Comments on: Risk and Uncertainty http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/02/02/risk-uncertainty/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:01:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: cmagoun http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/02/02/risk-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-67737 cmagoun Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:07:33 +0000 http://www.mmocrunch.com/?p=4562#comment-67737 "I know he’s been talking about consequences of failure when he refers to risk, but if the game design removes any chance of failure then the consequences are moot as well" Right, I agree and even said as much but neither Eve, or Darkfall, or any other PvP-centric game removes any chance of failure. First off, you can PvE to your heart's content in any of those games and Darkfall's PvE is as challenging as I have seen in an MMO. Second, if you are a PvPer and want to increase your odds of an encounter, you merely go look for an encounter. In Darkfall, this is as simple as walking into someone's city and antagonizing the occupants (usually by killing them and taking their stuff). . Callan, reading back to your previous comments, your argument seems to be, "I like Battlegrounds." Awesome. Battlegrounds are pretty cool. I thought scenarios in WAR were fun, and I occassionally get into a game of MW2. . But even if they are challenging, none of those things are the least bit risky. Even if you lose a Battleground, you are still rewarded with shiny "Get Stuff" points and experience (in WAR at least. I honestly forget if you get xp in WoW for BG PvP). I liked the challenge of scenarios in WAR, but ultimately tired of them because death (or victory for that matter) was mostly meaningless. I find deaths in Darkfall sting more, and victories are sweeter, not because the game is harder, or offers insta-press-a-button-PvP, but because of the consequences... the risk. . Now... why aren't I talking about Challenge? Mainly because I think MMO designers have challenge figured out. Not all of the time. Not in every encounter in every game, but for the most part, you can take any MMO and find a playstyle that provides an entertaining level of challenge... Champions Online might be the one exception. . But the phrase isn't "Challenge vs. Reward". If it were, there would be no article, because most devs can sorta do challenge. Unfortunately, they muddle the ideas and we get silliness like CoX or CO devs talking about "Risk vs. Reward" which is silly because there is no risk in either of those games. “I know he’s been talking about consequences of failure when he refers to risk, but if the game design removes any chance of failure then the consequences are moot as well”

Right, I agree and even said as much but neither Eve, or Darkfall, or any other PvP-centric game removes any chance of failure. First off, you can PvE to your heart’s content in any of those games and Darkfall’s PvE is as challenging as I have seen in an MMO. Second, if you are a PvPer and want to increase your odds of an encounter, you merely go look for an encounter. In Darkfall, this is as simple as walking into someone’s city and antagonizing the occupants (usually by killing them and taking their stuff).
.
Callan, reading back to your previous comments, your argument seems to be, “I like Battlegrounds.” Awesome. Battlegrounds are pretty cool. I thought scenarios in WAR were fun, and I occassionally get into a game of MW2.
.
But even if they are challenging, none of those things are the least bit risky. Even if you lose a Battleground, you are still rewarded with shiny “Get Stuff” points and experience (in WAR at least. I honestly forget if you get xp in WoW for BG PvP). I liked the challenge of scenarios in WAR, but ultimately tired of them because death (or victory for that matter) was mostly meaningless. I find deaths in Darkfall sting more, and victories are sweeter, not because the game is harder, or offers insta-press-a-button-PvP, but because of the consequences… the risk.
.
Now… why aren’t I talking about Challenge? Mainly because I think MMO designers have challenge figured out. Not all of the time. Not in every encounter in every game, but for the most part, you can take any MMO and find a playstyle that provides an entertaining level of challenge… Champions Online might be the one exception.
.
But the phrase isn’t “Challenge vs. Reward”. If it were, there would be no article, because most devs can sorta do challenge. Unfortunately, they muddle the ideas and we get silliness like CoX or CO devs talking about “Risk vs. Reward” which is silly because there is no risk in either of those games.

]]> By: Callan S. http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/02/02/risk-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-65495 Callan S. Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:31:32 +0000 http://www.mmocrunch.com/?p=4562#comment-65495 Yes, but look at your own attitude there - you would be all too happy (because your getting $100) if there was no risk/no chance of losing at all, even from the outset. . Ie, you'd be perfectly happy if risk was entirely absent. . I'm not laying into that preference at all. But I'm presuming Cmag, from his posts, has found some thrill in risk itself. . You can't love risk and want to face some, yet want a game design that can completely remove risk from gameplay. Ie, a game that entirely removes what you want. . For people who don't actually enjoy risk, fair enough, that makes sense. But I'm pretty sure Cmag has been talking about building risk into mmorpgs moreso, and because of that I take it that he likes facing risk. And if you like facing risk, you don't want to advocate for a game design that removes your chance to face risk. . I know he's been talking about consequences of failure when he refers to risk, but if the game design removes any chance of failure then the consequences are moot as well. There's no way of getting around it - you have to decide if you like facing a chance of danger, directly. You can't continue to not like it, yet try and build up the consequences of failure because of the thrill it brings to play. . Well, I guess you could, but only for yourself. All the people who don't like risk will dismiss the idea utterly (weve seen posts like that already) and all the more play to win/enjoy facing risk guys (kinda me) dismiss it as not facing risk. Not that you need other people - you could write games for yourself, for example. Yes, but look at your own attitude there – you would be all too happy (because your getting $100) if there was no risk/no chance of losing at all, even from the outset.
.
Ie, you’d be perfectly happy if risk was entirely absent.
.
I’m not laying into that preference at all. But I’m presuming Cmag, from his posts, has found some thrill in risk itself.
.
You can’t love risk and want to face some, yet want a game design that can completely remove risk from gameplay. Ie, a game that entirely removes what you want.
.
For people who don’t actually enjoy risk, fair enough, that makes sense. But I’m pretty sure Cmag has been talking about building risk into mmorpgs moreso, and because of that I take it that he likes facing risk. And if you like facing risk, you don’t want to advocate for a game design that removes your chance to face risk.
.
I know he’s been talking about consequences of failure when he refers to risk, but if the game design removes any chance of failure then the consequences are moot as well. There’s no way of getting around it – you have to decide if you like facing a chance of danger, directly. You can’t continue to not like it, yet try and build up the consequences of failure because of the thrill it brings to play.
.
Well, I guess you could, but only for yourself. All the people who don’t like risk will dismiss the idea utterly (weve seen posts like that already) and all the more play to win/enjoy facing risk guys (kinda me) dismiss it as not facing risk. Not that you need other people – you could write games for yourself, for example.

]]> By: jpwoo http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/02/02/risk-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-65467 jpwoo Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:39:23 +0000 http://www.mmocrunch.com/?p=4562#comment-65467 @callan . Lets consider the chess analogy. Suppose someone will pay you 100 dollars if you sit down at chess club with a board and don't lose a game. How you look at the situation now depends on what your attitude is. If you want the 100 dollars, you don't want to play anybody, if you don't play you can't lose. So setting up in the corner, or not showering for a week, or wearing your Barry Manilo tour tee shirt might all be good ideas. If you are there to play chess and could give a crap about the 100 bucks, then you would actively seek out players. . So in CMags terms, the 100 dollars is what you are risking, or gaining, (loss of potential gains are a form of risk I suppose). The Challenge is whatever opponent you happen to face. . If you are in it for the challenge, then by all means play WoW battlegrounds, or League of Legends (which is awesome). However in a game like EVE players are often more concerned with their profit margins than shootemup lazer gun fights. @callan
.
Lets consider the chess analogy. Suppose someone will pay you 100 dollars if you sit down at chess club with a board and don’t lose a game. How you look at the situation now depends on what your attitude is. If you want the 100 dollars, you don’t want to play anybody, if you don’t play you can’t lose. So setting up in the corner, or not showering for a week, or wearing your Barry Manilo tour tee shirt might all be good ideas. If you are there to play chess and could give a crap about the 100 bucks, then you would actively seek out players.
.
So in CMags terms, the 100 dollars is what you are risking, or gaining, (loss of potential gains are a form of risk I suppose). The Challenge is whatever opponent you happen to face.
.
If you are in it for the challenge, then by all means play WoW battlegrounds, or League of Legends (which is awesome). However in a game like EVE players are often more concerned with their profit margins than shootemup lazer gun fights.

]]> By: Callan S. http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/02/02/risk-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-65352 Callan S. Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:21:25 +0000 http://www.mmocrunch.com/?p=4562#comment-65352 Gah, I'm posting again. I'm terrible... ` It just seems to me to be the orwellian thing, or it's like turning up to a chess club, setting up a table and getting excited if no one sits down to play a game of chess with you, because that means a danger (of losing). And maybe 25% of the time someone does sit down and play, so it seems like your facing a chance of danger/risk. And you can mitigate the risk by setting up a table in a hard to see corner and other things. ` Rather than facing a chance of danger/risk, it just seems to be not playing a game at all, to me. Gah, I’m posting again. I’m terrible…
`
It just seems to me to be the orwellian thing, or it’s like turning up to a chess club, setting up a table and getting excited if no one sits down to play a game of chess with you, because that means a danger (of losing). And maybe 25% of the time someone does sit down and play, so it seems like your facing a chance of danger/risk. And you can mitigate the risk by setting up a table in a hard to see corner and other things.
`
Rather than facing a chance of danger/risk, it just seems to be not playing a game at all, to me.

]]> By: Callan S. http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/02/02/risk-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-65045 Callan S. Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:42:52 +0000 http://www.mmocrunch.com/?p=4562#comment-65045 If on average they have a 25% chance of turning up - well, what's the difference between that and the computer rolling percentile dice, getting 25% or under and teleporting a couple of players in (who were on que for it, ala wow battle grounds)? ` Nothing! And to me that's far more satisfying because I know I'm facing 25% odds. Not some unknown organic odds which in the end will become a hard averaged number anyway. ` For me, if I want to face a certaub chance of danger, then I want a game that guarantees that certain chance will occur. I don't want a game that leaves whether I get what I want up to a human element that might go out on bio break. It sounds like you don't want to be guaranteed a chance of danger, since your leaving it to a system that's human element may fail to provide any chance of danger? Perhaps we differ there? If on average they have a 25% chance of turning up – well, what’s the difference between that and the computer rolling percentile dice, getting 25% or under and teleporting a couple of players in (who were on que for it, ala wow battle grounds)?
`
Nothing! And to me that’s far more satisfying because I know I’m facing 25% odds. Not some unknown organic odds which in the end will become a hard averaged number anyway.
`
For me, if I want to face a certaub chance of danger, then I want a game that guarantees that certain chance will occur. I don’t want a game that leaves whether I get what I want up to a human element that might go out on bio break. It sounds like you don’t want to be guaranteed a chance of danger, since your leaving it to a system that’s human element may fail to provide any chance of danger? Perhaps we differ there?

]]> By: cmagoun http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/02/02/risk-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-64825 cmagoun Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:43:30 +0000 http://www.mmocrunch.com/?p=4562#comment-64825 Callan: One problem is since we are using totally different definintions, we aren't really talking about the same things. That's my fault for taking the word "risk" (because of the term risk versus reward) and applying a more specific definition than we are used to. I am doing that because as players and game devs, we have muddled the terms and focus too heavily on your version of risk (chance of failure) while sanitizing our games of my version of risk (consequences of failure). . We have a whole Tower of Babel thing going on and thus, we are talking past one another. Happens all the time and to paraphrase Darkfall... "Welcome to the Internet." . Regardless, I enjoy the discussion and so, to the point you made in your blog, which I found interesting, I don't think it is as sinister as you make it. You don't have to "treat someone like a vending machine" even if you make a statistical analysis. . Case in point: The past four times I have logged into Darkfall, I have gone to the same region and farmed Trolls and Akathar. Three of those times, I farmed unmolested and made a nice haul of gold and goods. Last night, I got rolled by PKers twice and lost a large portion of my reagents and a nice set of armor. . As a Darkfall player trying to succeed at the game, I look at that fact and judge my odds based on what I know. That's not taking some kind of extreme deterministic view of the universe that crushes free will under my Orwellian thumb. That's acting on my past experience and trying to form a strategy based on that experience. Do I bet my best gear (to make the PvE easier), knowing I still can't win a PvP battle (which has by my experience a 25% chance to happen) against anyone who is going to attack me at those spawns? Or do I take crap gear to mitigate my risk, at the expense of making the PvE harder? That's a cool choice to have to make. Callan: One problem is since we are using totally different definintions, we aren’t really talking about the same things. That’s my fault for taking the word “risk” (because of the term risk versus reward) and applying a more specific definition than we are used to. I am doing that because as players and game devs, we have muddled the terms and focus too heavily on your version of risk (chance of failure) while sanitizing our games of my version of risk (consequences of failure).
.
We have a whole Tower of Babel thing going on and thus, we are talking past one another. Happens all the time and to paraphrase Darkfall… “Welcome to the Internet.”
.
Regardless, I enjoy the discussion and so, to the point you made in your blog, which I found interesting, I don’t think it is as sinister as you make it. You don’t have to “treat someone like a vending machine” even if you make a statistical analysis.
.
Case in point: The past four times I have logged into Darkfall, I have gone to the same region and farmed Trolls and Akathar. Three of those times, I farmed unmolested and made a nice haul of gold and goods. Last night, I got rolled by PKers twice and lost a large portion of my reagents and a nice set of armor.
.
As a Darkfall player trying to succeed at the game, I look at that fact and judge my odds based on what I know. That’s not taking some kind of extreme deterministic view of the universe that crushes free will under my Orwellian thumb. That’s acting on my past experience and trying to form a strategy based on that experience. Do I bet my best gear (to make the PvE easier), knowing I still can’t win a PvP battle (which has by my experience a 25% chance to happen) against anyone who is going to attack me at those spawns? Or do I take crap gear to mitigate my risk, at the expense of making the PvE harder? That’s a cool choice to have to make.

]]> By: Callan S. http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/02/02/risk-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-64762 Callan S. Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:01:00 +0000 http://www.mmocrunch.com/?p=4562#comment-64762 Sorry to post again, but I've been thinking on this and I think it hinges on whether you treat someone as having free will, or whether you treat them more like a vending machine that has statistical odds of giving a logged in/logged out result. There's some terrorfying truth to the latter, and that truth would make true your risk theory...but for a game? ` Anyway, it takes awhile to describe it in full so I put it on my blog: http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/2010/02/logged-in-but-as-what-free-will-or.html Sorry to post again, but I’ve been thinking on this and I think it hinges on whether you treat someone as having free will, or whether you treat them more like a vending machine that has statistical odds of giving a logged in/logged out result. There’s some terrorfying truth to the latter, and that truth would make true your risk theory…but for a game?
`
Anyway, it takes awhile to describe it in full so I put it on my blog: http://philosophergamer.blogspot.com/2010/02/logged-in-but-as-what-free-will-or.html

]]> By: Callan S. http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/02/02/risk-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-64554 Callan S. Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:56:03 +0000 http://www.mmocrunch.com/?p=4562#comment-64554 So yeah, I think eve suffers or fails in that regard, as do any other mmorpgs with a similar 'if a guy turns up' method of danger (WOW, runes of magic, I'm sure many more). ` I could never enjoy any sense of risk, because I could never be sure if there was one actually present, or I was just fooling myself into thinking there was one. So yeah, I think eve suffers or fails in that regard, as do any other mmorpgs with a similar ‘if a guy turns up’ method of danger (WOW, runes of magic, I’m sure many more).
`
I could never enjoy any sense of risk, because I could never be sure if there was one actually present, or I was just fooling myself into thinking there was one.

]]> By: Callan S. http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/02/02/risk-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-64553 Callan S. Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:45:52 +0000 http://www.mmocrunch.com/?p=4562#comment-64553 "This is where your examples ring true. If all the gankers are offline and aren’t coming back, and you know this, and the challenge of your trade run is essentially zero, then the risk drops to zero as well. You aren’t betting unless there is a chance, however small, that you can lose." ` What I've been saying is that it doesn't matter whether you know the gankers are offline or are completely ignorant of that. ` The risks don't drop to zero because you know their on bio break. If you didn't know that, the risks would still have dropped to zero. But because there's this idea that gankers could be around, it's feels like its taking a risk. But it clearly isn't. ` To me making a bet isn't about me thinking there is a risk when actually there isn't one at all. To me making a bet is about there actually being a chance of danger physically present. If there wasn't, then I wasn't making a bet - I would just be kidding myself. ` The risk doesn't drop to zero because you know all the gankers are on bio break. The risk drops to zero because they are all on bio break, whether you know that or don't and simply feel there's a risk involved. ` Thinking gankers are out there is simply not enough - because what you think or feel could be absolutely wrong. That's not making a bet, that's just being wrong. ` Or atleast for me it's simply not enough. “This is where your examples ring true. If all the gankers are offline and aren’t coming back, and you know this, and the challenge of your trade run is essentially zero, then the risk drops to zero as well. You aren’t betting unless there is a chance, however small, that you can lose.”
`
What I’ve been saying is that it doesn’t matter whether you know the gankers are offline or are completely ignorant of that.
`
The risks don’t drop to zero because you know their on bio break. If you didn’t know that, the risks would still have dropped to zero. But because there’s this idea that gankers could be around, it’s feels like its taking a risk. But it clearly isn’t.
`
To me making a bet isn’t about me thinking there is a risk when actually there isn’t one at all. To me making a bet is about there actually being a chance of danger physically present. If there wasn’t, then I wasn’t making a bet – I would just be kidding myself.
`
The risk doesn’t drop to zero because you know all the gankers are on bio break. The risk drops to zero because they are all on bio break, whether you know that or don’t and simply feel there’s a risk involved.
`
Thinking gankers are out there is simply not enough – because what you think or feel could be absolutely wrong. That’s not making a bet, that’s just being wrong.
`
Or atleast for me it’s simply not enough.

]]> By: cmagoun http://www.mmocrunch.com/2010/02/02/risk-uncertainty/comment-page-1/#comment-64465 cmagoun Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:50:24 +0000 http://www.mmocrunch.com/?p=4562#comment-64465 Callan: Of course you are being presented with the possibility of danger. First off, you have no way of knowing when the gankers are offline, so the possibility is always there. Second, even if you do start your run safe, it is very possible that someone comes online and happens upon you with the intention of killing you and taking your stuff. Possiblility does not equal certainty. . Again, I am deliberately separating the chance of badness (which I am calling challenge) with the consequences of badness (which I am calling risk). I am doing this because I feel that game devs and players have muddled these two concepts and thus, you get discussions on the Champions Online boards about risk v. reward in a game where dying carries so little penalty that it is used as a tactic in some cases. . Now, are risk and challenge totally orthogonal concepts? No, and I think I mentioned that in the original post; the two variables are coupled, especially at the extremes. . This is where your examples ring true. If all the gankers are offline and aren't coming back, and you know this, and the challenge of your trade run is essentially zero, then the risk drops to zero as well. You aren't betting unless there is a chance, however small, that you can lose. . Now, this brings up another interesting point, which is MITIGATION. Let's say that you are doing a trade run in Eve through lowsec space. You know that there is a chance that you will be attacked and killed on the way (challenge), and if that happens, you lose millions of ISK (risk). However, I can use tools to reduce my chance of death, or my loss. . For instance, I use the in-game maps to overlay the kills/hour for each system. I see that everything on my route seems quiet, I assume that the gankers are having a smoke, and so I head out. Or, I equip stealth technology, or I bring a friend along, or I buy insurance... . That beauty of risk is that it encourages new strategies to mitigate that risk (by reducing either the chance of loss, or the loss). If players have nothing to lose, then the game ignores an important part of what makes games interesting in the first place. . If I take the time to analyze the bathroom patterns of the pirates along my route and thus manage to ensure my safety, I haven't broken the game. The fact that the trip was risky caused me to find ways to overcome the challenge and thus, mitigate the risk. . From a game design perspective, I think that's good stuff. Callan: Of course you are being presented with the possibility of danger. First off, you have no way of knowing when the gankers are offline, so the possibility is always there. Second, even if you do start your run safe, it is very possible that someone comes online and happens upon you with the intention of killing you and taking your stuff. Possiblility does not equal certainty.
.
Again, I am deliberately separating the chance of badness (which I am calling challenge) with the consequences of badness (which I am calling risk). I am doing this because I feel that game devs and players have muddled these two concepts and thus, you get discussions on the Champions Online boards about risk v. reward in a game where dying carries so little penalty that it is used as a tactic in some cases.
.
Now, are risk and challenge totally orthogonal concepts? No, and I think I mentioned that in the original post; the two variables are coupled, especially at the extremes.
.
This is where your examples ring true. If all the gankers are offline and aren’t coming back, and you know this, and the challenge of your trade run is essentially zero, then the risk drops to zero as well. You aren’t betting unless there is a chance, however small, that you can lose.
.
Now, this brings up another interesting point, which is MITIGATION. Let’s say that you are doing a trade run in Eve through lowsec space. You know that there is a chance that you will be attacked and killed on the way (challenge), and if that happens, you lose millions of ISK (risk). However, I can use tools to reduce my chance of death, or my loss.
.
For instance, I use the in-game maps to overlay the kills/hour for each system. I see that everything on my route seems quiet, I assume that the gankers are having a smoke, and so I head out. Or, I equip stealth technology, or I bring a friend along, or I buy insurance…
.
That beauty of risk is that it encourages new strategies to mitigate that risk (by reducing either the chance of loss, or the loss). If players have nothing to lose, then the game ignores an important part of what makes games interesting in the first place.
.
If I take the time to analyze the bathroom patterns of the pirates along my route and thus manage to ensure my safety, I haven’t broken the game. The fact that the trip was risky caused me to find ways to overcome the challenge and thus, mitigate the risk.
.
From a game design perspective, I think that’s good stuff.

]]>