Thank you. But no I won't choose a different one. It is easier to simply swipe the mouse and highlight the text. But I'm not going to do that either. My post was mostly to bring attention to the fact that text was not legible. If FD is offering a skin which makes text illegible using the standard skin then I think it's FD's problem. Sorry for clogging the thread. Over and out
Operant conditioning and Elite Dangerous
- Thread starter Samosa
- Start date
Thank you. But no I won't choose a different one. It is easier to simply swipe the mouse and highlight the text. But I'm not going to do that either. My post was mostly to bring attention to the fact that text was not legible. If FD is offering a skin which makes text illegible using the standard skin then I think it's FD's problem. Sorry for clogging the thread. Over and out
Its simple.
Provide me a more diverse universe and better activities than what we have now, i will play. Rep decay is only an issue because now they are forcing a grind as well as routine logging to get rep. But, the missions still suck. Trading, transporting intel, transporting people.... ITS ALL THE SAME! Mining is still a joke. Bounty hunting is the same.
Provide me a more diverse universe and better activities than what we have now, i will play. Rep decay is only an issue because now they are forcing a grind as well as routine logging to get rep. But, the missions still suck. Trading, transporting intel, transporting people.... ITS ALL THE SAME! Mining is still a joke. Bounty hunting is the same.
Last edited:
For what it's worth your first post is unreadable to me - IMO Only use bold or underline and avoid COLOURS
(You changed the colour to grey, but for me using a black skin it made your post hard to read - use automatic colouring and you can't go wrong
)
Last edited:
I agree with you in that I think tapping into intrinsic motivators is much more interesting than mindless skinner boxes, which in many cases abused and overused by the game designers who themselves become victims of operant conditioning
Tapping into intrinsic motivators is also something that can be hindered or helped by the the design of the game. For players to experience intrinsic motivators it is very important that the design not provide demotivates. Hertzbergs two factor theory of employee motivation delved into this idea, that being for instance paying people on time was not a motivator per se but if the employee was not payed on time it would act as a demotivator and hinder the employee moving to become intrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivators are the most powerful and most enjoyable and require a high degree of autonomy, mastery over own fate etc. My previous post about flow and mastery relate much more to intrinsic motivation also. I also agree that giving people what they want is not always a solution, where's the surprise and delight in that
Last edited:
I agree with you in that I think tapping into intrinsic motivators is much more interesting than mindless skinner boxes, which in many cases abused and overused by the game designers who themselves become victims of operant conditioning
I also agree that giving people what they want is not always a solution, where's the surprise and delight in that
Some of the complaints about the game come from misinterpretation of it to provide internal motivation. Basically, the decision related to ownership. Although there is a sense of ownership available, it is unprotected and open to the whim of the player base. There is some emergent game play with this that has not been realized.
The game lets players invest large quantities of time and effort to accomplish a goal. In most modern games, these are protected actions that cannot be readily undone. This leads to a false expectation within this game...and many within the community seems to fall into the trap set by this false expectation.
Nothing you do is protected. Someone can stop, undo, mess up any activity the game provides...this is because one of the basic design choices was to never let anyone own anything. When one of the prime internal motivators is removed...how do you provide motivators, particularly internal ones?
Choices...that's the answer. You can let players choose to continue to protect their invested area...or choose to leave it for others to do what they will.
Why would you do this? As so many point out, there is no sense of belonging or care towards minor factions.
There isn't, until a group creates a reason...as story...for there to be one. That is the real intrinsic motivator within this game. Something becomes important in the game...because someone makes it important. Just like the magic that occurs within Toy Story. Once someone declares something important...and is telling a story...people will pay attention..the longer the story runs, the more people sign on and internalize the lore being created.
It only works if you assume that you should never fail or fall back, that's something you should ever, never accept. Only then reputation decay is a penalty - NOT a an actual thing that could happen AND make things different and interesting.
Same with grind - only is grind if you make it so, obsessing with hitting targets as soon as possible.
As we are trained to never surrender to life - unless we have a choice, no matter how artificial - it makes for amazing study.
Same with grind - only is grind if you make it so, obsessing with hitting targets as soon as possible.
As we are trained to never surrender to life - unless we have a choice, no matter how artificial - it makes for amazing study.
It does when that is how the game is designed. Look at any open world or accepted 'sandbox' game. There is very little story and very little storyline...when compared to something like WoW or Half Life. The longevity of open world games isn't the story...it's the story players create.
In a real sandbox game, a player doesn't just create a story - they create a 1000' tall castle with wired lighting and a dungeon and... etc.
Pushing the "imagination" party line and ignoring operant conditioning is the problem, not the solution, in my opinion, hence this thread.
A 'real' sandbox game...cannot be defined...other than it offers people more to do based on internal motivation than external.
THIS game is designed, at least currently, with a lack of ownership built in. This isn't party line..this is design basic to the game.
Wishing for something else is wishing for a different game. <shrug> I would play something else and see if this ever changes rather than waste my time chasing windmills...however, I have chased my fair share..so have at it....not trying to ruin your enjoyment.
And I think there's a problem here, because people use very generic term while speaking about apples and oranges.
First, additional content that drives gameplay and IS gameplay - yes, we all want to see new additions, and we all want lot of things mentioned in DDF - in some shape of form.
However, when people saying about grind only being if you want it to be, they talk about attitude how you play ED. I am chilling, taking it as my own adventure, playing it as in old days, or even more. Still got lot of money, my Cobra, etc. Or see how Isinona does it. He fully impresses himself - and it doesn't take a lot to begin with. I expect to hear even more amazing stories from him when NPC dialogs and passengers come.
So when people try to look for ironic outbursts to comment on 'lack of depth' in a game, they just express their confusion for not being able to switch it off. Some people how much lower thresholds to fire up imagination than others. Some people have their imagination neutered and replaced by Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. books you have read, games you have played. How many people posted threads - why there's no ships that look like coming from other universes? Some people need constant targets ahead of them because that's how our lives have become - if you not movin, you're getting...you get idea.
And that's totally fine, because we always look for familiarity. It just - yes, older games fired up imaginations. Problem is all new games I have tried usually have very well done stories, but they are very defined, very sterile regarding my own story or initiative.
I might have to clarify that I think ED's lack in showering the player with positive reinforments like other current game is actually a good thing.
Basically, Xakto and Surly_Badger have already summed up why:
I agree with you in that I think tapping into intrinsic motivators is much more interesting than mindless skinner boxes, which in many cases abused and overused by the game designers who themselves become victims of operant conditioning
The heavy reliance on operant conditioning is nothing but a cheap and manipulative way to keep players engaged, and often used to cover up shallow gameplay. I'm certainly not saying that ED's game design is flawless and not lacking in many areas, but keeping the player involved should not be reduced to handing out a steady stream of virtual rewards, just to tickle the player's pleasure centre.
Unfortunately, this has become a all-encompassing trend in game design in the last decade or so, starting from mobile games that use this to lure players into spending money on micro-transactions to keep the dopamine flowing, and not ending with games like recent incarnations of Call of Duty, that reward pretty much every player action with XP, including being bad at the game.
Last edited:
There's a bit more to it than just positive and negative reinforcement. Behaviours can be reinforced or extinguished through punishments and rewards, both positive and negative. So you can have positive or negative rewards, and positive or negative punishments. The differences can be difficult to grasp at first, so some examples.
Giving you a desired outcome for exhibiting a desired behaviour = positive reward. Behaviour increases. (You've been so good, have a lollipop!)
Giving you an undesired outcome for exhibiting an undesired behaviour = positive punishment. Behaviour decreases. (You've been so naughty, have a smack on the backside!)
Removing the requirement for you to perform am undesirable task = negative reward. Behaviour increases. (You've been so good, so you don't have to wash the dishes today!)
Removing a desirable outcome in response to an undesirable behaviour = negative punishment. Behaviour decreases. (You've been so naughty, so you're not allowed to watch TV today!)
So that makes reputation decay in response to time spent not playing a negative punishment. Punishment's actually a good modifier of behaviour IF it's "reliable and immediate" ie: if the punishment occurs EVERY time the behaviour occurs and if the punishment happens immediately the behaviour occurs, without delay. Fail on either of these points and punishment reliably fails as a behavioural modifier. In our case of rep decay it meets the first criterion of reliability, but the second is a bit more esoteric as we're not actually punishing a behaviour but a LACK of a behaviour. Because of this it could be said that it fails the second criterion in many cases.
Now when you have conflicting attempts at behaviour modification where one is utilising reward and the other punishment, you reliably see reward being far more successful at changing behaviour. How is this relevant, I hear you ask, in the ED rep decay case? The game is rewarding you (supposedly) by enjoyable gameplay for playing and punishing you for failing to play thus these are not in conflict. This is true BUT it ignores the rest of the world. If I fail to go to work I recieve far worse punishments than rep decay and if I go to work I receive far greater rewards (salary) than ED gameplay. There's also competition with other games. If I am also playing another game that rewards me for playing but does NOT punish me for failing to play I'm far more likely to avoid the punishment and play the other game and give up playing the one that does punish me.
Punishing players for having things other than ED to do was poorly thought out and doesn't achieve what they'd hoped to achieve (increased participation) - in fact it achieves the opposite.
Last edited:
Human beings are animals.
And in the end, as valid as your points are, they are irrelevant. What matters is that reputation decay punishes you for actions or inaction that do not occur within the game, the binary state playing/not-playing only exists in the context of the real world, not the ingame universe. Regardless of human psychology, I believe this connection between the real and the game world is fundamentally wrong.
It's been a long time since I played the Wing Commander series. I suspect many of you are too young to have ever played it. And while my memory of details have faded, I remember the feeling of teamwork against a common enemy, of positive feedback from the captain (Nice job, Colonel...) over my com system after a successful mission, mission briefings and debriefs. Now ED is a different game, I get that, but aren't there some lessons to be learned from using positive reinforcement to encourage players to keep playing, to add to the immersion -- instead of negative punishment for not playing as suggested by Sandman? ED doesn't even acknowledge when you're promoted, e.g. by the Federation -- if you happen to check the Systems Panel you may notice that a promotion has come through.
You'll notice that in my original post I said "not even getting into positive and negative punishment", also I suggested that reputation decay was an example of negative reinforcement, not punishment.
If the aversive stimulus (reputation decay) is stopped by logging in and grinding rep, then one does so more frequently in order to prevent reputation decay.It's not a punishment, because reputation decay happens even if you do nothing.
Last edited: