> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:
> For years, I study a field of science called "[Complexity Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system)", which is just the science behind complex systems dynamics. Complex systems are essentially how non-linear systems where things interact with each other create higher orders of organization, patterns, and chaotic behaviors. Complexity Theory is used in almost every scientific field known to exist in which the systems are non-linear. This also includes gaming, and many aspects of it. But what I'm going to focus on is more along the lines of Social and societal complexity, and how societal interactions lead to complex behaviours, and how some behaviours are good and how some are bad for the longevity of the game (maintaining healthy player population and interaction)
I'm afraid I don't see how this links to any of the rest of your argument. Which results or techniques from complexity theory have you used to draw your conclusions? This might be clear to you, but since you haven't explained it, it's not at all clear to your readers. Without explaining your methods, your argument is unlikely to be persuasive (which, perhaps, is why so many of the responses disagree with you).
> To look at the above scenario in a mathematical sense, one would create a network diagram that would show the density of interactions in particular places on a "network map." In the game in which there exists waypoints, the density map would look something like this.
>
> In a game in which way points did not exist, the density map would look something like this.
These are not networks in the mathematical sense. They look more like heat maps – that is, plots of 2-variable functions – but they look to me like generic illustrative pictures of heat maps rather than actual plots of actual functions or data. When you say "the density map would look something like this", what has led you to that conclusion? What data collection and/or modelling did you do? I know that you gave this explanation:
> Now why would there be such a difference in interaction density with and without waypoints? It's because in by taking a waypoint, potential interactions that **could** have happened in between traversing between point A and point B simply do not occur because it doesn't exist. Therefor, player density becomes more tightly packed into denser and denser regions, and thus, interactions that could have happened elsewhere do not occur, and the ones that do occur are now confined to a smaller region, because interactions between other individuals, will more likely be found in these major hubs rather than outside of them. We see this behavior in game currently, where the majority of people...perhaps at least 80% of the population inhabit major cities at any given time.
But this seems both vague and conjectural. It certainly doesn't give an indication that you looked at this "in a mathematical sense", as you claim. And where does this "at least 80%" figure come from?
Note: I'm not saying that you haven't used proper mathematical/scientific methods here – just that you haven't explained your methods sufficiently.
> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > For years, I study a field of science called "[Complexity Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system)", which is just the science behind complex systems dynamics. Complex systems are essentially how non-linear systems where things interact with each other create higher orders of organization, patterns, and chaotic behaviors. Complexity Theory is used in almost every scientific field known to exist in which the systems are non-linear. This also includes gaming, and many aspects of it. But what I'm going to focus on is more along the lines of Social and societal complexity, and how societal interactions lead to complex behaviours, and how some behaviours are good and how some are bad for the longevity of the game (maintaining healthy player population and interaction) I'm afraid I don't see how this links to any of the rest of your argument. Which results or techniques from complexity theory have you used to draw your conclusions? This might be clear to you, but since you haven't explained it, it's not at all clear to your readers. Without explaining your methods, your argument is unlikely to be persuasive (which, perhaps, is why so many of the responses disagree with you). > To look at the above scenario in a mathematical sense, one would create a network diagram that would show the density of interactions in particular places on a "network map." In the game in which there exists waypoints, the density map would look something like this. > > In a game in which way points did not exist, the density map would look something like this. These are not networks in the mathematical sense. They look more like heat maps – that is, plots of 2-variable functions – but they look to me like generic illustrative pictures of heat maps rather than actual plots of actual functions or data. When you say "the density map would look something like this", what has led you to that conclusion? What data collection and/or modelling did you do? I know that you gave this explanation: > Now why would there be such a difference in interaction density with and without waypoints? It's because in by taking a waypoint, potential interactions that **could** have happened in between traversing between point A and point B simply do not occur because it doesn't exist. Therefor, player density becomes more tightly packed into denser and denser regions, and thus, interactions that could have happened elsewhere do not occur, and the ones that do occur are now confined to a smaller region, because interactions between other individuals, will more likely be found in these major hubs rather than outside of them. We see this behavior in game currently, where the majority of people...perhaps at least 80% of the population inhabit major cities at any given time. But this seems both vague and conjectural. It certainly doesn't give an indication that you looked at this "in a mathematical sense", as you claim. And where does this "at least 80%" figure come from? Note: I'm not saying that you haven't used proper mathematical/scientific methods here – just that you haven't explained your methods sufficiently.
