Recent Posts2926
Post New Requests Here / Re: IDEA: Control Freak - living in the game
« Last post by nudone on August 02, 2006, 02:39 AM »you've raised some very important and interesting points, javajones.
it would be great to have complex rule system for those wishing to play a 'serious' game but my feelings are that simplicity is the way to go - just to allow anyone to get involved with the minimum of fuss.
as the game isn't actually underway it's almost impossible to know what is required to make the game work but, again, keeping it as simple as possible strikes me as the way to start. maybe there could be an 'advanced' players area that allowed for many of the details to be included that you outlined.
i am speaking from a personal bias, of course. i don't really feel that i need to break down my planned tasks into specific categories - like i said earlier, the tasks wouldn't even have to be revealed to the other players - they are just personal markers that need to be completed.
i think i may have read/heard about the buddy system you mention (might have been in one of those popular self-help books, Anthony Robbins or someone) and it certainly sounds like a good way of getting results. even though it sounds like such a good idea i wonder how often such advice is put into practise - the problem being that it is an effort all in itself - perhaps even more of an effort is required to get together with someone than it is to complete other personal procrastinated tasks. hard to say and depends on the individual. also, there are people i know that may equally want to get things done in their life but they would view such 'motivation meetings' as nothing less than interference and busy-bodying - i probably would too and that explains why i haven't done it.
to me, the awarding of points is for overcoming procrastination. it isn't for the effort involved. as you clearly described, it would be difficult to categories different kinds of 'work'. you gain a single point because you have managed to do the most important thing - which is to actually begin the task. well, i see that the point should be awarded once the task is completed.
the point of the game is to monitor just those little moments in our lives where we say we'll begin a task and when we complete it. the task is irrelevant in itself. the crucial parts are starting and completing the task. we all know that once we begin something it is usually quite easy to keep the momentum going - we then just wonder to ourselves why we didn't start the task earlier. the second and perhaps greater problem is to actually complete the task and so the points can only be assigned after that.
i've seen many postings on this forum about people making pledges that they will get something done for the benefit of DonationCoder.com. i've made such pledges myself so i know how it goes. the will is there to do these things but the task becomes overshadowed by other ambitions until the original post/declaration just serves as an embarrassing reminder that, yet again, we have been a right big procrastinator. (i've walked away from my computer and now just come back and can't remember what the point of that paragraph was.)
the problem of trying to keep the game competitive and yet incorporate a 'fair' point awarding scheme makes me think that the scoreboard should be a measure of personal success rate. if you say you will complete 7 tasks over the following week and another player says they will aim to only achieve 3 then we obviously need a percentage point rating system.
i understand that players may feel that their particular tasks are more involved or more deserving than some other players tasks but this is not the point of the game. a task of painting the garden shed is equal to reading a boring/fascinating text book if they are both tasks that are being avoided by the players involved. the game is about overcoming inertia and 'getting things done' and rewarding yourself for breaking through that invisible barrier.
the rules are really very simple (if these do become the rules) but it can be made more complicated on a personal level. allowing comments/posts to be made between the players should provide a method or outlet where a player can ask for encouragement or describe how difficult they believe their task(s) to be, etc, etc. if a player feels that they require more rules for the game to be 'fun' they could, perhaps, state they are playing by rule set B or C or whatever. they would still acquire the same points for their results as every other player but they could perhaps have a flag or marker next to their name indicating that they were playing by the more advanced rule set.
the scoreboards function isn't really about seeing who is 'winning'. it is more of a record of what you have done or didn't do. perhaps there should be an indication of the number of successful and unsuccessful tasks completed for each player, or a percentage should i say.
anyone wishing to cheat is beyond help as far as i can see. what on earth they think they would be accomplishing i have no idea. if they were obvious cheats then i think it might provide another level of amusement within the game.
it would be great to have complex rule system for those wishing to play a 'serious' game but my feelings are that simplicity is the way to go - just to allow anyone to get involved with the minimum of fuss.
as the game isn't actually underway it's almost impossible to know what is required to make the game work but, again, keeping it as simple as possible strikes me as the way to start. maybe there could be an 'advanced' players area that allowed for many of the details to be included that you outlined.
i am speaking from a personal bias, of course. i don't really feel that i need to break down my planned tasks into specific categories - like i said earlier, the tasks wouldn't even have to be revealed to the other players - they are just personal markers that need to be completed.
i think i may have read/heard about the buddy system you mention (might have been in one of those popular self-help books, Anthony Robbins or someone) and it certainly sounds like a good way of getting results. even though it sounds like such a good idea i wonder how often such advice is put into practise - the problem being that it is an effort all in itself - perhaps even more of an effort is required to get together with someone than it is to complete other personal procrastinated tasks. hard to say and depends on the individual. also, there are people i know that may equally want to get things done in their life but they would view such 'motivation meetings' as nothing less than interference and busy-bodying - i probably would too and that explains why i haven't done it.
to me, the awarding of points is for overcoming procrastination. it isn't for the effort involved. as you clearly described, it would be difficult to categories different kinds of 'work'. you gain a single point because you have managed to do the most important thing - which is to actually begin the task. well, i see that the point should be awarded once the task is completed.
the point of the game is to monitor just those little moments in our lives where we say we'll begin a task and when we complete it. the task is irrelevant in itself. the crucial parts are starting and completing the task. we all know that once we begin something it is usually quite easy to keep the momentum going - we then just wonder to ourselves why we didn't start the task earlier. the second and perhaps greater problem is to actually complete the task and so the points can only be assigned after that.
i've seen many postings on this forum about people making pledges that they will get something done for the benefit of DonationCoder.com. i've made such pledges myself so i know how it goes. the will is there to do these things but the task becomes overshadowed by other ambitions until the original post/declaration just serves as an embarrassing reminder that, yet again, we have been a right big procrastinator. (i've walked away from my computer and now just come back and can't remember what the point of that paragraph was.)
the problem of trying to keep the game competitive and yet incorporate a 'fair' point awarding scheme makes me think that the scoreboard should be a measure of personal success rate. if you say you will complete 7 tasks over the following week and another player says they will aim to only achieve 3 then we obviously need a percentage point rating system.
i understand that players may feel that their particular tasks are more involved or more deserving than some other players tasks but this is not the point of the game. a task of painting the garden shed is equal to reading a boring/fascinating text book if they are both tasks that are being avoided by the players involved. the game is about overcoming inertia and 'getting things done' and rewarding yourself for breaking through that invisible barrier.
the rules are really very simple (if these do become the rules) but it can be made more complicated on a personal level. allowing comments/posts to be made between the players should provide a method or outlet where a player can ask for encouragement or describe how difficult they believe their task(s) to be, etc, etc. if a player feels that they require more rules for the game to be 'fun' they could, perhaps, state they are playing by rule set B or C or whatever. they would still acquire the same points for their results as every other player but they could perhaps have a flag or marker next to their name indicating that they were playing by the more advanced rule set.
the scoreboards function isn't really about seeing who is 'winning'. it is more of a record of what you have done or didn't do. perhaps there should be an indication of the number of successful and unsuccessful tasks completed for each player, or a percentage should i say.
anyone wishing to cheat is beyond help as far as i can see. what on earth they think they would be accomplishing i have no idea. if they were obvious cheats then i think it might provide another level of amusement within the game.
looks like everything is working.