Discussion Forum by Burn Unit
September 5th, 2007 11:42 PM1. Slower Task Accumulation, with a throttling mechanism.
Fewer tasks at the start of an era, please! And throttle the number of task approvals automatically on the basis of number of completions. The idea here is to force more players to participate in tasks. DEATH to the statement "I don't know how anybody else could do this better, I don't even want to try." I say throttle the number of tasks even considered, with maybe a simple and dynamic message at time of task submission: "Thanks for submitting! Right now there are n tasks active with 0 completions. Your submitted task is going to be put in a holding pen for just a little while. Once that number drops, the task you've created will be considered for approval. Help that number drop by signing up for one of these tasks listed below!"
AND that's not all! The holding pen of submitted tasks can be subject to player review! And votes could move that task to the head of the queue, or even activate the task early, despite the number of tasks with zero completions. Or enable players with higher level in era, or specific "tenure" from start of game, or all time vote count, or whatever to see and review submitted tasks.
2. "Trajectory of desire" flags and rewards
A button enabling players to reward or flag proofs for specific reasons, in this case, on the basis of a task being done within the framework of a player's group affiliation. Tasks which further the aims of groups can be so noted by players at the simple push of a button. Tasks which do not can bear this alternate flag, not necessarily of disapproval, but of disappointment that the player did not consider their team affiliation in the completion. Add an automated component to this as well. The penalties and rewards only come when a threshold is met, x number of group votes/flags = plus or minus y points. So not just automatic +5 points or 5 flags=auto redX. A "nuancing" vote mechanism, tied to the nuances of group affiliation. Non-grouped players will still be eligible, to save coding hassles if nothing else. This trusts the community to positively reinforce the role of group affiliation in the game, and rewards players for approaching tasks within the creative tension by limitations.
3. Added player options at proof submission
Players are given the option at the time of submissions to either refuse to take the point value of the task, instead opting to deploy a task for Votes Only, or accept points and votes ("normal" submission). A For Votes Only! tag is displayed next to the task on the praxis page.
This might encourage dueling, for good or ill--against others obviously, but also against oneself, i.e. for personally set goals!
4. Countdowns and time limits.
Tasks are given expiration dates- default expiration of 1/2 or 2/3 era; or player-set expiration. Tasks which have no one completing them by a specified time are retired. Countdown clock to task retirement shown on on every task. Allow task creators to set retirement date. Players can set # of days tasks are active at the time they submit tasks. Unretirement still possibly by request to SF0 creators, as before.
Big countdown clock displaying number of days until end of era or number of players approaching level 8.
5. Player favorites buttons and display
Enable players to not only vote on proofs, but to flag them as "favorites", permitting auto display of galleries of respect on player page or elsewhere.
That's five propositions. Please consider them and vote; note in comments if you agree/disagree with portions or all five.
Rather than advancing binary positions that all players should play "only for points" or "all groups disband" or even just "limit number of tasks or completions," these proposals are intended to give power to both individuals and to the community of players, to enable more flexibility in playing style and choices about rewards, and to engage players with opportunities for a diversity of positive reinforcements and nuanced constructive criticisms. To give players the options and power to play the game by unique combinations of their own devising, at any time. In the spirit of Glasnost! Openness!
5 vote(s)
Terms
(none yet)14 comment(s)
I'm wholeheartedly with you on 1, 3 & 5- the other two I'm not 100% sure about, but in general, Senator, you make good points.
The only one I really have a problem with is the first one. I like having a large list to choose from. I also don't like the idea of anyone being steered towards a task. I think groups do that enough!
Also number three. As it is, if a task is well done, you'll get more points from votes and i think its a good system. You can play sf0 for votes, wether or not you get the 15+ points from a task. I don't understand how it would encourage duels or personal goals.
In general I feel these proposals would make the game unnecessarily complicated, but I do like number five.
I like that you continually strive to integrate the trajectories of desire more completely into the task completions (I can't link the places, but I feel like i've seen you post things to this effect a few times now). But I also feel like that can make things very much more complicated. I support a marker that hilights when people do integrate is very well and further the desires of their group, but i don't support the 'disapprove' part. I like carrots, and I hate sticks.
and it's really good at math. I dispute the "unnecessary" comments. The necessity or pain of complications is rendered moot if a computer will track that information for you. You may have noticed we occasionally use such a device (the server where SF0.org lives) to do that tracking, applying it to monitor a few crude measures already: number of votes, number of points, etc.
Simply permitting players to attach additional values to tasks and proofs by virtue of buttons is a change that only needs to be made in a couple places, and deploys system wide. Then let the computers track it. To take up those lovely terms I enjoy, we give players access to MORE carrots to chase, rather than the fairly limited, therefore binary, carrots they can chase now. And we have a shot at deflating without further comment the debate between "purists" of either stripe: "the really good players go votes only!" or "beat my score, bitches!" Perhaps good and easy metering allows us to press these prejudices deeper and deeper into the SF0 regolith like the fossils they are.
YB: you may hate sticks, as I tend to do, but this community certainly demonstrates a historical willingness to use them. Right now the only stick they have is rather like a hammer and throws up a big cloud of red dust, even with the Daemon speaking to explain it when it lands.
Comments are always going to be taken with grains of salt and thus be treated solely as measures of individual bias and expression, wildly difficult to measure. This relatively trivial "complication" allows a compromise of convenience, objectivity...and yet nuance. Hell, turn the sticks INTO carrots: have the system track and display (as it does somewhat with proofs) players with the fewest number of flags, the most comments. etc. More carrots to share with more bunnies.
LT: you're correct and perhaps that bears some clarification. The point of pain I want to address isn't so much steering toward tasks--I know I Know, I said "force", but I don't know if that is quite how I meant it.
I do know that I mean there's too many tasks that never get done at all.
These languish either because
A) they're bad tasks, which could likely be improved/prevented by having more participation in the development/approval of tasks (cf. second paragraph of proposal 1); and/or
B) there's so many tasks, people are able to ignore them and they wither. Maybe if they could either wither before they become part of the mix or if the community didn't suffer from task inflation. i'd like to think we could do both.
Adding a dimension of time to this (proposal 4) permits us to cull tasks that aren't being completed and opens up a pathway to reward people who have a strong task-makin' jones for continuing to try! I for one get as much charge and sense of reward when one of my tasks is released into the wild as I do when I get some votes--I get a double dose when someone or many someones do one of mine. And adeuphoric levels of appreciation if someone does an amazing rendition of something I made. This is a carrot I chase in private (well, now you know, so, I guess that's public).
But if pressed on this point, I'm saying it's most critical to me that players have access to the process for creation and modification of tasks prior to release while also being encouraged (perhaps not driven!) to help us complete the tasks that already exist.
OH and lowteck, inre: #3, you're just not thinking hard enough about it, I suppose. Does a runner race his previous best time or the other runners? Why not both? Or either?
inre: #3
its not that i didn't think hard enough, i just simply don't agree.
i'm saying a player (or runner if you must) can set his own goals regardless of what is or isn't measured publicly or regardless of what others do. I have certain goals for votes when completing certain tasks. anything else that is measured (like score) has no bearing on those goals.
inre: to the "unnecessary" comments. the issue isn't that a computer can track it or not, but that the players must take these things into consideration when completing a task. for example, my tasks often are more equivalenz like than biome. (i guess i'm talking about #2 now) I have no interest in joining equivalenz, because I like biome tasks better. Am I the only one that chose a group for this reason, proly not. Should we be penalized in any way? i hope not
After looking through the task list, I'm inclined to agree with you about #4.
"players set their own goals regardless" and "it's that players must take these things into consideration"
uh, hey, waitaminit.
if you already set your own goals for a task viz. votes,
then you already don't feel you Must take score into consideration.
Why does having More things suddenly force one to consider them in doing tasks?
You already said you don't take score into consideration, adding more axes of measurement isn't going to force jack diddly. I mean, Q.E.D. or what! But it definitely gives more options! Why are More options bad in this case? I am going to continue to press the case that they are good so if we're going to discuss this, someone should probably start pointing out why they're actually bad.
I mean, your comment practically suggests you already lurch around under the burdensome regime of points: one more metric is the straw and you're the poor camel! But that's not the case at all!
We just see time and time again the troubles a lack of options rains down on us--points mongering, letter of the task vs. spirit debates, player abandonment, rudeness, confusion.
the only thing i felt forced players to choose certain tasks, was your first item. however you cleared that up. and i think i agree with you on that.
i don't feel i have to take score into consideration. maybe i wasn't being clear. while i don't care so much about points, i feel they should be left there for those who do take score into consideration. let people compare themselves to other players (if they wish to do so) by whatever measurement they want. the points are still there but they have the option of ignoring them if they wish to do so. you have the choice already of looking at the player list by vote or by score
some of this thread has gone private. But I should say publicly what I've already mentioned in mail: saying lowteck wasn't thinking hard enough, as if opposition equals stupid was a low blow and I think sounds insulting. I apologize for that. We'll see where that goes, but I do want to be public about that: I didn't think about the impact of what I was saying, and I'm sorry.
---
SO, in the mean time, let's get some other participation/commentary, what what? I do intend to press these ideas with vigor.
Like Spar: what do you mean odd?
A Gadget vote. i'll take that, hoo ya!
Joining the discussion late with a couple random thoughts, organized by Burn Unit's numbering scheme.
1. Sounds good, with or without the player moderation item. (I more or less figured this already happened, and have been surprised by how fast my task submissions have been added.)
2, 3. I doubt I'd ever use either of them, but can't see them doing any harm.
If anything, I'd be more likely to use a "no votes" button, designed to encourage the completion of dumb little fun tasks without having to feel bad about disappointing the praxis viewers. Some tasks are just more fun to do than to not do, even if they aren't very interesting to read. Of course, I'd argue we ought to be doing that anyway, and yet I always feel a little bit bad when I see that one of those tasks doesn't get any votes, even if it doesn't really deserve any votes.
4. I really like this. Even a scaled down version where instant retirement is replaced by a week's notice would be nearly as good.
I imagine the admins would probably reserve the right to modify completion clocks as the game progresses in order to shape the task list and cull the unexpected stinkers or keep alive tasks that deserve it.
Perhaps I'm unduly stressed out by task retirement, but trying to guess which tasks are likely die and topping off my "in progress" list with them is a pain.
On the other hand, game play is built upon artificial challenges, and so far task retirement is pretty much the only bad guy this game's got, even if it a bad guy with a well documented cheat code.
5. Sure, why not.
I'm voting for the statement, "people want something creative to happen with task retirement."
But, if all of Burn Unit's proposals were adopted, that'd be okay too. (Especially slower task accumulation. Now that I see how this all works, I've been holding back my own submissions awaiting the next reset. . . but a more heavy handed, top-down solution would be welcome.)
Seems a little overcomplicated, but in the long run, I agree.