WoW and other MMOs have had story driven content for a while, and in some of them it works quite well; but it hasn't been their focus.
WoW's implementation for example might be that there is a new zone, but there is a story behind the zone and before it can be unlocked (or completely unlocked) the server, as a whole must complete a series of quests and tasks.
Sure you don't have to pay much attention to the story line, and sure a lot of the key elements of the story fall to raiding guilds, but the scope is usually so large that it takes somewhat active participation from the entire server for days/weeks.
I remember a story driven series of events in Everquest where the Ogre race (or was it Trols, long time ago - both were playable races) was driven out of their home town by Froglocks (another playable race). It was the introduction to expansion that was coming out, and it was very story driven with elements players could both passively observer and which they could actively participate in.
People seem to think the story must be about a character, specifically their character, but there are bigger stories and bigger stories have many participants.
"a) just allow players to participate in PvE end game content without grinding lower level PvE content or PvP content;"
I am not talking about the need to level up. I am talking about faction grinding and PvP grinding to get the gear needed to participate in end game content.
What I want to know is whether the transition in to end game content will be less painful, and whether the investment (and of course there will be some investment needed) will be completely whitewashed when 4.0 is release.
In WoW 1.0 it was very difficult for casual players to participate in end game content. For those that did make the investment, their achievements were wiped away by the whitewash approach 2.0 took to gearing.
2.0 allowed casual players to participate in a rich end game, but the balance between the hardcore and casual players was still way off.
3.0 is set to whitewash the days/months of end game investment players have made during 2.0. This annoys me, and I am seriously beginning to wonder why I should keep playing.
Are there any plans in 3.0 to:
a) just allow players to participate in PvE end game content without grinding lower level PvE content or PvP content; and
b) prevent all the investment people make during the life of 3.0 simply being whitewashed by 4.0?
Water will hinder the development of technology, as I mentioned several times; and
Only if you assume tools similar to ours. The easiest way (and yes this is based on our limit knowledge, but our limit knowledge of physics not the universe) to achieve high technology is access to combustion as an energy source. Water will hinder high level technology, it won't rule it out, but it will hinder it. We are talking about a race capable of traveling between stars.
you have to look at the pre-tool section of the evolutionary chain first as, well, it comes first.
This is definitely true, and obviously on earth we evolved, but that doesn't mean that on other planets it has to happen that way. Or even that we had to evolve at all. Spontaneous emergence is a completely different topic, as is placement/creation. Yes I accept they are possible (well I accept creation is possible, we are close to creating life forms ourselves; but spontaneous emergence is another matter).
My point was, however, that their is nothing to indicate carbon based humanoids will be a rarity and in fact there is strong evidence to support the fact they may be the 'easy' higher order life form; and that is galactic evidence, not solely Earth bound evidence... though I do admit we don't really know nearly as much about the universe as we like to think we do.
Nothing to indicate it will be a rarity? Except that we only know of one carbon based bipedal humanoid, us, and we some how use that as proof that other intelligent races would look like us. It smacks of making a teleological argument. I haven't seen many silicon based intelligent races either... or races of any other type. Yes if you look solely at how many intelligent races we have seen it is a small set; but life consists of complex compounds and we have observed many complex compounds from Earth and else where and carbon based complex compounds appear to be far, far more common than silicon compounds on a galactic scale.
The article strongly advocates the idea that life can arise from materials other than carbon and water but illustrates the extreme conditions that would be required for it to happen.
The problem here is what we define as extreme. I would consider the crushing pressure in one of the gas giants extreme. Or perhaps the heat of Venus. Or a planet made primarily of elements significantly different than ours, sulfur and silicon perhaps.
While crushing pressures and extreme heat (needed to make silicon truly viable for complex life) may not seem extreme to life forms evolved in such environments; they are still extreme in terms of, well physics. The extreme nature of the environments would make evolution of technology difficult (not impossible, but extremely difficult).
I am not naive enough to rule out silicon based technological intelligences but the thing which sticks in my mind is the fact that on Earth (and most rocky planets) the amount of silicon far, far out weighs the amount of carbon; yet on earth life is carbon based.
It is true that there are likely types of planets with an abundance of silicon but a far higher pressure and temperature than Earth, which would make silicon more viable; but you then get back down to the hindrance that would have on technological evolution (and we are talking about space traveling aliens).
but I ponder how a octopus with no skeletal structure or protective shell would have faired against a humanoid on land, no matter how potentially nimble the octopus form.
To throw this back at you, how well would a spider monkey fare against a intelligent, tool using octopus descendant in the water?
I don't think that is relevant to what I was saying... because:
Water will hinder the development of technology, as I mentioned several times; and
you have to look at the pre-tool section of the evolutionary chain first as, well, it comes first.
Once again I am not naive so I refuse to rule out anything; I am actually fond of the idea of an octopus-form (cephalopod-like, if you must) technological race evolving completely in a fluid environment... it is not that much of a stretch, water based propulsion could be used to launch space craft given the right environment.
My point was, however, that their is nothing to indicate carbon based humanoids will be a rarity and in fact there is strong evidence to support the fact they may be the 'easy' higher order life form; and that is galactic evidence, not solely Earth bound evidence... though I do admit we don't really know nearly as much about the universe as we like to think we do.
I think most rational people accept that alien life, even technological intelligences, could evolve along paths completely foreign to our evolution path; however most rational people also accept that alien evolutionary paths that closely mimic human evolution are also likely.
While I don't hold New Scientist as the definitive source of scientific literature, the 9th of June edition had a well thought out article explaining why life, whether on Earth or elsewhere, is likely to arise from carbon and water. The article strongly advocates the idea that life can arise from materials other than carbon and water but illustrates the extreme conditions that would be required for it to happen.
The grand-parent post (of this post) makes many good points about why it is likely, but not definite, that if we encounter other technological intelligences it is possible that they will be humanoid; perhaps even likely.
The parent talks about the octopus as another viable technological intelligence on Earth; and it is true... but somethings to consider is whether the octopus structure would be viable on dry land. Aurthur C. Clarke makes some good points in the Rama series that it would be; and in terms of pure form it may be true... but I ponder how a octopus with no skeletal structure or protective shell would have faired against a humanoid on land, no matter how potentially nimble the octopus form.
Evolution on land in this discussion is important; because while we can not rule out the evolution of high technology in a fluid environment (whether it be liquid or gas) dry land offers many benefits to aid technological evolution.
Some other things to reinforce the point of the grand-parent post; the octopus has eyes, it has a brain, it has a mouth...
I think it is inevitable that us "intelligents" will come in to conflict with the "artificials", but by the year 2020? I think that is a little optimistic (in a gloomy way).
I think by the time AI reaches a threatening level we, as a society, will be discussing either AI Rights or AI Limitations.
What I am more interested in is seeing how AI integrates into our fucked up society. Will they develop their own religion? Will they join our existing religions? Will they all join the same religion? Will they worship God/Allah/Whoevertron as their creator, or the creator of their creator? Or will they just be smarted than most of us and realise organised religion is the bane of existence?
Slashdot Mirror
WoW and other MMOs have had story driven content for a while, and in some of them it works quite well; but it hasn't been their focus.
WoW's implementation for example might be that there is a new zone, but there is a story behind the zone and before it can be unlocked (or completely unlocked) the server, as a whole must complete a series of quests and tasks.
Sure you don't have to pay much attention to the story line, and sure a lot of the key elements of the story fall to raiding guilds, but the scope is usually so large that it takes somewhat active participation from the entire server for days/weeks.
I remember a story driven series of events in Everquest where the Ogre race (or was it Trols, long time ago - both were playable races) was driven out of their home town by Froglocks (another playable race). It was the introduction to expansion that was coming out, and it was very story driven with elements players could both passively observer and which they could actively participate in.
People seem to think the story must be about a character, specifically their character, but there are bigger stories and bigger stories have many participants.
To clarify:
"a) just allow players to participate in PvE end game content without grinding lower level PvE content or PvP content;"
I am not talking about the need to level up. I am talking about faction grinding and PvP grinding to get the gear needed to participate in end game content.
What I want to know is whether the transition in to end game content will be less painful, and whether the investment (and of course there will be some investment needed) will be completely whitewashed when 4.0 is release.
To Jeff Kaplan (WoW):
In WoW 1.0 it was very difficult for casual players to participate in end game content. For those that did make the investment, their achievements were wiped away by the whitewash approach 2.0 took to gearing.
2.0 allowed casual players to participate in a rich end game, but the balance between the hardcore and casual players was still way off.
3.0 is set to whitewash the days/months of end game investment players have made during 2.0. This annoys me, and I am seriously beginning to wonder why I should keep playing.
Are there any plans in 3.0 to:
a) just allow players to participate in PvE end game content without grinding lower level PvE content or PvP content; and
b) prevent all the investment people make during the life of 3.0 simply being whitewashed by 4.0?
Only if you assume tools similar to ours.
The easiest way (and yes this is based on our limit knowledge, but our limit knowledge of physics not the universe) to achieve high technology is access to combustion as an energy source. Water will hinder high level technology, it won't rule it out, but it will hinder it. We are talking about a race capable of traveling between stars. you have to look at the pre-tool section of the evolutionary chain first as, well, it comes first.
This is definitely true, and obviously on earth we evolved, but that doesn't mean that on other planets it has to happen that way. Or even that we had to evolve at all.
Spontaneous emergence is a completely different topic, as is placement/creation. Yes I accept they are possible (well I accept creation is possible, we are close to creating life forms ourselves; but spontaneous emergence is another matter). My point was, however, that their is nothing to indicate carbon based humanoids will be a rarity and in fact there is strong evidence to support the fact they may be the 'easy' higher order life form; and that is galactic evidence, not solely Earth bound evidence... though I do admit we don't really know nearly as much about the universe as we like to think we do.
Nothing to indicate it will be a rarity? Except that we only know of one carbon based bipedal humanoid, us, and we some how use that as proof that other intelligent races would look like us. It smacks of making a teleological argument. I haven't seen many silicon based intelligent races either... or races of any other type. Yes if you look solely at how many intelligent races we have seen it is a small set; but life consists of complex compounds and we have observed many complex compounds from Earth and else where and carbon based complex compounds appear to be far, far more common than silicon compounds on a galactic scale.
The problem here is what we define as extreme. I would consider the crushing pressure in one of the gas giants extreme. Or perhaps the heat of Venus. Or a planet made primarily of elements significantly different than ours, sulfur and silicon perhaps.
While crushing pressures and extreme heat (needed to make silicon truly viable for complex life) may not seem extreme to life forms evolved in such environments; they are still extreme in terms of, well physics. The extreme nature of the environments would make evolution of technology difficult (not impossible, but extremely difficult).
I am not naive enough to rule out silicon based technological intelligences but the thing which sticks in my mind is the fact that on Earth (and most rocky planets) the amount of silicon far, far out weighs the amount of carbon; yet on earth life is carbon based.
It is true that there are likely types of planets with an abundance of silicon but a far higher pressure and temperature than Earth, which would make silicon more viable; but you then get back down to the hindrance that would have on technological evolution (and we are talking about space traveling aliens).
but I ponder how a octopus with no skeletal structure or protective shell would have faired against a humanoid on land, no matter how potentially nimble the octopus form.To throw this back at you, how well would a spider monkey fare against a intelligent, tool using octopus descendant in the water?
I don't think that is relevant to what I was saying... because:
Once again I am not naive so I refuse to rule out anything; I am actually fond of the idea of an octopus-form (cephalopod-like, if you must) technological race evolving completely in a fluid environment... it is not that much of a stretch, water based propulsion could be used to launch space craft given the right environment.
My point was, however, that their is nothing to indicate carbon based humanoids will be a rarity and in fact there is strong evidence to support the fact they may be the 'easy' higher order life form; and that is galactic evidence, not solely Earth bound evidence... though I do admit we don't really know nearly as much about the universe as we like to think we do.
I think most rational people accept that alien life, even technological intelligences, could evolve along paths completely foreign to our evolution path; however most rational people also accept that alien evolutionary paths that closely mimic human evolution are also likely.
While I don't hold New Scientist as the definitive source of scientific literature, the 9th of June edition had a well thought out article explaining why life, whether on Earth or elsewhere, is likely to arise from carbon and water. The article strongly advocates the idea that life can arise from materials other than carbon and water but illustrates the extreme conditions that would be required for it to happen.
The grand-parent post (of this post) makes many good points about why it is likely, but not definite, that if we encounter other technological intelligences it is possible that they will be humanoid; perhaps even likely.
The parent talks about the octopus as another viable technological intelligence on Earth; and it is true... but somethings to consider is whether the octopus structure would be viable on dry land. Aurthur C. Clarke makes some good points in the Rama series that it would be; and in terms of pure form it may be true... but I ponder how a octopus with no skeletal structure or protective shell would have faired against a humanoid on land, no matter how potentially nimble the octopus form.
Evolution on land in this discussion is important; because while we can not rule out the evolution of high technology in a fluid environment (whether it be liquid or gas) dry land offers many benefits to aid technological evolution.
Some other things to reinforce the point of the grand-parent post; the octopus has eyes, it has a brain, it has a mouth...
I think it is inevitable that us "intelligents" will come in to conflict with the "artificials", but by the year 2020? I think that is a little optimistic (in a gloomy way). I think by the time AI reaches a threatening level we, as a society, will be discussing either AI Rights or AI Limitations. What I am more interested in is seeing how AI integrates into our fucked up society. Will they develop their own religion? Will they join our existing religions? Will they all join the same religion? Will they worship God/Allah/Whoevertron as their creator, or the creator of their creator? Or will they just be smarted than most of us and realise organised religion is the bane of existence?