So, other than mucking about with these "laws," (pays the bills) I also spend too much time in endgame instances: BWL and AQ40 right now. Since access to the endgame has been discussed here, and since I do it, a lot, I'd like to post some thoughts about it. But one caveat: I don't think I'll talk about specific boss fights, or specific instances. Not only is that uncool, but I could really go on forever.
So, my first thought: end-game content is limited by the human ability to form real social bonds over limited bandwidth. The unit of social resistance that I will use is called the "drama."
Here's why: it takes 60 hardcore raiders to field a committed 40 man team to learn content endgame. People move in and out all the time. This means, at a rough guess, you need a "standing wave" of about 120 people to do endgame content (you lose some, you gain some, etc.) Maintaining a social network of this size cannot be done through "in-game" relationships alone. Social cohesion is maintained through real-world relationships developed through the online medium.
This leads to inevitable "drama." Drama is an important force. It is a social constant, not an exception. I wish businesses could measure drama. It is often an indicator of success.
Why is drama inevitable? First, MMORPGs are relentlessly social. Second, the sociality they represent is real-world, not virtual. Third, the bandwidth available to conduct those relationships is constrained.
In MMORPGs, friendships are formed, but you never see the other person's face. You spend 8 hours on Teamspeak with someone -- they are mature, competent, brilliant; you engage in complex political maneuverings with them. You know them pretty well. In fact, I'll bet I know some of the people I raid with -- *inside* -- better than I know some people that I term "friends" in real life.
This leads to a question I've been thinking about for some time: Is there an optimal "bandwidth" for human relationships? And is that optimal bandwidth less than full, constant, real-life contact (which has been set up, by default, as the social gold standard of online relations).
Oddly, often we aren't at our best face to face. University of Arizona research indicates that we are better at lying than at detecting falsehood -- under constrained communication conditions (lying through /tells) we can detect lies much better than we can if the person is standing there.
I'm sure this is heresy, even here. But then I see groups of people who are not in real life leaders, leading and directing complex organizations with difficult political hierarchies and subtle power interplays. I see them politicking and gladhanding. Doing a wonderful job.
Does constraining bandwidth even reduce drama? I remember in DAoC, the /anonymous function was a source of deep relief. If you wanted to be "alone together" you could; you'd play the game and be able to hide from the ingame player search.
Bottom line: drama is an emergent and constant byproduct of real life social interactions mediated by constrained bandwidth. I'm just not sure it's all bad: caring about other people under conditions of complexity and tension produces those feelings. As with any toxic byproduct, it may indicate that a deeply healthy process is going on. I breathe, I produce CO2. I game, I produce drama.
Recent Comments