virtual worlds to conquer and maybe they will select themselves out of the picture.

[7Wannabe5]

In other words, give the wannabe conquerors some sex robots and virtual worlds to conquer and maybe they will select themselves out of the picture.

For better or worse, I think this is unlikely, due in part to the fact that when women solo/independently select porn, #1 selection is Lesbian-oriented, and there is some Anime in the mix, but the majority of the Top Ten is BDSM "lite" oriented. And this preference for BDSM "lite" is also strongly exhibited in romance and female-oriented erotica novels. IOW, women who like sex with men most frequently prefer men who exhibit some masculine "killer/conquerer" tendencies in sexual context. IOW, in sexual context, women (or anybody who vibes primarily sexually submissive) can generally only "win" by "losing." So, we're pretty much f*cked as a species, although, IMO, polyamory at Level Yellow is a mediating design/strategy. I believe a video game that included elements similar to those found in polyamory could be quite popular with females. A simpler analogous model would be "swinging." The "swinging" sub-culture started in the highly masculine environment of military bases in California when the young married military couples started swapping partners, with strong rule being that the females were in control of the swaps.

IOW, in order to avoid competitive exhaustion of resource base, any beyond zero-sum "game" must be balanced towards rewarding both feminine and masculine energy/skill-sets, even in terms of any given individual. There is a kind of funny (to me) article written by a male integral thinker/therapist who kind of bemoans that polyamorous practice favors either/both the typical high status male and/or Level Green males who have enough time on their hands to ingratiate themselves with females. Funny, because he's therefore semi-consciously imagining conventional monogamy/marriage as a sort of prix fixe game/contract that requires neither competition/risk nor co-operation/social-energy-work for a male. Actually, there is a level on which he may be right, because in a recent survey/discussion among some-life-seasoned-older-women-I-know, the consensus was that the conventional prix fixe actually equals a house. So, the male of the species actually is pretty free to choose between some combination of Win/Build/Charm options.

[daylen]

I believe a video game that included elements similar to those found in polyamory could be quite popular with females.

Sounds like something Aella would promote. https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl

[7Wannabe5]

@daylen:

Interesting that Aella also straightforwardly recommended that men who want to do market research towards dating should read romance novels. I searched and discovered that there are a few fairly well-reviewed video games based on Regency Romance. Bridgerton was obviously hugely popular and highlights the adaptability of the theme. In the olden days of online dating, I found it to be an odd mix of mosh pit/cotillion. I see that there now are a few AI-integrated virtual/avatar based dating apps out there, such as Flirtual. Seems like this could easily be made more of a game set in variety of immersive environments. I think Dance Card would be a good concept, which could also provide for game-process-screened levels. For example, can you exhibit the behaviors necessary to get past the AI Blue-Haired Matrons/Lady Patronesses of Almack's? I wonder if young men would be willing to lend their eye/hand co-ordination to the task of learning the movements necessary to lead a virtual partner in the waltz vs. machine gun skillz, if this might lead to real world date? The main thing that drives women away from dating apps is the rush of too many rough/rude men. Installing an AI chaperone would improve the environment, especially if it could accurately perform tasks such as affixing warning labels along the lines of "Charming Rake" or "Pompous Bore." Dance Card could be part of a larger environment including more action packed alternatives such as Fox Hunt or Pall Mall.

[jacob]

Seems like this could easily be made more of a game set in variety of immersive environments. I think Dance Card would be a good concept, which could also provide for game-process-screened levels. For example, can you exhibit the behaviors necessary to get past the AI Blue-Haired Matrons/Lady Patronesses of Almack's?

Maybe it already has been? Much of what you're talking about falls under the category of "dating and life" sims. (Visual novels are also a thing.)
Here's a list of the current best sellers: https://store.steampowered.com/category ... topsellers Scrolling through that list, the demand you're mentioning is already being supplied.

However, by the wiki list of gender preferences posted above, the gender dichotomy is pretty strong. Females prefer to play only two kinds of games, namely life-sims and tile/merge-type games or combinations thereof.

(It could be argued that the male list is simply more differentiated---likely because it has existed longer---yet also boils down to mostly two kinds of games: moving around and/or hitting stuff or combinations thereof. How simple we humans are.)

I wonder if young men would be willing to lend their eye/hand co-ordination to the task of learning the movements necessary to lead a virtual partner in the waltz vs. machine gun skillz, if this might lead to real world date?

People have met via games and even gotten married. I don't know if the "resonance" would be necessarily be stronger in a dating game than in a flightsim. However, the odds are certainly a lot better just because of the ratio. I doubt that grinding XP for "heroic achievements" would be the best way to make such a match. Pretty sure matches are made naturally in the chat channel. As such the game is just like any hobby or work in terms of meeting people. Indeed, it might be disruptive to a game if too many were to "invade it to get laid" as that would change the game dynamics. Conversely, a game that was designed specifically to hook up would likely quickly strip away as much of the complicated game dynamics as possible. Compare e.g. MySpace where your profile required some actual talent/uniqueness, this in turn is what drove the match-ups if any; and Tinder where the process has been made as simple as possible.

https://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm really explains a lot in terms of not just how to design a game but how to tweak it to attract or reject certain player types (socializers, killers, achievers, explorers) by adding or removing specific features. For example, Facebook is prioritizing socializers and achievers while cracking down on killers. There's practically nothing for explorer types by design.

[7Wannabe5]

Maybe it already has been?

Interesting. Maybe I will try out "Doomsday Paradise" or "Monster Prom." My dollhouse was one of my favorite toys as a child, so sims are somewhat appealing, although actually crafting miniatures would be even more appealing to me, but I rarely give myself permission to indulge in such pastimes. Likely because I believe that the day I find myself digging around in a dumpster in search of materials for my next tiny faux permaculture-inspired decoupage project will also be the day that my path will never again circle back from the thoroughly eccentric. Although, it would open up my Web of Goals in a manner that would offer me further encouragement towards dating on the railroad modelers scene, if I could conform to scale.

People have met via games and even gotten married.

Yeah, I knew this was thing. A good friend of mine got back together with her H.S. boyfriend through long-distance game play, and now he is her third husband.

explains a lot in terms of not just how to design a game but how to tweak it to attract or reject certain player types (socializers, killers, achievers, explorers) by adding or removing specific features. For example, Facebook is prioritizing socializers and achievers while cracking down on killers. There's practically nothing for explorer types by design.

Hah, two of my too-grouchy-to-tolerate exes (Achiever on cusp of Killer and Socializer on cusp of Killer) also got themselves kicked off of Facebook. Too bad there's not much out there for Explorer types. My Bartle identity is 93% Explorer 60% Socializer 33% Achiever 13% Killer. I have been known to fall asleep at the movie theater while attempting to watch an Action Movie. It's like my brain asks "Why?" and then powers itself off.

[jacob]

My Bartle identity is 93% Explorer 60% Socializer 33% Achiever 13% Killer. I have been known to fall asleep at the movie theater while attempting to watch an Action Movie. It's like my brain asks "Why?" and then powers itself off.

(my bold)

I'm 87% explorer, 67% achiever, 27% killer, and 20% socializer. I have been known to play Towers of Hanoi in my head as an alternative to powering off out of acute boredom when in the company of socializers reminiscing about their past or sharing the latest gossip.

This also is why I'm not at all convinced that functional communities benefit from a diversity of types. It is true that some types benefit from the existence of other types (for example, achievers give socializers someone to talk about), but it is difficult to create a game (or an activity) (or a community) that simultaneously satisfies all types. Indeed, some types are directly turned off by the existence of other types in the community/activity/game. For example, killers are poison to socializers.

Insofar virtualization lends itself to create many different intersubjective experiences, I could see how humanity would eventually balkanize itself. Likely the Bartle types map onto traditionalism, modernism, postmodernism, and post-postmodernism in a trivial way.

[7Wannabe5]

Indeed, some types are directly turned off by the existence of other types in the community/activity/game. For example, killers are poison to socializers.

Truth. In the Bartle game design article you linked, it indicated that Explorers will help get rid of Killers in a game-scape, but I feel like I have a pretty high tolerance for Killers, but maybe that is only relative to others who are more Socializer and/or Achiever. For example, there are some Level Green members of my social circle with whom I couldn't freely share the fact that I was also frequently hanging out with a multi-millionaire Achiever/Killer, unless I attempted to take it to Level Yellow with explanations related to my innate curiosity. Basically, I think I tolerate the company of Achiever/Killers because they offer me access to some parts of the Territory and/or make pretty good bodyguards to the extent that I can trust them. Also, my tertiary Fe sometimes tends towards making me feel like even a Pitbull might need a hug. STRICT NOTE TO SELF: do not in the future access online dating sites/apps while in the mood that causes you to hum "How Much is that Doggie in the Window?" while browsing the selection.

Or it could be that my high level of tolerance is due to the fact that my mother is clearly pretty high percentage Killer.

[jacob]

Truth. In the Bartle game design article you linked, it indicated that Explorers will help get rid of Killers in a game-scape, but I feel like I have a pretty high tolerance for Killers, but maybe that is only relative to others who are more Socializer and/or Achiever.

I thought quite a bit about the dynamics between the four types because it was to be part of a Stoa3 presentation (this never happened, partially due to a case of imposter syndrome). WRT this particular dynamics, explorers have a grudging respect for killers since killing is a kind of skill to be mastered and so killers are a kind of explorers of killing. However, killers are also rather simple-minded in that their whole game is less about understanding or even winning than "making their opponent acknowledge their loss". This allows explorers to play a bigger game (strategery) and gank the more obnoxious killer types. The achiever perspective on killers is more of a calibration stick. If there were no killers, achieving would be too easy. However, if there are too many killers, achieving would be too hard. OTOH, socializers have zero use for killers. There you are having a good time and then some killer comes along and proceeds to ruin the socializer game. This is why killers (aka trolls) are anathema on social media.

[AxelHeyst]

Hm, this might clear up a confusion I had with my score -- 73% explorer, 53% socializer, 40% killer, 33% achiever. At first the fact that I scored higher in killer surprised me, particularly over achiever. I'd have assumed my killer score would be very low.

But upon further reflection, I *love* killing killers. I can't stand how they a) gum up my finely tuned exploration systems and b) tend to cause fun social interactions to turn into toxic cesspools, and so hunting them on occassion is enormously fulfilling activity (as long as I don't have to spend all my time doing it, then I go find another gamespace).

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

Gotcha. I think as somebody who is strongly Explorer/Socializer, it can be difficult for me to sort out Achievers from Killers, because Wanting to Win isn't all that different from Wanting Others to Lose in many contexts. For example, I was thinking of an ISTP Virtuoso I know whom I could easily imagine as a professional assassin, but now I am thinking that an Assassin would actually be more of an Achiever who specializes in killing, whereas some Wall Street/CEO/Politician types would be more like Killers who specialize in achieving. This also, obviously, somehow may be integrated with the Stupid/Helpless/Intelligent/Bandit model, in a manner that would likely reveal that Explorers are mostly interested in eliminating Stupid Killers.

Also, there are layers upon layers possible, such as The Wolf Wearing a Cardigan (with heart of gold?) or The Teddy Bear in a Leather Jacket (with spine of steel?), that are only revealed at different levels/contexts of play. For example, there are plenty of Socializers who will turn into Killers themselves when angered. "Heav'n has no rage, like love to hatred turn'd, nor Hell a fury like a woman scorn'd." Although, as I noted elsewhere, my recent survey of group of older women of my acquaintance revealed that the appropriate price to be paid for being dumped for another woman after long-term relationship/marriage (20 years ish) should approximate one paid-off house. Ergo, the total pain to be expected in confrontation with Scorned/Deceived to Killer-Resentment state female would approximate $1000 per month of relationship, all other things being equal. Anyways, that would be the formula I would use in a video game developed to that theme. I bet a lot of women would like a video game where they get to destroy a virtual Bad Boyfriend's virtual car.

[Jean]

the name killer is misleading, it's more about having power on others than killing them.

Also, I think the best game are those that allow those four instinct to be satisfied at the same time.
Hunt : Showdown is a good example of that.
You play in duo or trui, which is perfect for socializing, you need to outsmart or outskill other teams to kill them, game knowledge, is very valuable, and the game reward you when you win.
The way it makes money isn't geared toward killers (beside buying the game) or explorers, but it manages to turn those type of players into a good experience for the others.

[jacob]

the name killer is misleading, it's more about having power on others than killing them.

I agree. Killer isn't the right word when it comes to more civilized behaviors/civilized times. While the duelist attitude remains the same, the actual practice is more about "changing hearts and minds". "Influencer", "Activists", "Propagandists", ... all fall under the killer-demographic. Killers basically wants peiple to "see the error of their ways". Killers want you to admit you were wrong or at least make you feel bad about your beliefs. Agitprop is a common method. The whole thing about living rent free in someone's head is a killer's ultimate goal. Basically exhibiting "juvenile masculine energy" in @7wb5 terms(?) It's a power that creates change ... but also a power to be moderated by protecting "kings" and caring "queens" because it tends to lack wisdom and perspective.