Cooperation - Revision history

Staffan Björk at 07:00, 8 April 2022

2022-04-08T07:00:37Z

Staffan Björk: /* Consequences */

2019-08-14T08:10:41Z

‎Consequences

Staffan Björk: /* Consequences */

2019-08-14T08:10:28Z

‎Consequences

Staffan Björk: /* Relations */

2019-08-14T08:07:17Z

‎Relations

Staffan Björk at 07:13, 27 September 2016

2016-09-27T07:13:11Z

Staffan Björk at 08:25, 8 August 2015

2015-08-08T08:25:09Z

Staffan Björk at 11:22, 24 January 2015

2015-01-24T11:22:33Z

Staffan Björk at 12:11, 16 January 2015

2015-01-16T12:11:40Z

Staffan Björk at 13:05, 14 January 2015

2015-01-14T13:05:41Z

Staffan Björk at 14:17, 7 January 2015

2015-01-07T14:17:50Z

@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 === Can Be Modulated By ===
 [[Betrayal]],
 [[Chat Channels]],
@@ Line 126: / Line 130: @@
 [[Game-Based Social Statuses]],
 [[Handles]],
-[[Individual Rewards]], [[Invites]],
+[[Individual Rewards]],
 [[Mediated Gameplay]],
 [[Player Unpredictability]],
 [[Split-Screen Views]],
 [[Timing]],
 [[Traitors]]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 While [[Preventing Goals]] and [[PvP]] gameplay is incompatible with [[Cooperation]] on a basic level, the two patterns can easily co-exist simultaneously by pitching [[Teams]] against each other.
-[[Cooperation]] in combination with many other patterns, e.g.[[Asymmetric Abilities]], [[Asymmetric Information]], [[Perspective Taking]], [[Social Roles]], or [[Strategic Knowledge]], is likely to give rise to [[Reflective Communication]].
+[[Cooperation]] in combination with many other patterns, e.g. [[Asymmetric Abilities]], [[Asymmetric Information]], [[Perspective Taking]], [[Social Roles]], or [[Strategic Knowledge]], is likely to give rise to [[Reflective Communication]].
 == Relations ==

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 Engaging in [[Cooperation]] is likely to require [[Stimulated Planning]], especially if [[Coordination]] is wanted, but also considering whether or not to cooperate causes [[Stimulated Planning]]. Failed [[Cooperation]] can lead to [[Ragequitting]].
 While [[Preventing Goals]] and [[PvP]] gameplay is incompatible with [[Cooperation]] on a basic level, the two patterns can easily co-exist simultaneously by pitching [[Teams]] against each other.
 == Relations ==

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 ==== with [[Traitors]] ====
 [[Inherent Mistrust]], [[Tension]]
 === Can Modulate ===

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 Engaging in [[Cooperation]] is likely to require [[Stimulated Planning]], especially if [[Coordination]] is wanted, but also considering whether or not to cooperate causes [[Stimulated Planning]]. Failed [[Cooperation]] can lead to [[Ragequitting]].
-While [[PvP]] gameplay is incompatible with [[Cooperation]] on a basic level, the two patterns can easily co-exist simultaneously by pitching [[Teams]] against each other.
+While [[Preventing Goals]] and [[PvP]] gameplay is incompatible with [[Cooperation]] on a basic level, the two patterns can easily co-exist simultaneously by pitching [[Teams]] against each other.
 == Relations ==
@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 [[Betrayal]],
 [[Internal Conflicts]],
 [[PvP]]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 == Using the pattern ==
-[[Cooperation]] is typically achieved by creating [[Symbiotic Player Relations]] between those players that are supposed to cooperate. The most direct way of doing this is through [[Teams]], but equal levels of [[Cooperation]] can be achieved by introducing [[Mutual Goals]] combined with [[Shared Rewards]] to players. The [[Mutual Goals]], however, do not need to be the highest level goals in the game; that is, it is possible to have [[Competition]] and [[Conflict]] between the players as a high level goal and use [[Mutual Goals]] as subgoals for reaching the high level goal. One way of doing this is to introduce [[Collaborative Actions]] as the only way of performing aggressive actions - this design solution can be found in [[So Long Sucker]] and in practice is required to win in [[Diplomacy]]. Another is to provide [[Game System Player]] that players need to cooperate against (e.g. [[Genesis]] or [[The Republic of Rome]]). [[Tied Results]] can be considered an alternative to [[Cooperation]] in some cases; it can be viewed as [[Cooperation]] that only results in equal consequences if players have performed equally according to some metrics.
+[[Cooperation]] is typically achieved by creating [[Symbiotic Player Relations]] between those players that are supposed to cooperate. The most direct way of doing this is through [[Teams]], but equal levels of [[Cooperation]] can be achieved by introducing [[Mutual Goals]] combined with [[Shared Rewards]] to players. The [[Mutual Goals]], however, do not need to be the highest level goals in the game; that is, it is possible to have [[Competition]] and [[Conflicts]] between the players as a high level goal and use [[Mutual Goals]] as subgoals for reaching the high level goal. One way of doing this is to introduce [[Collaborative Actions]] as the only way of performing aggressive actions - this design solution can be found in [[So Long Sucker]] and in practice is required to win in [[Diplomacy]]. Another is to provide [[Game System Player]] that players need to cooperate against (e.g. [[Genesis]] or [[The Republic of Rome]]). [[Tied Results]] can be considered an alternative to [[Cooperation]] in some cases; it can be viewed as [[Cooperation]] that only results in equal consequences if players have performed equally according to some metrics.
 [[Collaborative Actions]] in general make players cooperate, even if it is not clear who benefits the most, something often the case in [[Trading]]. [[Transferable Items]] is a prerequisite for [[Trading]] but can also in itself support [[Cooperation]] for [[Teams]]. [[Parties]] can also be used to foster [[Cooperation]] but do this more from a diegetic perspective than [[Teams]] and may not have explicitly described goals. [[Cooperation]] typically requires players to be able to coordinate and synchronize with each other (but see [[Asynchronous Collaborative Actions]] for an exception). This means that games that do not have [[Unmediated Social Interaction]] need [[Communication Channels]] of some sort, typically [[Chat Channels]] since these are most flexible.
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 Related to this is [[Cooperation]] where the benefits are unequal, even to be point where only one part is helped due to [[Individual Rewards]]. This can however be beneficial to all involved due to [[Delayed Reciprocity]], that is some players help other players under the belief that they may later be helped in return. [[Altruistic Actions]], such as [[Free Gift Inventories]], is one way of ensuring this type of inequality since the player performing the action does not get any direct benefit.
-One of the challenges with [[Cooperation]] is [[Player Unpredictability]]. [[Betrayal]] can be added to games with [[Cooperation]] to strengthen this unpredictability and create [[Inherent Mistrust]] and [[Tension]]. This can either be voluntary action by players for personal gains or be forced upon some players by designating them as [[Traitors]], as for example is done in [[Battlestar Galactica: The Board Game]] or [[Shadows over Camelot]]. [[Shared Resources]] gives players the opportunity for [[Cooperation]] in how to use the [[Resources]] but can have the same effects as [[Betrayal]] and both can easily introduce [[Conflict]] into the gameplay. [[Shared Resources]] also add the [[Social Dilemmas]] to the gameplay which [[Betrayal]] only does if not forced upon players (i.e. not instantiated through the use of [[Traitors]]). However, [[Cooperation]] can also emerge from the [[Negotiation]] of handling [[Social Dilemmas]] concerning [[Continuous Goals]] (often [[Shared Resources]] but not necessarily so). Stronger than [[Betrayal]], [[Internal Conflicts]] can make [[Cooperation]] impossible.
+One of the challenges with [[Cooperation]] is [[Player Unpredictability]]. [[Betrayal]] can be added to games with [[Cooperation]] to strengthen this unpredictability and create [[Inherent Mistrust]] and [[Tension]]. This can either be voluntary action by players for personal gains or be forced upon some players by designating them as [[Traitors]], as for example is done in [[Battlestar Galactica: The Board Game]] or [[Shadows over Camelot]]. [[Shared Resources]] gives players the opportunity for [[Cooperation]] in how to use the [[Resources]] but can have the same effects as [[Betrayal]] and both can easily introduce [[Conflicts]] into the gameplay. [[Shared Resources]] also add the [[Social Dilemmas]] to the gameplay which [[Betrayal]] only does if not forced upon players (i.e. not instantiated through the use of [[Traitors]]). However, [[Cooperation]] can also emerge from the [[Negotiation]] of handling [[Social Dilemmas]] concerning [[Continuous Goals]] (often [[Shared Resources]] but not necessarily so). Stronger than [[Betrayal]], [[Internal Conflicts]] can make [[Cooperation]] impossible.
 Although [[Cooperation]] is most natural to consider for [[Multiplayer Games]], it does not need to be limited to these - [[Agents]] controlled by [[Dedicated Game Facilitators]] can better guarantee that [[Cooperation]] is always maintained than players can. Likewise, [[Companions]] based upon [[Algorithmic Agents]] or [[Non-Player Characters]] with [[Supporting Goals]] will not betray or trick unless designed to. If a player does not have enough players, or the right players, to have [[Cooperation]] with a solution can be to support [[Invites]], but this makes is necessary to also support [[Drop-In/Drop-Out]] or [[Late Arriving Players]].

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 Games with [[Cooperation]] typically makes for more [[Complex Gameplay]], but this becomes especially pronounced when [[Cooperation]] and [[Competition]]. While it may increase the amount of [[Social Interaction]] this can also introduce [[Tension]] between the players. When there is a possibility of [[Betrayal]] for the cooperating players, this also tends to raise the [[Tension]] and sometimes lowers the motivation for [[Cooperation]] due to the [[Inherent Mistrust]]. This is especially the case in games that include [[Asynchronous Gameplay]], since the two patterns together give rise to [[Asynchronous Collaborative Actions]] where players do not have to directly interact with each other.
-Engaging in [[Cooperation]] is likely to require [[Stimulated Planning]], especially if [[Coordination]] is wanted, but also considering whether or not to cooperate causes [[Stimulated Planning]].
+Engaging in [[Cooperation]] is likely to require [[Stimulated Planning]], especially if [[Coordination]] is wanted, but also considering whether or not to cooperate causes [[Stimulated Planning]]. Failed [[Cooperation]] can lead to [[Ragequitting]].
 While [[PvP]] gameplay is incompatible with [[Cooperation]] on a basic level, the two patterns can easily co-exist simultaneously by pitching [[Teams]] against each other.
@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 [[Constructive Gameplay]],
 [[Delayed Reciprocity]],
 [[Social Interaction]],
 [[Social Organizations]],

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 [[Cooperation]] increases [[Social Interaction]] between the players, as they have to do [[Coordination]] of their actions in order to reach the goals of the game. This makes the differentiating of players into different [[Social Roles]] likely for games with [[Cooperation]] and also encourage players to display [[Social Skills]] to succeed better with the gameplay. Having, or having the possibility, to cooperate allows players to make use of [[Competence Areas]] to find [[Functional Roles]] and this provides a form of [[Constructive Gameplay]] as the [[Coordination]] necessary for this is in itself a common accomplishment. This may lessen focus of players on whom the other players are outside the game and thereby promote [[Actor Detachment]] in the game. If players are required to cooperate, the presence of [[Privileged Abilities]] can be used to enforce [[Competence Areas]] while providing [[New Abilities|New]] or [[Improved Abilities]] during gameplay can make [[Competence Areas]] emerge. [[Cooperation]] is a basis for having [[Social Organizations]] in a game, and when [[Shared Resources]] are used or [[Betrayal]] is possible [[Social Dilemmas]] are likely to occur. Different levels of [[Game-Based Social Statuses]] may lead to spontaneous chains of command in [[Cooperation]] situations.
-Games where [[Cooperation]] and [[Competition]] coexist give rise to more [[Complex Gameplay]], and while it may increase the amount of [[Social Interaction]] it can also introduce [[Tension]] between the players. When there is a possibility of [[Betrayal]] for the cooperating players, this also tends to raise the [[Tension]] and sometimes lowers the motivation for [[Cooperation]] due to the [[Inherent Mistrust]]. This is especially the case in games that include [[Asynchronous Gameplay]], since the two patterns together give rise to [[Asynchronous Collaborative Actions]] where players do not have to directly interact with each other.
+Games with [[Cooperation]] typically makes for more [[Complex Gameplay]], but this becomes especially pronounced when [[Cooperation]] and [[Competition]]. While it may increase the amount of [[Social Interaction]] this can also introduce [[Tension]] between the players. When there is a possibility of [[Betrayal]] for the cooperating players, this also tends to raise the [[Tension]] and sometimes lowers the motivation for [[Cooperation]] due to the [[Inherent Mistrust]]. This is especially the case in games that include [[Asynchronous Gameplay]], since the two patterns together give rise to [[Asynchronous Collaborative Actions]] where players do not have to directly interact with each other.
 Engaging in [[Cooperation]] is likely to require [[Stimulated Planning]], especially if [[Coordination]] is wanted, but also considering whether or not to cooperate causes [[Stimulated Planning]].
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 === Can Instantiate ===
 [[Actor Detachment]],
 [[Constructive Gameplay]],
 [[Delayed Reciprocity]],