Viral Memes

A close friend directed me to the Yale open course series on Game Theory, and I’ve decided to work through it in addition to the ridiculously heavy courseload I have this term.  In order to keep things straight, I’m going to try to do one lesson per week and post my notes, as well as my personal thoughts, online.

If anyone else is taking the time to go through this stuff, feel free to drop in your ideas and suggestions in the comments.  Just so everyone is aware, my thoughts will be in blockquotes, as such:

This is a personal thought.

Without further ado:

Introduction/Definition

Strategic situations require multiple players each of which has some affect on the outcomes of the situation.  In situations where there is only a single player making decisions, or situations in which players have only one “right” action, there is no strategic requirement (and hence, no game).

Game One

To begin with, let’s consider a game in which you and an another anonymous player must set a grade “bid.”  In this scenario, each of you has exactly two choices, alpha and beta.  The outcome of the game will be dependent upon the choices each player makes.  If both players choose alpha, then both players will receive a B-.  Should both players select beta, then both players receive a B+.  Finally, should one player choose alpha, and the other beta, the alpha player will receive an A, while the beta player will receive a C.

We can show this visually by constructing the following two tables:

In order to make the game information easier to comprehend, we can take the information from table 2, and superimpose it over table 1, as such:

In this table, we can easily see that P1 (presumably us) is the row player, while P2 is the column player. In order to develop a strategy, however, we need to assign some sort of value to each grade.  To do this, we will start by assuming that both players only care about their own grade – in short, both players are what we will call “assholes”.  By adding numerical values, we come up with the following table:

Each of the above numbers represents a point value for the payoff.  So, given the above matrix, we can state that player 1’s optimal strategy is to choose alpha in every case.  this is because no matter what player 2 does, choosing alpha always results in a net gain as 0 points is better than -1, and 3 points is better than 1.  When a particularly choice offers superior payouts in all instances, we say that it is a dominating strategy.  In this case, beta would be a strictly dominated strategy, as no matter what player 2 does, player 1’s payout is worse in every case.

This leads us to our first lesson of game theory, primarily never play a strictly dominated strategy.

Now, before we go further, consider for a moment that if both players have the same realization about the payoffs, then both players will always play alpha, resulting in both players getting 0 points every time.  This is still worse than if both players chose beta every time – which would allow each to get a single point.  However, from the point of view of any single player in this game, choosing beta is a bad idea, as the opposition player then has a strong incentive to choose alpha, thus maximizing their own reward and diminishing yours.  This leads us to another lesson:  Rational choice (playing the dominant strategy) can lead to inefficient outcomes.

I’ve tried to bring this up in economics classes before, namely to do with competition and trade theory.  Part of the issue is that rational self-interest in competitive markets creates a sub-optimal equilibrium.

Let’s look at a slightly different situation, however, in which both players are “indignant angels.”  In this example, our angels feel guilty about getting an “A” at the expense of their classmates, and so the value of 3 is modified by a -4.  Alternately, in the event that our angel gets a “C”, this person is even more distraught at the injustice – hence, indignant.  This creates the following payout matrix:

It’s important to note that there is no dominant strategy in this case.  By changing the payoffs, we now have no clear means of choosing a course of action.  Do we minimize losses or maximize gains?  This is a coordination problem.  It also leads us to our third lesson:  payoffs matter – so unless you know what you want, you cannot get what you want.  In other words; know what your goals are.

Lastly, we need to consider what happens when our asshole player from the first example, plays against our indignant angel from the second example.  By combing our payoff matrices, we end up with the following table:

As in the first case, alpha is still the dominating strategy.  As a result, player one should always choose to play alpha.  However, if the roles are reversed, and we are player 2, something very interesting happens.  While player 2 still has no dominant strategy, if P2 knows P1’s payoff matrix, then P2 knows that P1 will always choose alpha.  Therefore, P2’s best strategy is to always choose alpha as well, since to do otherwise will guarantee a loss.

This leads us to our fourth lesson of the class:  Knowing what others will do and understanding other people’s payoffs gives you a powerful advantage in determining strategy.

Majority Leader Harry Reid’s letter to Mitch McConnell.  I have nothing to add.

March 11, 2009

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Republican Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Leader McConnell:

Eleven months ago, I wrote you to share my expectations for the coming health reform debate.  At the time, I expressed Democrats’ intention to work in good faith with Republicans, and my desire that – while we would disagree at times – we could engage in an honest discussion grounded in facts rather than fear, and focused on producing results, not playing partisan politics.

Obviously, the opposite has happened, as many Republicans have spent the past year mischaracterizing the health reform bill and misleading the public.  Though we have tried to engage in a serious discussion, our efforts have been met by repeatedly debunked myths and outright lies.  At the same time, Republicans have resorted to extraordinary legislative maneuvers in an effort not to improve the bill, but to delay and kill it.  After watching these tactics for nearly a year, there is only one conclusion an objective observer could make:  these Republican maneuvers are rooted less in substantive policy concerns and more in a partisan desire to discredit Democrats, bolster Republicans, and protect the status quo on behalf of the insurance industry.

In fact, the attacks on the health care bill are part of a broader pattern.  As has been well documented, your caucus conspicuously shattered the record for obstruction last Congress by demanding gratuitous procedural votes on even the most non-controversial matters, and by stalling the work of the Senate despite the urgency of the serious problems facing our country.  Senate Republicans are on pace to again break their own record this Congress, illustrated by Sen. Bunning’s effort to prevent the Senate from acting to extend families’ unemployment and health benefits even after those benefits had expired.

While Republicans were distorting the facts in the health care debate and inflicting delay after needless delay, millions of Americans have continued to suffer as they struggle to afford to stay healthy, stay out of bankruptcy and stay in their homes.  Thousands of Americans lose their health care every day, and tens of thousands of the uninsured have lost their lives since this debate began.   Meanwhile, rising health costs have contributed to a rising federal budget deficit.

To address these problems, 60 Senators voted to pass historic reform that will make health insurance more affordable, make health insurance companies more accountable and reduce our deficit by roughly a trillion dollars.  The House passed a similar bill.  However, many Republicans now are demanding that we simply ignore the progress we’ve made, the extensive debate and negotiations we’ve held, the amendments we’ve added (including more than 100 from Republicans) and the votes of a supermajority in favor of a bill whose contents the American people unambiguously support.  We will not.  We will finish the job.  We will do so by revising individual elements of the bills both Houses of Congress passed last year, and we plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times.

I know that many Republicans have expressed concerns with our use of the existing Senate rules, but their argument is unjustified.  There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation.  As one of the most senior Senators in your caucus, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said in explaining the use of this very same option, “Is there something wrong with majority rules?  I don’t think so.”  Similarly, as non-partisan congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein said in this Sunday’s New York Times, our proposal is “compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.”

Reconciliation is designed to deal with budget-related matters, and some have expressed doubt that it could be used for comprehensive health care reform that includes many policies with no budget implications.  But the reconciliation bill now under consideration would not be the vehicle for comprehensive reform – that bill already passed outside of reconciliation with 60 votes.  Instead, reconciliation would be used to make a modest number of changes to the original legislation, all of which would be budget-related.  There is nothing inappropriate about this.  Reconciliation has been used many times for a variety of health-related matters, including the establishment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program and COBRA benefits, and many changes to Medicare and Medicaid.

As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires.  Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class.  Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority.  Either way, we disagree.

Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process.  You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation.  In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote.  If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada

Introduction

Eve Online has the most complex economy of any game ever made.  The economy is so rich and intricate that very few people (myself included) really have any sense whatever of how all of the various pieces interlock to form the machine we pod pilots  have come to know and love.

This article, and others like it, are to be my attempts to develop and refine a broad economic framework for which to approach the game.  If others take an interest, I will provide a forum for discussion and a more formal outline of these ideas.  In the meantime, I intend to ramble wantonly in the hopes that my observations and speculations will help me both in my continuing studies of economics and my continuing enjoyment of New Eden.

The Pisces – PLEX and ISK

The first thing I’ve noticed about Eve is that the advent of PLEX (the Pilot License EXtension) Certificates, Eve’s economy now requires a particular distinction be made:  Domestic vs. International.

These definitions are relevant, but because of the nature of the Eve Universe (being a virtual world, and all) they require a more elaborate explanation to make clear to standard economics types what I mean.

The Domestic Economy – New Eden

The domestic economy of Eve consists of all industry and trade that takes place within the confines of the virtual world – New Eden.  This economy consists of everything mined, manufactured, created, destroyed, and consumed.  This is the ISK economy.

The ISK (InterStellar Kredit – not Icelandic Krona) has a value only within the borders of the domestic economy.  Everything within New Eden can be priced in ISK.  As such, the ISK has a floating value measured in proportion to the supply of money versus the total wealth of the virtual world.

What often goes unnoticed, however, is that there is a foreign currency market, as well – PLEX.

The International Economy – CCP Games

In order to understand why I value PLEX as a foreign currency instead of an in-game commodity, one must step back and consider PLEX from a functional point of view, and how PLEX value is established.

First of all, PLEX is the only item one can buy with real world money.  Two PLEX Certificates cost 34.95 (USD).  These certificates can then be exchanged in markets for ISK, or consumed to extend your Eve subscription by 30 days.

In this sense, PLEX are a real world fee-for-service chit.  One digital ticket buys 30 days of service.  As a result, the real world exchange value of a PLEX is fixed at ~17.48 (USD).

But consider the in game value, determined by market trading.  The following chart shows the price of PLEX over the course of one year in Sing Laison Region.

One year PLEX

Notice that as the trade volume increases, the price declines.  This is because the supply of PLEX is outstripping the demand for PLEX, causing inflation relative to ISK.  Put another way – people are continuing to buy game time in excess of the general need for subscription renewal.  But a secondary result of this practice is that some players will notice the price decline and hedge into PLEX.  i.e.  They will buy more PLEX on the speculative belief that the price will go up.  As a result, demand in future months begins to decline, while volume traded begins to spike.  Therefore, unlike the creation of an in-game commodity, an increase in the volume of PLEX does not cause an increase in the overall wealth of the domestic economy, only an increase in the velocity of domestic currency (ISK) flowing through the market.

All of this is not to mention that the real value of PLEX is essentially that it acts as a bond issued by CCP games.  That is, when you buy a PLEX Certificate you are exerting confidence that CCP will honor that certificate by providing an agreed upon service in exchange for the certificate’s consumption.  If the PLEX market is predictive of anything, it is predictive of the ability of CCP to continue providing satisfactory services.  Ask yourself the following question to see what I mean more clearly:

If CCP announced tomorrow that Eve would be going offline in 6 months, what would happen to the market for PLEX?

Interestingly enough, however, PLEX has another powerful economic function in the outside economy – It sets a real world market price and exchange rate for ISK.  This is a floating exchange rate, which I’ll call EXR (Eve eXchange Rate).

In order to calculate this value we can index the value of a single PLEX in USD (fixed at ~17.98) and compare to the current market rate of a single PLEX as measured in ISK (currently floating around 250,000,000) and make an ISK/dollar comparison.

So, as of this evening, the EXR is 13,904,338.15 ISK/USD.  And here, in my opinion, is where things get interesting…

Checking one of the Chinese ISK farming sites (I will not link it here) I can see that they are selling ISK at the rate of 800M ISK for 34.80(USD).  So, the exchange rate levels out to 22,988,505.75 ISK/USD.  This is an undervaluation of nearly 65% – In raw economic terms, this means you could generate a profit margin buying ISK via the Chinese Gold Farmer operation and trading for PLEX.

However, this also means that if the EXR changes in a positive direction, the ISK Farm becomes suddenly unprofitable – unless they have hedged their ISK reserve into the PLEX market.  This sort of speculation, however, would drive the demand for PLEX up, creating a PLEX bubble – the beneficiary of which is CCP as more people are willing to buy into the market with real money when prices are high.

On the other hand, decreasing prices would likely encourage gold farmers to dump reserves, thus driving prices down and making their own business more profitable.  If one considers the chart up above, it becomes noticeable that a very large volume of PLEX is being traded while the market appears to be at a low point.  To me, this is indicative of a bubble collapse, with well financed players coming in at the market trough.  i.e.  Gold sellers are buying PLEX at the low point to hedge their reserves for when the EXR peaks in July.  This is essentially the same as medieval bankers who would row the economy by alternately expanding and contracting the money supply – except the inflationary and deflationary forces are being caused by exchange rate speculation instead of actual expansionary and contractionary forces as the velocity of money rapidly accelerates and decelerates based on volume and rate changes.

Of course, if I were a gold seller I’d start selling PLEX at off-market rates instead of ISK – it would be safer, and allow a shrewd investor to short the market.  (Now that CCP has included a Donchian channel, such real world exploitation of the market is feasible).

Anyway, I doubt ISK sellers need me to give them ideas.  On the other hand, I hope the CCP Economist is clever enough to get the gyst of the system they’ve constructed and regulate the market in some way that can stabilize the EXR and detect large scale manipulations.  Of course, stopping Russian Aluminum Magnates from investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into the PLEX system might be good, also.

So, my first radio show was today!  It was epic (If by epic one naturally implies ‘epic fail,’ which I do).

Nonetheless, by the end of the show I was beginning to get more comfortable.  I’ll post the recorded feed sometime in the next 48 hours, along with my playlist and song lyrics for everything played during the show.  Mind you, the goal of the first show is always simply to survive and figure out what you need to work on in the future.  As I am still alive and see all sorts of room for improvement (I have a few pretty simple ideas on how to make things a lot better for starters), I’m gonna call this one a success story and chalk it up as a learning experience.

Next week you can look forward to a lot less awkwardness, an interview with someone from the Women’s Resource Center, and more punkish and alternative musix.

Cheers!

p.s.:  Show and play list info will be up here when I have it posted.

This might seem strange, but I’ve been thinking lately about humanity’s ability to recognize and interact with intelligent life.

More and more, scientists are coming to discover that squid and octopi seem to exhibit higher brain functions.  Unfortunately, the brains of invertebrates are so unlike ours, that we don’t have much basis for comparison.  We can identify characteristics of things like symbolic language (squid communicate by flashing patterns to one another), communal behavior, mapping, tool use, and even military strategy.  The question is, are these elements of an intelligent life form, or simply adaptive behaviors?  In short, does a squid have personality and intellect?

The prospect that squid are intelligent doesn’t bother me.  What keeps me up at night is thought that even if they are intelligent, we might be incapable of recognizing their rights as an intelligent species, because we might be physically hardwired to keep us from feeling any form of empathy or sympathy with regard to an alien species.

Think about your favorite sci-fi films.  District 9 is a perfect recent example.  In the audience, over time, you come to accept and relate to the aliens because, they’re really like us inside.  Beyond that, the Prawns have arms and legs and a head.  So, although they seem insectoid, they also are enough like us to make us say, “I think they have feelings!”  District 9 masterfully approaches the aliens in a way that still makes them kind of inexplicable, however, pushing that line between “Us” and “Them.”

But what about films where you aren’t supposed to relate to the aliens?  In those cases, there are no arms, legs, or heads to love.  The aliens don’t have the same emotional makeup that we do.  They are truly alien – monstrous.  This is because there is a physiological response in humans that kicks in when confronted with a bizarre creature that makes us loathe and fear it.

So, are we even capable of accepting the intelligenceof a squid, or an alien?

Several thousand years ago, the bulk of humanity viewed anyone outside of their tribe as non-human.  Such a worldview made killing easier to swallow – after all, the neighbors weren’t just stealing your mango fruits, they were monsters.

As time has gone on, we have come to realize that not only are other “tribes” of humanity human, they are mostly like us, no matter where they come from.  There are cultural differences, some minor physical differences, etc.  but for the most part, we see other human beings in the same light we see ourselves.  Such realizations have not come without a dire price, however, as genocide and persecution are still part of our species’ burden.

This suggests that, in time, we could come to see squid as being enough like us to have a relationship.  Even then I wonder if it’s even possible, given the evolved structures of our brain, which seem to disallow such bonding to occur.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that this entry has nothing to do with squid at all.

Cheers!

In case, you’re wondering, the title of this post is an Eeyore quote.

Oh, yeah…  I’m back.

That’s the question I’ve been hearing the most.  A close friend who has never before been active in politics called me recently to ask – Complete strangers from all over the country have written letters to me, all asking this one, simple, question.

All of these people have done the same things – written to their congressmen, called their senators, talked to their friends and families…  And all of them feel equally helpless in the face of angry mobs of ignorant people whose goal is to simply defeat any attempts at making the nation a better place.

When an innocuous article providing for optional end of life councilling for the elderly became twisted into incoherent accusations of death panels and euthanasia, our elected leaders backed down.  When a viable public option plan was transformed through the madness of right-wing radio into a “government run takeover” our representatives backed down.  And now, as Senator Conrad proposes his absurdly watered-down “co-op” compromise, the Republicans have vowed to oppose it with all they have.

For those who think that compromise and bipartisanship is somehow likely, I encourage you to reconsider now that the true colors of these opponents are being shown.  It simply does not matter how reasonable and compromised the solution offered is, they will oppose it.  And they will succeed for one simple reason:  Those of us who are informed and reasonable simply cannot perceive an enemy that rebuts reason with lies and distortions and defeats open debate with incoherent shouts.

And so, thus far, we have done nothing but spin our wheels with letters and phone calls that have gone ignored.

So, what can we do?

We can get organized.  The problem is that while our opinions matter, our voices don’t.  Our voices don’t matter because no one hears us.

After speaking with some friends and allies I have begun a new project.  This project, called “The Fifth Republic” will provide information, support, and other tools to help us get together and start creating a presence in the debate.  It is not too late to make health care a reality, but every hour that we sit watching the news is an hour we could be using to inform people in our cities and towns, to take the fight to the place where it has always mattered in America…  to the streets.

This project has had to be set up quickly, so I’m going to ask that youcheck back regularly.  Over the next days and weeks I and my small staff will be adding content at a rapid pace.  We’re looking for volunteers and contributors who are willing to be a part of the team, as well as donors who can help us in our efforts.  Anyone with skills that could be useful, please don’t hesitate to send an e-mail to admin@thefifthrepublic.org.

Cheers,

Paul Jenkins

www.thefifthrepublic.org

I’ve been somewhat absent lately, although I’ve been very closely tied to the health care debate.  Today’s blow to the public option has gotten numerous people calling and emailing me saying, “What can I do about this?”  I’ll answer that question tomorrow night.  For now, I need about 24 hours to finalize my thoughts.  Stay tuned.

Paul

Recently, I wrote as one of my Five Things MMORPG Players Want, Even If They Don’t Know It Yet post about the long-time absence of a true Z-Axis in MMOs.  This weekend, I spent some time leveling a character in FlyFF in order to see how they approached the issue.

First, let me start by saying that FlyFF, which stands for Fly For Fun, is the sort of game that’s used as punishment in Chinese prison camps.  The entire premise is that you create an adorable looking avatar and spend the rest of your natural life grinding your way up to level 901,238 for no apparent reason. In this respect the game is like so many other Chinese-made “free to play but pay for content” games like Perfect World or  Rappelz.

Long time FlyFFers seem to claim that at some point the game becomes enjoyable, but I credit that opinion to a refusal to accept that they’ve wasted large portions of their life pushing three buttons over and over again whilst staring at their prepubescent avatar’s backside.  Don’t believe me?  Here’s a screenshot of my avatar fighting something…  Be sure to note the interface which makes Japanese bubblegum commercials look conservative.

So, yeah…

Anyway, the only real claim that had me interested in this offering is the promise of flying combat.  So, after a false start with Paulio (pictured above), I started fresh, struggled through my first 15 levels as a Vagrant, switched over to Magician, got to 20, and bought myself a Flying Board thingy…

I want to say here that I find little value in going on about the problems with FlyFF.  I wasn’t expecting anything good, I just wanted to see how the mechanic had been handled and maybe draw off of the failures in order to think of better ways to do things.  That being said, let me start by describing the flight system and how combat works.

To begin with, you have to mount your broom or board by equipping it.  After a moment of ‘casting’ you are mounted, but still on the ground.  From there, you push the space bar to begin accelerating or push it again to decelerate.  Steering is achieved with the W-A-S-D keys, in which W and S point the nose down and up, respectively.  The control on this level is very flawed in that you can either accelerate or stop…  you cannot control your speed, except by turning your board subtly while accelerating…  Turning your board quickly drops your speed, hence – you must turn subtly to avoid stopping and re-accelerating.

Once you sight a flying enemy, you TAB to select it asa target and press INSERT to use your attack.  As a mage, this meant I shot my wand at it.  Herein lies the first major flaw – You only seem to have one attack.  Thus, all of those skills you have on your toolbar become useless the instant you leave the ground.  As a mage, I could not cast spells and fly at the same time…  One can easily imagine how this would mean that my character, already a glass cannon, became pretty pathetic while flying.

The second major flaw is the “lock on” feature.  Essentially by hitting the Z key you could lock your facing to the enemy, ensuring that you could attack by spamming INSERT.  I shouldn’t have to point out, however, that your board only moves forward or stops, and you cannot strafe left or right.  Thus, once you lock on you are doomed to being within melee range of your target, incapable of kiting or even breaking away from your midair death tangle.

To give you an idea, here’s a screen shot of my magician trying to make a floaty bee-thing go away.

Apparently I’m moving inexorably at 186 kph toward the thing I would very much not like to be in melee range with.  I got off 3 shots, one of which was critical, and then sat tapping INSERT and eating food until it went away.

And yet, for all of the faults of FlyFF (and there are billions), I did find some things worth thinking about.

First of all, while the lock on system is flawed for lack of control, the basic framework is a solid idea.  I don’t see any reason why this sort of concept couldn’t work with an experience design team behind it.  In fact, it would be relatively easy for FlyFF to fix their system with only a few lines of code.  Changing out the on/off speed control for a more standard system would be straightforward enough…  One could simpy use a WoW-style RMB+LMB Forward/X-Reverse scheme and make the left and right turn buttons go into ’strafe’ mode when locked.  Those two simple changes would make flying combat in this game fun and engaging.

The other significant change in the game would be making special abilities useable in flight.  The only reason I can speculate that this feature is absent is to suggest that the GPotato team are likely underpaid and inexperienced programmers who coded themselves into a corner.  Further evidence of this is in the fact that, contrary to everything already stated, there is no real Z-Axis in FlyFF.

You see, once you mount your board in FlyFF, the world ‘pops’ for a brief instant.  In that instant you’re transported into a parallel universe in which three dimensions exist.  Put another way, once you mount up, your character goes into an entirely new gamespace.  The ground game, which is completely MUD-style is totally separate from the aerial game.  You cannot interact with flying creatures from the ground, nor can you interact with ground creatures from the sky.  The lanscape is merely there to provide collision and scenery.  As a result, all of your abilities, which are based on the 2d ground game, become irrelevant in the 3d air game.  This is because the team that thunk up FlyFF took a MUD model MMO and plastered the flight game on top of it, not realizing at the outset that a Z-Axis makes those nifty abiities require a complete redesign in order to work.  It’s hard to blame the designers, though.  Most of these games are simple redesigns of other MMO engines.  FlyFF was not coded from the ground up.

If we contrast FlyFF against the other ‘flight’ MMO, Perfect World, it’s easy to see the two different approaches.  In PW, for instance, characters can fly and use abilities, but the whole setup is sluggish and uncontrollable for the opposite reasons…  PW’s appraoch was to add a pretend Z-Axis onto the MUD model by giving characters an “altitude” attribute which simply added in to range considerations.  Yeah, it’s pretty awful.

So, for all of the failures, I see a great deal of promise in FlyFF.  The flight game is the right idea for a true 3d MMORPG…  In this case, it’s actually the ground game which is the problem.  If this idea were tackled by an experienced team such as those at Blizzard, BioWare,  or Sony this idea could be a real game changer.  First thing’s first, though…  we have to go back to the beginning and stop assuming the same old MUD-model.  If we started with a relational 3D engine, more like a platformer and less like a FPS, we would have a great shot at making something that could redefine online gaming for good.

And before anyone says so – Eve Online is not a 3D game – it’s a calculator with graphics.  (And mind you, I adore Eve-O)

Just a note that I’ve updated the T.T.S.P. link with my first actual test of video, sound, and direct linking.  Check it out and make fun of me!