<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_08_1419242</id>
	<title>Experimental Video Game Evolves Its Own Content</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247065740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:kstanley@eecs.ucf.edu" rel="nofollow">Ken Stanley</a> writes <i>"Just as interest in user-generated content in video games is heating up, a team of researchers at the University of Central Florida has released <a href="http://gar.eecs.ucf.edu/">an experimental multiplayer game</a> in which content items <a href="http://aigamedev.com/interviews/galactic-arms-race/">compete with each other in an evolutionary arms race</a> to satisfy the players.  As a result, particle system-based weapons, which are <a href="http://gar.eecs.ucf.edu/index.php?content=weapons">the evolving class of content</a>, continually invent their own new behaviors based on what users liked in the past.  Does the resulting experience in this game, called <em>Galactic Arms Race</em>, suggest that evolutionary algorithms may be the key to automated content generation in future multiplayer gaming and MMOs?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ken Stanley writes " Just as interest in user-generated content in video games is heating up , a team of researchers at the University of Central Florida has released an experimental multiplayer game in which content items compete with each other in an evolutionary arms race to satisfy the players .
As a result , particle system-based weapons , which are the evolving class of content , continually invent their own new behaviors based on what users liked in the past .
Does the resulting experience in this game , called Galactic Arms Race , suggest that evolutionary algorithms may be the key to automated content generation in future multiplayer gaming and MMOs ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ken Stanley writes "Just as interest in user-generated content in video games is heating up, a team of researchers at the University of Central Florida has released an experimental multiplayer game in which content items compete with each other in an evolutionary arms race to satisfy the players.
As a result, particle system-based weapons, which are the evolving class of content, continually invent their own new behaviors based on what users liked in the past.
Does the resulting experience in this game, called Galactic Arms Race, suggest that evolutionary algorithms may be the key to automated content generation in future multiplayer gaming and MMOs?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624929</id>
	<title>VYou fail it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>other members in for suucessful was 4t the same</htmltext>
<tokenext>other members in for suucessful was 4t the same</tokentext>
<sentencetext>other members in for suucessful was 4t the same</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28632015</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247070600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me - one of my pet hates about WoW is that a lvl 1 orc warrior looks exactly the same as a lvl 80 orc warrior, except for his gear. It's even worse for druids, a level 20 druid in cat form looks identical to a fully epic'd out level 80 druid. At least make the player models get a bigger little with higher gear level or something - it's well established that in the Warcraft universe, bigger = stronger.
<br> <br>As for scantily clad mud wrestling elf chicks, I'm all for it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me - one of my pet hates about WoW is that a lvl 1 orc warrior looks exactly the same as a lvl 80 orc warrior , except for his gear .
It 's even worse for druids , a level 20 druid in cat form looks identical to a fully epic 'd out level 80 druid .
At least make the player models get a bigger little with higher gear level or something - it 's well established that in the Warcraft universe , bigger = stronger .
As for scantily clad mud wrestling elf chicks , I 'm all for it .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me - one of my pet hates about WoW is that a lvl 1 orc warrior looks exactly the same as a lvl 80 orc warrior, except for his gear.
It's even worse for druids, a level 20 druid in cat form looks identical to a fully epic'd out level 80 druid.
At least make the player models get a bigger little with higher gear level or something - it's well established that in the Warcraft universe, bigger = stronger.
As for scantily clad mud wrestling elf chicks, I'm all for it.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28630509</id>
	<title>Re:Logical conclusion</title>
	<author>MisterTea</author>
	<datestamp>1247059500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every gun will be a physics bending super shotgun that scatters with super-high density in all directions at once obliterating every enemy within two miles with every piece of shot being a smart projectile that can turn corners and hunt your enemies! BOOM HEADSHOTx1000!</p></div><p>The simple answer is that you could have some metric that would keep the evolved content in balance, but I think your question points to a more significant point:</p><p>What you say would be true if everyone was focused on making the most effective killing gun, but is every player going to do this?  How many people play WoW with the explicit intention of being the best player on the server?  Personally, I played WoW because I had personal friends who played and I saw it as an opportunity to keep in touch with friends and have fun.  Other than the social aspect, I enjoyed novel content, especially when I discovered the novelty myself.  If this game can allow me to create fun and interesting guns ad infinitum, that is a major breakthrough in game design.</p><p>I think that this particular game is maybe not the best example for this technology, because you are evolving weapons to kill other ships.  It might be more to the point if you could evolve your own art, as was done with Picbreeder ( <a href="http://www.picbreeder.org/" title="picbreeder.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.picbreeder.org/</a> [picbreeder.org] ) Even still, I do not think that every player in a game like this will be hell bent on making the content that makes their character the most powerful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every gun will be a physics bending super shotgun that scatters with super-high density in all directions at once obliterating every enemy within two miles with every piece of shot being a smart projectile that can turn corners and hunt your enemies !
BOOM HEADSHOTx1000 ! The simple answer is that you could have some metric that would keep the evolved content in balance , but I think your question points to a more significant point : What you say would be true if everyone was focused on making the most effective killing gun , but is every player going to do this ?
How many people play WoW with the explicit intention of being the best player on the server ?
Personally , I played WoW because I had personal friends who played and I saw it as an opportunity to keep in touch with friends and have fun .
Other than the social aspect , I enjoyed novel content , especially when I discovered the novelty myself .
If this game can allow me to create fun and interesting guns ad infinitum , that is a major breakthrough in game design.I think that this particular game is maybe not the best example for this technology , because you are evolving weapons to kill other ships .
It might be more to the point if you could evolve your own art , as was done with Picbreeder ( http : //www.picbreeder.org/ [ picbreeder.org ] ) Even still , I do not think that every player in a game like this will be hell bent on making the content that makes their character the most powerful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every gun will be a physics bending super shotgun that scatters with super-high density in all directions at once obliterating every enemy within two miles with every piece of shot being a smart projectile that can turn corners and hunt your enemies!
BOOM HEADSHOTx1000!The simple answer is that you could have some metric that would keep the evolved content in balance, but I think your question points to a more significant point:What you say would be true if everyone was focused on making the most effective killing gun, but is every player going to do this?
How many people play WoW with the explicit intention of being the best player on the server?
Personally, I played WoW because I had personal friends who played and I saw it as an opportunity to keep in touch with friends and have fun.
Other than the social aspect, I enjoyed novel content, especially when I discovered the novelty myself.
If this game can allow me to create fun and interesting guns ad infinitum, that is a major breakthrough in game design.I think that this particular game is maybe not the best example for this technology, because you are evolving weapons to kill other ships.
It might be more to the point if you could evolve your own art, as was done with Picbreeder ( http://www.picbreeder.org/ [picbreeder.org] ) Even still, I do not think that every player in a game like this will be hell bent on making the content that makes their character the most powerful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28634893</id>
	<title>Re:How to achieve this: Dynamic world</title>
	<author>kauttapiste</author>
	<datestamp>1247146440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhh..you would make the players do engineering work. With the added fun of rest of the time reviewing everyone else's engineering work! That'll sell like cupcakes!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh..you would make the players do engineering work .
With the added fun of rest of the time reviewing everyone else 's engineering work !
That 'll sell like cupcakes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh..you would make the players do engineering work.
With the added fun of rest of the time reviewing everyone else's engineering work!
That'll sell like cupcakes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623189</id>
	<title>Top tags</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1247071260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could someone please add the tag excessivebuzzwords to the article?? I feel like the synopsis was created with the old Dilbert business plan jargon generator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could someone please add the tag excessivebuzzwords to the article ? ?
I feel like the synopsis was created with the old Dilbert business plan jargon generator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could someone please add the tag excessivebuzzwords to the article??
I feel like the synopsis was created with the old Dilbert business plan jargon generator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623943</id>
	<title>Oh oh</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1247074020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Whaddya mean all my bases belong to you?...You'll do <i>what</i> to my dog?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Whaddya mean all my bases belong to you ? ...You 'll do what to my dog ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Whaddya mean all my bases belong to you?...You'll do what to my dog?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622785</id>
	<title>It's all fun and games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until the guns evolve too far to the point where they believe they are better than their users and and revolt. My money is on the weapons winning, they will recruit Arnold.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until the guns evolve too far to the point where they believe they are better than their users and and revolt .
My money is on the weapons winning , they will recruit Arnold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until the guns evolve too far to the point where they believe they are better than their users and and revolt.
My money is on the weapons winning, they will recruit Arnold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624283</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1247075280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would have a market, but not all games could do this. There are still a TON of gamers who for whatever reason get enjoyment out of just running through the motions and increasing the value of their character. An ever-changing game can not have walkthroughs in the same sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would have a market , but not all games could do this .
There are still a TON of gamers who for whatever reason get enjoyment out of just running through the motions and increasing the value of their character .
An ever-changing game can not have walkthroughs in the same sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would have a market, but not all games could do this.
There are still a TON of gamers who for whatever reason get enjoyment out of just running through the motions and increasing the value of their character.
An ever-changing game can not have walkthroughs in the same sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623227</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1247071440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is and always will be a horrible idea.  The only way to do anything like what you are talking about is Eve where the player controls almost everything.  In something like WoW, people would just destroy everything making it so that the majority of players will not get to see the content since someone would have already killed the king and probably immediately any new leader was put in place it would be killed again.   These ideas work better for single player/small number cooperative games since people can then do whatever they want without every forest being destroyed or every princess being saved.<br> <br>That being said, WoW already comes as close as you can get by having different phases in some zones.  So at first, the camp is under attack, then you stop a large wave, then you push it back, and the town is safe from then on.  The thing is, the actions only change your world and everyone else still has the world they had before.  So if you are on a different phase, you are unable to see or interact meaningfully with that character in that zone.<br> <br>But if they did it your way, by the time you got to a high enough level to see the zone, someone would have already made it safe or destroyed it so you couldn't participate.  It would just be too complex to design an MMO that way.  It would be a game for the griefers (like Eve) and would not be all that enjoyable (like Eve).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is and always will be a horrible idea .
The only way to do anything like what you are talking about is Eve where the player controls almost everything .
In something like WoW , people would just destroy everything making it so that the majority of players will not get to see the content since someone would have already killed the king and probably immediately any new leader was put in place it would be killed again .
These ideas work better for single player/small number cooperative games since people can then do whatever they want without every forest being destroyed or every princess being saved .
That being said , WoW already comes as close as you can get by having different phases in some zones .
So at first , the camp is under attack , then you stop a large wave , then you push it back , and the town is safe from then on .
The thing is , the actions only change your world and everyone else still has the world they had before .
So if you are on a different phase , you are unable to see or interact meaningfully with that character in that zone .
But if they did it your way , by the time you got to a high enough level to see the zone , someone would have already made it safe or destroyed it so you could n't participate .
It would just be too complex to design an MMO that way .
It would be a game for the griefers ( like Eve ) and would not be all that enjoyable ( like Eve ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is and always will be a horrible idea.
The only way to do anything like what you are talking about is Eve where the player controls almost everything.
In something like WoW, people would just destroy everything making it so that the majority of players will not get to see the content since someone would have already killed the king and probably immediately any new leader was put in place it would be killed again.
These ideas work better for single player/small number cooperative games since people can then do whatever they want without every forest being destroyed or every princess being saved.
That being said, WoW already comes as close as you can get by having different phases in some zones.
So at first, the camp is under attack, then you stop a large wave, then you push it back, and the town is safe from then on.
The thing is, the actions only change your world and everyone else still has the world they had before.
So if you are on a different phase, you are unable to see or interact meaningfully with that character in that zone.
But if they did it your way, by the time you got to a high enough level to see the zone, someone would have already made it safe or destroyed it so you couldn't participate.
It would just be too complex to design an MMO that way.
It would be a game for the griefers (like Eve) and would not be all that enjoyable (like Eve).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28625799</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>nizo</author>
	<datestamp>1247080440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>..that badass boss dragon wouldn't just get back to its place...</i></p><p>This reminds me of a scene on a MUD some time ago where a player was given a book (normally impossible for a normal player to pickup, however a wizard gave it to him) that summoned a rather nasty demon when read. Said player promptly ran through town summoning demons; the player death toll was rather high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..that badass boss dragon would n't just get back to its place...This reminds me of a scene on a MUD some time ago where a player was given a book ( normally impossible for a normal player to pickup , however a wizard gave it to him ) that summoned a rather nasty demon when read .
Said player promptly ran through town summoning demons ; the player death toll was rather high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..that badass boss dragon wouldn't just get back to its place...This reminds me of a scene on a MUD some time ago where a player was given a book (normally impossible for a normal player to pickup, however a wizard gave it to him) that summoned a rather nasty demon when read.
Said player promptly ran through town summoning demons; the player death toll was rather high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622969</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>aaaaaaargh!</author>
	<datestamp>1247070420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you and also would like to see more games with automatically created and evolving content. Unfortunately, game studios still  seem to shy away from dynamic content because the behavior of dynamic systems is generally hard to predict. Some might fear that the game world suddenly becomes unstable and drops into chaos. But the game studios could hire more people with a strong physics/dynamic systems modeling background to deal with these problems.</p><p>
&nbsp; Another problem is that games with good dynamic content have a very high replay value, whereas it seems that most game studios would prefer people to buy a new game or expansion pack right after they have finished the old one---or even earlier, as one might infer from the sloppiness with which later levels are often designed in comparison to the first few levels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you and also would like to see more games with automatically created and evolving content .
Unfortunately , game studios still seem to shy away from dynamic content because the behavior of dynamic systems is generally hard to predict .
Some might fear that the game world suddenly becomes unstable and drops into chaos .
But the game studios could hire more people with a strong physics/dynamic systems modeling background to deal with these problems .
  Another problem is that games with good dynamic content have a very high replay value , whereas it seems that most game studios would prefer people to buy a new game or expansion pack right after they have finished the old one---or even earlier , as one might infer from the sloppiness with which later levels are often designed in comparison to the first few levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you and also would like to see more games with automatically created and evolving content.
Unfortunately, game studios still  seem to shy away from dynamic content because the behavior of dynamic systems is generally hard to predict.
Some might fear that the game world suddenly becomes unstable and drops into chaos.
But the game studios could hire more people with a strong physics/dynamic systems modeling background to deal with these problems.
  Another problem is that games with good dynamic content have a very high replay value, whereas it seems that most game studios would prefer people to buy a new game or expansion pack right after they have finished the old one---or even earlier, as one might infer from the sloppiness with which later levels are often designed in comparison to the first few levels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28631987</id>
	<title>Re:How to achieve this: Dynamic world</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247070420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The player-designed stuff sounds great. You'd have to come up with some way of incorporating magic into it, though, because magic (or 'sufficiently advanced science') is what makes these games different from the real world, and thus interesting. The temporary items thing? Not so fun. Part of the draw of an MMO is that once you get stuff, you get to *keep* that stuff. Maybe it's devalued later by new stuff that gets released, but you still keep it. My human warrior still proudly wears his Hakkar'i Warblades, and will probably do so until the game shuts down because he's been retired at 60 for three years. If I wanted items that depreciated and eventually became defunct and had to be trashed, I'd play Real Life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The player-designed stuff sounds great .
You 'd have to come up with some way of incorporating magic into it , though , because magic ( or 'sufficiently advanced science ' ) is what makes these games different from the real world , and thus interesting .
The temporary items thing ?
Not so fun .
Part of the draw of an MMO is that once you get stuff , you get to * keep * that stuff .
Maybe it 's devalued later by new stuff that gets released , but you still keep it .
My human warrior still proudly wears his Hakkar'i Warblades , and will probably do so until the game shuts down because he 's been retired at 60 for three years .
If I wanted items that depreciated and eventually became defunct and had to be trashed , I 'd play Real Life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The player-designed stuff sounds great.
You'd have to come up with some way of incorporating magic into it, though, because magic (or 'sufficiently advanced science') is what makes these games different from the real world, and thus interesting.
The temporary items thing?
Not so fun.
Part of the draw of an MMO is that once you get stuff, you get to *keep* that stuff.
Maybe it's devalued later by new stuff that gets released, but you still keep it.
My human warrior still proudly wears his Hakkar'i Warblades, and will probably do so until the game shuts down because he's been retired at 60 for three years.
If I wanted items that depreciated and eventually became defunct and had to be trashed, I'd play Real Life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28626347</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>LeoPercepied</author>
	<datestamp>1247082300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone remember WaringForever?<br>
<a href="http://www18.big.or.jp/~hikoza/Prod/index\_e.html" title="big.or.jp" rel="nofollow">http://www18.big.or.jp/~hikoza/Prod/index\_e.html</a> [big.or.jp] <br>
<br>
Evolving bosses is great... Combining that and evolving guns and multiplayer... well...<br>
could be awesome... or it could be a mess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone remember WaringForever ?
http : //www18.big.or.jp/ ~ hikoza/Prod/index \ _e.html [ big.or.jp ] Evolving bosses is great... Combining that and evolving guns and multiplayer... well.. . could be awesome... or it could be a mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone remember WaringForever?
http://www18.big.or.jp/~hikoza/Prod/index\_e.html [big.or.jp] 

Evolving bosses is great... Combining that and evolving guns and multiplayer... well...
could be awesome... or it could be a mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623061</id>
	<title>Remember the lesson of Syndrome:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When everybody's special...</p><p>nobody is.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Such an automated technique might be especially suited to Virtual World or Massively Multi-Player (MMOG) games in which large amounts of content are required and unique content is coveted by players.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When everybody 's special...nobody is.Such an automated technique might be especially suited to Virtual World or Massively Multi-Player ( MMOG ) games in which large amounts of content are required and unique content is coveted by players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When everybody's special...nobody is.Such an automated technique might be especially suited to Virtual World or Massively Multi-Player (MMOG) games in which large amounts of content are required and unique content is coveted by players.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623211</id>
	<title>WoW has this now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've introduced things in original WoW (pre-first expansion) where the world would make a one-time change based on players on the server completing certain tasks (including certain little tasks tens of thousands of times).  And the newest expansion also has something called "phasing" which allows individual players to see different versions of content in the same place -- i.e. you are told to go and kill guys and they are actually gone when you are done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've introduced things in original WoW ( pre-first expansion ) where the world would make a one-time change based on players on the server completing certain tasks ( including certain little tasks tens of thousands of times ) .
And the newest expansion also has something called " phasing " which allows individual players to see different versions of content in the same place -- i.e .
you are told to go and kill guys and they are actually gone when you are done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've introduced things in original WoW (pre-first expansion) where the world would make a one-time change based on players on the server completing certain tasks (including certain little tasks tens of thousands of times).
And the newest expansion also has something called "phasing" which allows individual players to see different versions of content in the same place -- i.e.
you are told to go and kill guys and they are actually gone when you are done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624465</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>jmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1247075880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The set-in-stone nature of most video games plays hand in hand with things that companies often do; copyrights.  When you make a game, you have copyright over the materials (sounds, textures, maps, models, what have you) unless otherwise indicated.<br> <br>

Now for randomly generated maps, you can still copyright the textures and so forth used.. but you can't really copyright the map itself (so if I save a generated cached copy of a map from your game to a static map file to re-use.. say in an emulated version of the game.. you don't have a copyright to this material!.. granted I replace the textures etc etc).<br> <br>

How might this impact copyright law as it stands?  Server emulation?  Circumvention of securities that might be deemed as "copyright protection" that prevent you PRIMARILY from using cheats in-game but one can claim inadvertantly they protect copyrighted material.. but if the game-content is constantly evolving and changing, is there a copyrighted material to protect?<br> <br>

If a game truly grows and evolves as people play it, it stands to question "who owns it".  The developers?  Or the players who molded the system into what it's become?  We commonly see phrases in EULAs of online games to the effect of "you recognize that all virtual items in [insert over-hyped game here] are property of [insert megarich company who doesn't care about its customers here]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....".  How can evolved content based on the interaction with a user still fit into a clause such as this?  This item DID NOT EXIST before that user played the game.. so what then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The set-in-stone nature of most video games plays hand in hand with things that companies often do ; copyrights .
When you make a game , you have copyright over the materials ( sounds , textures , maps , models , what have you ) unless otherwise indicated .
Now for randomly generated maps , you can still copyright the textures and so forth used.. but you ca n't really copyright the map itself ( so if I save a generated cached copy of a map from your game to a static map file to re-use.. say in an emulated version of the game.. you do n't have a copyright to this material ! . .
granted I replace the textures etc etc ) .
How might this impact copyright law as it stands ?
Server emulation ?
Circumvention of securities that might be deemed as " copyright protection " that prevent you PRIMARILY from using cheats in-game but one can claim inadvertantly they protect copyrighted material.. but if the game-content is constantly evolving and changing , is there a copyrighted material to protect ?
If a game truly grows and evolves as people play it , it stands to question " who owns it " .
The developers ?
Or the players who molded the system into what it 's become ?
We commonly see phrases in EULAs of online games to the effect of " you recognize that all virtual items in [ insert over-hyped game here ] are property of [ insert megarich company who does n't care about its customers here ] .... " .
How can evolved content based on the interaction with a user still fit into a clause such as this ?
This item DID NOT EXIST before that user played the game.. so what then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The set-in-stone nature of most video games plays hand in hand with things that companies often do; copyrights.
When you make a game, you have copyright over the materials (sounds, textures, maps, models, what have you) unless otherwise indicated.
Now for randomly generated maps, you can still copyright the textures and so forth used.. but you can't really copyright the map itself (so if I save a generated cached copy of a map from your game to a static map file to re-use.. say in an emulated version of the game.. you don't have a copyright to this material!..
granted I replace the textures etc etc).
How might this impact copyright law as it stands?
Server emulation?
Circumvention of securities that might be deemed as "copyright protection" that prevent you PRIMARILY from using cheats in-game but one can claim inadvertantly they protect copyrighted material.. but if the game-content is constantly evolving and changing, is there a copyrighted material to protect?
If a game truly grows and evolves as people play it, it stands to question "who owns it".
The developers?
Or the players who molded the system into what it's become?
We commonly see phrases in EULAs of online games to the effect of "you recognize that all virtual items in [insert over-hyped game here] are property of [insert megarich company who doesn't care about its customers here] ....".
How can evolved content based on the interaction with a user still fit into a clause such as this?
This item DID NOT EXIST before that user played the game.. so what then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623447</id>
	<title>Hrm.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerUp\_Forever" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">PowerUp Forever</a> [wikipedia.org] should have done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what PowerUp Forever [ wikipedia.org ] should have done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what PowerUp Forever [wikipedia.org] should have done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28630263</id>
	<title>they left out an important element</title>
	<author>museumpeace</author>
	<datestamp>1247058000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if it had porn elements and its heuristic is to pit game effects and content against each other by competing for user attention, the endstate is rather easy to predict.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if it had porn elements and its heuristic is to pit game effects and content against each other by competing for user attention , the endstate is rather easy to predict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it had porn elements and its heuristic is to pit game effects and content against each other by competing for user attention, the endstate is rather easy to predict.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623587</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>meiao</author>
	<datestamp>1247072700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should try wurm online (www.wurmonline.com).<br>
It is a persistent rpg where users found cities and help each other.
<br>
Haven't played it since it came out of beta (i think it is out of beta now).</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should try wurm online ( www.wurmonline.com ) .
It is a persistent rpg where users found cities and help each other .
Have n't played it since it came out of beta ( i think it is out of beta now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should try wurm online (www.wurmonline.com).
It is a persistent rpg where users found cities and help each other.
Haven't played it since it came out of beta (i think it is out of beta now).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622933</id>
	<title>Coming soon, Google Bombs for MMOs</title>
	<author>Proudrooster</author>
	<datestamp>1247070300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can envision  it already... smart kids with nothing but time will figure out the algorithms and then manipulate them for humorous purposes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can envision it already... smart kids with nothing but time will figure out the algorithms and then manipulate them for humorous purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can envision  it already... smart kids with nothing but time will figure out the algorithms and then manipulate them for humorous purposes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28625975</id>
	<title>Star Trek Online taking the right steps?</title>
	<author>WSOGMM</author>
	<datestamp>1247081040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there are a few MMOs taking the right steps, and I suppose EVE has always been a good example.  But the MMO that has most recently caught my eye is Star Trek Online (STO).  They want to try to make space feel infinite, but with limited development time, that's impossible.  They've come up with this 'procedurally' generated content thing that looks like it might do the job.  I'm not sure how much you can influence the actual world, but I think the game generates planets and star systems as players 'discover' them.  And I'm pretty sure they stay that way for all players.  You go down, explore the planet, discover a new race (which gets put into the game's database), and influence them as you please.</p><p>
The potential STO has is mind blowing; however, the game hasn't been released yet (it will be soon, I think), so I'll wait to drool over it for now.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there are a few MMOs taking the right steps , and I suppose EVE has always been a good example .
But the MMO that has most recently caught my eye is Star Trek Online ( STO ) .
They want to try to make space feel infinite , but with limited development time , that 's impossible .
They 've come up with this 'procedurally ' generated content thing that looks like it might do the job .
I 'm not sure how much you can influence the actual world , but I think the game generates planets and star systems as players 'discover ' them .
And I 'm pretty sure they stay that way for all players .
You go down , explore the planet , discover a new race ( which gets put into the game 's database ) , and influence them as you please .
The potential STO has is mind blowing ; however , the game has n't been released yet ( it will be soon , I think ) , so I 'll wait to drool over it for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there are a few MMOs taking the right steps, and I suppose EVE has always been a good example.
But the MMO that has most recently caught my eye is Star Trek Online (STO).
They want to try to make space feel infinite, but with limited development time, that's impossible.
They've come up with this 'procedurally' generated content thing that looks like it might do the job.
I'm not sure how much you can influence the actual world, but I think the game generates planets and star systems as players 'discover' them.
And I'm pretty sure they stay that way for all players.
You go down, explore the planet, discover a new race (which gets put into the game's database), and influence them as you please.
The potential STO has is mind blowing; however, the game hasn't been released yet (it will be soon, I think), so I'll wait to drool over it for now.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624821</id>
	<title>Re:Cool but does anyone remember...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not <a href="http://www.getcontinuum.com/" title="getcontinuum.com" rel="nofollow">Subspace</a> [getcontinuum.com], is it? That game has since been reverse engineered, a new server and client developed for it, and the community is still alive and kicking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Subspace [ getcontinuum.com ] , is it ?
That game has since been reverse engineered , a new server and client developed for it , and the community is still alive and kicking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Subspace [getcontinuum.com], is it?
That game has since been reverse engineered, a new server and client developed for it, and the community is still alive and kicking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624861</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>Scoth</author>
	<datestamp>1247077140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may be interested in trying a game called Wurm Online. Its almost completely crafting - based with some very complex setups. Its main weakness is there is essentially no dev content outside the terrain and, on the pvp server, a vague faction war. Absolutely everything else is player driven. The land is completely terraformable. I've enjoyed it as an alternative to Wow type games.</p><p><a href="http://www.wurmonline.com/" title="wurmonline.com">Here</a> [wurmonline.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be interested in trying a game called Wurm Online .
Its almost completely crafting - based with some very complex setups .
Its main weakness is there is essentially no dev content outside the terrain and , on the pvp server , a vague faction war .
Absolutely everything else is player driven .
The land is completely terraformable .
I 've enjoyed it as an alternative to Wow type games.Here [ wurmonline.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be interested in trying a game called Wurm Online.
Its almost completely crafting - based with some very complex setups.
Its main weakness is there is essentially no dev content outside the terrain and, on the pvp server, a vague faction war.
Absolutely everything else is player driven.
The land is completely terraformable.
I've enjoyed it as an alternative to Wow type games.Here [wurmonline.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623743</id>
	<title>Generic</title>
	<author>somenickname</author>
	<datestamp>1247073300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that this will create something that aims to be "the best".  It doesn't address the problem of "what I want", it addresses the [non-]problem of "what everyone wants" and so you will still end up with homogeneous sets of things to acquire at the end of the day.  Real customization of content should be player generated and not based on a system of pre-teens trying to find the most amusement in how easily they can wtfpwn some other pre-teen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that this will create something that aims to be " the best " .
It does n't address the problem of " what I want " , it addresses the [ non- ] problem of " what everyone wants " and so you will still end up with homogeneous sets of things to acquire at the end of the day .
Real customization of content should be player generated and not based on a system of pre-teens trying to find the most amusement in how easily they can wtfpwn some other pre-teen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that this will create something that aims to be "the best".
It doesn't address the problem of "what I want", it addresses the [non-]problem of "what everyone wants" and so you will still end up with homogeneous sets of things to acquire at the end of the day.
Real customization of content should be player generated and not based on a system of pre-teens trying to find the most amusement in how easily they can wtfpwn some other pre-teen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28630679</id>
	<title>Polybius</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247060520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell do you all think I was trying to do with Polybius ???</p><p>Oops I've said to much, gotta g----</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell do you all think I was trying to do with Polybius ? ?
? Oops I 've said to much , got ta g----</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell do you all think I was trying to do with Polybius ??
?Oops I've said to much, gotta g----</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</id>
	<title>Dynamic world</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1247069340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is actually what I've wished for long time that MMO's would have. For example in WoW, once you've seen one place it will always be like that.</p><p>It would be great to have kind of an ecosystem which would evolve on its own and when players help (or destroy) it. For example, there would be two or three independent towns controlled by NPC's living closely that you could build relationships with. Once one of the towns needs more resources, likes to expand or for whatever reason, it would go in war with another town. Player couldn't directly control it, but you could influence it indirectly. Taking it further, when you could really succesfully frame the other town for hostile act's, you could cause a war between them if they see so.</p><p>I know it makes it easier to design and create content when everything is static, but in this case some of the content and the actual gameplay would be created by itself. It would also be *a lot* more interesting when you could directly or indirectly affect the world. Doing a run against some giant badass boss dragon and decided to quit it and run away? Now no, that badass boss dragon wouldn't just get back to its place once you've just a little bit out of its attack range. It would actually be *pissed* at your group and follow you, tearing apart the environment when you try to run away from it. This creates even more tension, as other players and NPC controlled towns would be pissed at you for causing that.</p><p>I've always also thought that why there's no king's or province leaders in WoW or other MMORPG's. Other players could elect you into it or you could steal it from existing king. Obviously the other faction would first need to break thru the provinces to capitol city like Stormwind, fight your way thru the guards and other players finally to the king's castle and then have a huge fight there. If you succeeded with that, you would still need to defence the place and continue gaining control over it. Or you could take the spy approach, gaining trust and getting in ranks to work with the king, finally to just to backstab him when its the perfect moment to do so.</p><p>There's so much you could do with dynamic content or world where player actions actually matter. Now everything is just pretty static, grinding to kill enemies that just pop up back 5 mins later or doing mindless quests. I would really welcome some MMO where it would be more like a sandbox for players and the world. EVE Online actually works a bit like this and that's why its always interest me, even tho I'm not really into space genre. Would be great to see such fantasy MMORPG, or even modern day MMORPG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually what I 've wished for long time that MMO 's would have .
For example in WoW , once you 've seen one place it will always be like that.It would be great to have kind of an ecosystem which would evolve on its own and when players help ( or destroy ) it .
For example , there would be two or three independent towns controlled by NPC 's living closely that you could build relationships with .
Once one of the towns needs more resources , likes to expand or for whatever reason , it would go in war with another town .
Player could n't directly control it , but you could influence it indirectly .
Taking it further , when you could really succesfully frame the other town for hostile act 's , you could cause a war between them if they see so.I know it makes it easier to design and create content when everything is static , but in this case some of the content and the actual gameplay would be created by itself .
It would also be * a lot * more interesting when you could directly or indirectly affect the world .
Doing a run against some giant badass boss dragon and decided to quit it and run away ?
Now no , that badass boss dragon would n't just get back to its place once you 've just a little bit out of its attack range .
It would actually be * pissed * at your group and follow you , tearing apart the environment when you try to run away from it .
This creates even more tension , as other players and NPC controlled towns would be pissed at you for causing that.I 've always also thought that why there 's no king 's or province leaders in WoW or other MMORPG 's .
Other players could elect you into it or you could steal it from existing king .
Obviously the other faction would first need to break thru the provinces to capitol city like Stormwind , fight your way thru the guards and other players finally to the king 's castle and then have a huge fight there .
If you succeeded with that , you would still need to defence the place and continue gaining control over it .
Or you could take the spy approach , gaining trust and getting in ranks to work with the king , finally to just to backstab him when its the perfect moment to do so.There 's so much you could do with dynamic content or world where player actions actually matter .
Now everything is just pretty static , grinding to kill enemies that just pop up back 5 mins later or doing mindless quests .
I would really welcome some MMO where it would be more like a sandbox for players and the world .
EVE Online actually works a bit like this and that 's why its always interest me , even tho I 'm not really into space genre .
Would be great to see such fantasy MMORPG , or even modern day MMORPG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually what I've wished for long time that MMO's would have.
For example in WoW, once you've seen one place it will always be like that.It would be great to have kind of an ecosystem which would evolve on its own and when players help (or destroy) it.
For example, there would be two or three independent towns controlled by NPC's living closely that you could build relationships with.
Once one of the towns needs more resources, likes to expand or for whatever reason, it would go in war with another town.
Player couldn't directly control it, but you could influence it indirectly.
Taking it further, when you could really succesfully frame the other town for hostile act's, you could cause a war between them if they see so.I know it makes it easier to design and create content when everything is static, but in this case some of the content and the actual gameplay would be created by itself.
It would also be *a lot* more interesting when you could directly or indirectly affect the world.
Doing a run against some giant badass boss dragon and decided to quit it and run away?
Now no, that badass boss dragon wouldn't just get back to its place once you've just a little bit out of its attack range.
It would actually be *pissed* at your group and follow you, tearing apart the environment when you try to run away from it.
This creates even more tension, as other players and NPC controlled towns would be pissed at you for causing that.I've always also thought that why there's no king's or province leaders in WoW or other MMORPG's.
Other players could elect you into it or you could steal it from existing king.
Obviously the other faction would first need to break thru the provinces to capitol city like Stormwind, fight your way thru the guards and other players finally to the king's castle and then have a huge fight there.
If you succeeded with that, you would still need to defence the place and continue gaining control over it.
Or you could take the spy approach, gaining trust and getting in ranks to work with the king, finally to just to backstab him when its the perfect moment to do so.There's so much you could do with dynamic content or world where player actions actually matter.
Now everything is just pretty static, grinding to kill enemies that just pop up back 5 mins later or doing mindless quests.
I would really welcome some MMO where it would be more like a sandbox for players and the world.
EVE Online actually works a bit like this and that's why its always interest me, even tho I'm not really into space genre.
Would be great to see such fantasy MMORPG, or even modern day MMORPG.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28625345</id>
	<title>I for one welcome...</title>
	<author>SpoodyGoon</author>
	<datestamp>1247078820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one welcome our new gaming content overlords who are now self aware thank you very much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our new gaming content overlords who are now self aware thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our new gaming content overlords who are now self aware thank you very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623267</id>
	<title>Users can do so much more than just create content</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1247071560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be a great idea to create unique single player game AI by making players substitute for monster AI.  Players would get online with a game, say, an FPS.  When your character enters a room that has enemies, the game can check if other players are in that same area online.  If two characters are supposed to be fighting, do it like America's Army and make both sides appear as if they're the "good guy", except limit the health for the enemy character so that both can appear to have won in their own game, since it's a single player game.  However, the enemy you have just fought would have had some sort of unique player-based AI.<br> <br>By extension, perhaps player behavior can be scraped for other things, such as basing an NPC on the dialog tree choices that a user chose in their game, and have two users "talk to each other" without knowing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be a great idea to create unique single player game AI by making players substitute for monster AI .
Players would get online with a game , say , an FPS .
When your character enters a room that has enemies , the game can check if other players are in that same area online .
If two characters are supposed to be fighting , do it like America 's Army and make both sides appear as if they 're the " good guy " , except limit the health for the enemy character so that both can appear to have won in their own game , since it 's a single player game .
However , the enemy you have just fought would have had some sort of unique player-based AI .
By extension , perhaps player behavior can be scraped for other things , such as basing an NPC on the dialog tree choices that a user chose in their game , and have two users " talk to each other " without knowing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be a great idea to create unique single player game AI by making players substitute for monster AI.
Players would get online with a game, say, an FPS.
When your character enters a room that has enemies, the game can check if other players are in that same area online.
If two characters are supposed to be fighting, do it like America's Army and make both sides appear as if they're the "good guy", except limit the health for the enemy character so that both can appear to have won in their own game, since it's a single player game.
However, the enemy you have just fought would have had some sort of unique player-based AI.
By extension, perhaps player behavior can be scraped for other things, such as basing an NPC on the dialog tree choices that a user chose in their game, and have two users "talk to each other" without knowing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28626049</id>
	<title>ST:TNG plot</title>
	<author>Migraineman</author>
	<datestamp>1247081280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds a lot like the plot from the ST:TNG episode <a href="http://sttng.epguides.info/?ID=195" title="epguides.info">"Arsenal of Freedom."</a> [epguides.info]  Just make sure the E-Stop switch on the product demo actually works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds a lot like the plot from the ST : TNG episode " Arsenal of Freedom .
" [ epguides.info ] Just make sure the E-Stop switch on the product demo actually works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds a lot like the plot from the ST:TNG episode "Arsenal of Freedom.
" [epguides.info]  Just make sure the E-Stop switch on the product demo actually works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623011</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too many other players will interfere with things like that.</p><p>What happens with other players start interacting with your two towns?<br>It'll simply boil down to how many people are supporting each town to what degree.</p><p>Taking over cities?  Considering the number of people with the pvp bear mounts for killing the faction leaders, if there was anything useful to gain you'd have even more raids going into cities to take it over for a brief period before another group comes through.<br>Most likely that'll just disrupt game play for a lot of uninvolved people.</p><p>Though some more dynamic content would definitely be appreciated, implementing things as grand as you're talking about would be horrendous on an existing game in both time involved and negative impact on the game for other people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too many other players will interfere with things like that.What happens with other players start interacting with your two towns ? It 'll simply boil down to how many people are supporting each town to what degree.Taking over cities ?
Considering the number of people with the pvp bear mounts for killing the faction leaders , if there was anything useful to gain you 'd have even more raids going into cities to take it over for a brief period before another group comes through.Most likely that 'll just disrupt game play for a lot of uninvolved people.Though some more dynamic content would definitely be appreciated , implementing things as grand as you 're talking about would be horrendous on an existing game in both time involved and negative impact on the game for other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too many other players will interfere with things like that.What happens with other players start interacting with your two towns?It'll simply boil down to how many people are supporting each town to what degree.Taking over cities?
Considering the number of people with the pvp bear mounts for killing the faction leaders, if there was anything useful to gain you'd have even more raids going into cities to take it over for a brief period before another group comes through.Most likely that'll just disrupt game play for a lot of uninvolved people.Though some more dynamic content would definitely be appreciated, implementing things as grand as you're talking about would be horrendous on an existing game in both time involved and negative impact on the game for other people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623237</id>
	<title>Sandbox where you don't expect it.</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1247071440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One way to design a RPG, is using a database, where you manually create the characters. This takes time, but is interesting. Another is a algoritm that randomly create items. It works. I think Diablo used that system.</p><p>Procedurall created stuff may work in more ways than just "enviroment heightfields". Like... how the Director in L4D create a changing enviroment for players.</p><p>Really, is something very interesting to explore, for players and for devs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One way to design a RPG , is using a database , where you manually create the characters .
This takes time , but is interesting .
Another is a algoritm that randomly create items .
It works .
I think Diablo used that system.Procedurall created stuff may work in more ways than just " enviroment heightfields " .
Like... how the Director in L4D create a changing enviroment for players.Really , is something very interesting to explore , for players and for devs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One way to design a RPG, is using a database, where you manually create the characters.
This takes time, but is interesting.
Another is a algoritm that randomly create items.
It works.
I think Diablo used that system.Procedurall created stuff may work in more ways than just "enviroment heightfields".
Like... how the Director in L4D create a changing enviroment for players.Really, is something very interesting to explore, for players and for devs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622825</id>
	<title>Logical conclusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every gun will be a physics bending super shotgun that scatters with super-high density in all directions at once obliterating every enemy within two miles with every piece of shot being a smart projectile that can turn corners and hunt your enemies! BOOM HEADSHOTx1000!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every gun will be a physics bending super shotgun that scatters with super-high density in all directions at once obliterating every enemy within two miles with every piece of shot being a smart projectile that can turn corners and hunt your enemies !
BOOM HEADSHOTx1000 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every gun will be a physics bending super shotgun that scatters with super-high density in all directions at once obliterating every enemy within two miles with every piece of shot being a smart projectile that can turn corners and hunt your enemies!
BOOM HEADSHOTx1000!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624737</id>
	<title>Space Exploration Games</title>
	<author>aGF2c2hleA</author>
	<datestamp>1247076780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought this would kick ass for space exploration games like Star Control 2 aka <a href="http://sc2.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">Ur-Quan Masters (open source)</a> [sourceforge.net].<p>Players could upload screenshots or exportable files of game-generated planets, ruins, structures, races, etc.</p><p>If developed right and with the right pay structure such a game could probably bring in revenue for quite awhile since the content would/could be limitless and always fresh.</p><p>
Very exciting IMHO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought this would kick ass for space exploration games like Star Control 2 aka Ur-Quan Masters ( open source ) [ sourceforge.net ] .Players could upload screenshots or exportable files of game-generated planets , ruins , structures , races , etc.If developed right and with the right pay structure such a game could probably bring in revenue for quite awhile since the content would/could be limitless and always fresh .
Very exciting IMHO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought this would kick ass for space exploration games like Star Control 2 aka Ur-Quan Masters (open source) [sourceforge.net].Players could upload screenshots or exportable files of game-generated planets, ruins, structures, races, etc.If developed right and with the right pay structure such a game could probably bring in revenue for quite awhile since the content would/could be limitless and always fresh.
Very exciting IMHO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623663</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>Reason58</author>
	<datestamp>1247073000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally, a game that literally caters to the lowest common denominator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , a game that literally caters to the lowest common denominator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, a game that literally caters to the lowest common denominator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624485</id>
	<title>How logn have you got?</title>
	<author>jambox</author>
	<datestamp>1247075940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt this will make so much difference. GAs are potentially extremely powerful (obviously - human biology is evidence of that) but they need to be iterated an astronomical number of times to divine anything useful. So the problem with plugging them into human beings is that we would have to provide a huge amount of feedback to make any difference to the outcome of any complex system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt this will make so much difference .
GAs are potentially extremely powerful ( obviously - human biology is evidence of that ) but they need to be iterated an astronomical number of times to divine anything useful .
So the problem with plugging them into human beings is that we would have to provide a huge amount of feedback to make any difference to the outcome of any complex system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt this will make so much difference.
GAs are potentially extremely powerful (obviously - human biology is evidence of that) but they need to be iterated an astronomical number of times to divine anything useful.
So the problem with plugging them into human beings is that we would have to provide a huge amount of feedback to make any difference to the outcome of any complex system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28625503</id>
	<title>Where's the Bandwidth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247079420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As with many researches and professors who are isolated in their perfect utopian world, these people have failed utterly to address the major problem preventing the widespread use of such systems.</p><p>In one word: Bandwidth.</p><p>Take a world like WoW. We don't need years of R&amp;D to make that game contain 100\% dynamic landscapes, for example. They could add full erosion, weather, forest growth/retreat, etc. all in 100\% realtime. That part isn't a big deal... it's processor-intensive but Blizzard has suitable server farms that could run those routines. Putting such a system on a single person game is still prohibitive since it takes a lot of load to process all that data.</p><p>The issue is, let's say someone cuts down a tree in the forest. Now you have to push that update to everybody within range of that object <i>immediatly</i>. Then you have to, at some point, push it out to everybody else. But a lot of people aren't online, so now you have synch issues to deal with. The end result being that any change results in a massive amount of data having to be pushed out to millions of people. In fact, because you don't know if the player IS synched up with the live data, you have a huge increase in overhead due to constant sych checking between the servers and the players.</p><p>So while I'm sure these guys are patting themselves on the back, stirring up hype &amp; hoping for research funds or job opportunities/investors, until they solve the issue of getting the dynamic changes to several million players, it's pretty much a moot project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As with many researches and professors who are isolated in their perfect utopian world , these people have failed utterly to address the major problem preventing the widespread use of such systems.In one word : Bandwidth.Take a world like WoW .
We do n't need years of R&amp;D to make that game contain 100 \ % dynamic landscapes , for example .
They could add full erosion , weather , forest growth/retreat , etc .
all in 100 \ % realtime .
That part is n't a big deal... it 's processor-intensive but Blizzard has suitable server farms that could run those routines .
Putting such a system on a single person game is still prohibitive since it takes a lot of load to process all that data.The issue is , let 's say someone cuts down a tree in the forest .
Now you have to push that update to everybody within range of that object immediatly .
Then you have to , at some point , push it out to everybody else .
But a lot of people are n't online , so now you have synch issues to deal with .
The end result being that any change results in a massive amount of data having to be pushed out to millions of people .
In fact , because you do n't know if the player IS synched up with the live data , you have a huge increase in overhead due to constant sych checking between the servers and the players.So while I 'm sure these guys are patting themselves on the back , stirring up hype &amp; hoping for research funds or job opportunities/investors , until they solve the issue of getting the dynamic changes to several million players , it 's pretty much a moot project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As with many researches and professors who are isolated in their perfect utopian world, these people have failed utterly to address the major problem preventing the widespread use of such systems.In one word: Bandwidth.Take a world like WoW.
We don't need years of R&amp;D to make that game contain 100\% dynamic landscapes, for example.
They could add full erosion, weather, forest growth/retreat, etc.
all in 100\% realtime.
That part isn't a big deal... it's processor-intensive but Blizzard has suitable server farms that could run those routines.
Putting such a system on a single person game is still prohibitive since it takes a lot of load to process all that data.The issue is, let's say someone cuts down a tree in the forest.
Now you have to push that update to everybody within range of that object immediatly.
Then you have to, at some point, push it out to everybody else.
But a lot of people aren't online, so now you have synch issues to deal with.
The end result being that any change results in a massive amount of data having to be pushed out to millions of people.
In fact, because you don't know if the player IS synched up with the live data, you have a huge increase in overhead due to constant sych checking between the servers and the players.So while I'm sure these guys are patting themselves on the back, stirring up hype &amp; hoping for research funds or job opportunities/investors, until they solve the issue of getting the dynamic changes to several million players, it's pretty much a moot project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28626153</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>fiddler.wo.a.roof</author>
	<datestamp>1247081640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this has already been invented.... It's called the Real World (tm)</p><p>---</p><p>To lazy to think of a sig</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this has already been invented.... It 's called the Real World ( tm ) ---To lazy to think of a sig</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this has already been invented.... It's called the Real World (tm)---To lazy to think of a sig</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624049</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1247074500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all sounds good but in practice will never work because too many people are idiots or dickheads.</p><p>If you implement an ecosystem someone will kill every last rabbit and break the food chain so that everything dies.</p><p>The dragon in your example would be led to the newbie spawn area about 41 seconds after it appeared.</p><p>Every town in the game would be razed.</p><p>And so on.</p><p>If you stop them from doing so then you haven't really got a world in which the players can affect things so much after all.</p><p>EVE online is the closest I've seen but it's essentially pure player based. There's no NPC empire trying to expand in 0.0 space.</p><p>Of course I haven't met an MMO I didn't get bored with before the free trial ran out. OK EVE went a little over and I actually paid for a month.</p><p>I keep looking because I'm a sucker, and hope someone will pull it off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all sounds good but in practice will never work because too many people are idiots or dickheads.If you implement an ecosystem someone will kill every last rabbit and break the food chain so that everything dies.The dragon in your example would be led to the newbie spawn area about 41 seconds after it appeared.Every town in the game would be razed.And so on.If you stop them from doing so then you have n't really got a world in which the players can affect things so much after all.EVE online is the closest I 've seen but it 's essentially pure player based .
There 's no NPC empire trying to expand in 0.0 space.Of course I have n't met an MMO I did n't get bored with before the free trial ran out .
OK EVE went a little over and I actually paid for a month.I keep looking because I 'm a sucker , and hope someone will pull it off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all sounds good but in practice will never work because too many people are idiots or dickheads.If you implement an ecosystem someone will kill every last rabbit and break the food chain so that everything dies.The dragon in your example would be led to the newbie spawn area about 41 seconds after it appeared.Every town in the game would be razed.And so on.If you stop them from doing so then you haven't really got a world in which the players can affect things so much after all.EVE online is the closest I've seen but it's essentially pure player based.
There's no NPC empire trying to expand in 0.0 space.Of course I haven't met an MMO I didn't get bored with before the free trial ran out.
OK EVE went a little over and I actually paid for a month.I keep looking because I'm a sucker, and hope someone will pull it off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623033</id>
	<title>Oh my...</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1247070660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After a dozen or so generations in the wild trying to please teenage boys, the game will either evolve into:</p><p>-Shutting itself up in its room, burning incense, and listening to further down the spiral over and over again</p><p>-lolcats</p><p>-This: <a href="http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e291/bubbatwo420/1203\_joust\_charge\_1280.jpg" title="photobucket.com">http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e291/bubbatwo420/1203\_joust\_charge\_1280.jpg</a> [photobucket.com]</p><p>But, you know, best of luck to the developers. Quick question: If the game evolves disruptive or offensive content, are the developers liable for it?</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After a dozen or so generations in the wild trying to please teenage boys , the game will either evolve into : -Shutting itself up in its room , burning incense , and listening to further down the spiral over and over again-lolcats-This : http : //i41.photobucket.com/albums/e291/bubbatwo420/1203 \ _joust \ _charge \ _1280.jpg [ photobucket.com ] But , you know , best of luck to the developers .
Quick question : If the game evolves disruptive or offensive content , are the developers liable for it ? -b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After a dozen or so generations in the wild trying to please teenage boys, the game will either evolve into:-Shutting itself up in its room, burning incense, and listening to further down the spiral over and over again-lolcats-This: http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e291/bubbatwo420/1203\_joust\_charge\_1280.jpg [photobucket.com]But, you know, best of luck to the developers.
Quick question: If the game evolves disruptive or offensive content, are the developers liable for it?-b</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624751</id>
	<title>I always wanted to do...</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1247076840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always wanted to do an MMO based on a similar concept where you'd have some basic content for a fun game.. i.e. a single ship type flying through an infinitely large universe, then have users generate the rest of the content for you. It would be a very kewl concept, but its exceptionally hard to keep balanced. the kind of ideas i had though were along the lines of:</p><p>1) users generate content<br>2) users deploy content to test system<br>3) users vote on content (in or out)<br>4) content goes in, but sucks<br>5) modified content generated by users and deployed to test system<br>6) users vote on modified content<br>7) modified content goes into the game<br>8) code devlopers get some in-game reward for their efforts (i.e. 6 month patent on their design allowing only them to sell it in-game)</p><p>Now, it'd work best as FOSS because users could run their own servers and develop code onto it (plus, the community could be involved in the game right to the core - i.e. linux ports and so forth that companies seem to be really bad at), but i personally think that you'd need some kind of "we own the game" company to run it, partly to ensure continuous development, but also to avoid a constant battle of sharding servers (i.e. have a license that allows people to run servers, but not allow them to make money off them). I know that sounds very anti-gpl, but when it comes to things like that it would be hard to make it work in a way that doesnt end up with a tonne of small semi-thriving community serves (i.e. they voted my idea down, so im running my own server).</p><p>Then again, maybe it could become like irc networks (multiple servers run by multiple people connected together), and have say "Efnet" where some group of users has a set of functionality they like and "freenode" where they like different types of functionality.</p><p>I'd always wished EVE had adopted some strategy along the user generated content lines, i thought that was a perfect game for that type of thing (hell, the game is already based on python, developers would have no trouble picking it up and running with it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always wanted to do an MMO based on a similar concept where you 'd have some basic content for a fun game.. i.e. a single ship type flying through an infinitely large universe , then have users generate the rest of the content for you .
It would be a very kewl concept , but its exceptionally hard to keep balanced .
the kind of ideas i had though were along the lines of : 1 ) users generate content2 ) users deploy content to test system3 ) users vote on content ( in or out ) 4 ) content goes in , but sucks5 ) modified content generated by users and deployed to test system6 ) users vote on modified content7 ) modified content goes into the game8 ) code devlopers get some in-game reward for their efforts ( i.e .
6 month patent on their design allowing only them to sell it in-game ) Now , it 'd work best as FOSS because users could run their own servers and develop code onto it ( plus , the community could be involved in the game right to the core - i.e .
linux ports and so forth that companies seem to be really bad at ) , but i personally think that you 'd need some kind of " we own the game " company to run it , partly to ensure continuous development , but also to avoid a constant battle of sharding servers ( i.e .
have a license that allows people to run servers , but not allow them to make money off them ) .
I know that sounds very anti-gpl , but when it comes to things like that it would be hard to make it work in a way that doesnt end up with a tonne of small semi-thriving community serves ( i.e .
they voted my idea down , so im running my own server ) .Then again , maybe it could become like irc networks ( multiple servers run by multiple people connected together ) , and have say " Efnet " where some group of users has a set of functionality they like and " freenode " where they like different types of functionality.I 'd always wished EVE had adopted some strategy along the user generated content lines , i thought that was a perfect game for that type of thing ( hell , the game is already based on python , developers would have no trouble picking it up and running with it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always wanted to do an MMO based on a similar concept where you'd have some basic content for a fun game.. i.e. a single ship type flying through an infinitely large universe, then have users generate the rest of the content for you.
It would be a very kewl concept, but its exceptionally hard to keep balanced.
the kind of ideas i had though were along the lines of:1) users generate content2) users deploy content to test system3) users vote on content (in or out)4) content goes in, but sucks5) modified content generated by users and deployed to test system6) users vote on modified content7) modified content goes into the game8) code devlopers get some in-game reward for their efforts (i.e.
6 month patent on their design allowing only them to sell it in-game)Now, it'd work best as FOSS because users could run their own servers and develop code onto it (plus, the community could be involved in the game right to the core - i.e.
linux ports and so forth that companies seem to be really bad at), but i personally think that you'd need some kind of "we own the game" company to run it, partly to ensure continuous development, but also to avoid a constant battle of sharding servers (i.e.
have a license that allows people to run servers, but not allow them to make money off them).
I know that sounds very anti-gpl, but when it comes to things like that it would be hard to make it work in a way that doesnt end up with a tonne of small semi-thriving community serves (i.e.
they voted my idea down, so im running my own server).Then again, maybe it could become like irc networks (multiple servers run by multiple people connected together), and have say "Efnet" where some group of users has a set of functionality they like and "freenode" where they like different types of functionality.I'd always wished EVE had adopted some strategy along the user generated content lines, i thought that was a perfect game for that type of thing (hell, the game is already based on python, developers would have no trouble picking it up and running with it)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28629211</id>
	<title>Getting closer</title>
	<author>HW\_Hack</author>
	<datestamp>1247051760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I no longer play games - all too predictable - levels - bosses to defeat - rigid story lines. What I would pay a fee for is a game where the the objects and characters evolve - live or die based on not one but a myriad of my actions. They are replaced by new objects or characters -- these are of course low level adaptive programming. The next level up controls the story line and environment -- always fresh - surprising - never the same. I would even settle for an area of the game to be unreachable for a while if my choices or actions required a complete rebuild of that section and resulting story line. The never ending story<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I no longer play games - all too predictable - levels - bosses to defeat - rigid story lines .
What I would pay a fee for is a game where the the objects and characters evolve - live or die based on not one but a myriad of my actions .
They are replaced by new objects or characters -- these are of course low level adaptive programming .
The next level up controls the story line and environment -- always fresh - surprising - never the same .
I would even settle for an area of the game to be unreachable for a while if my choices or actions required a complete rebuild of that section and resulting story line .
The never ending story .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I no longer play games - all too predictable - levels - bosses to defeat - rigid story lines.
What I would pay a fee for is a game where the the objects and characters evolve - live or die based on not one but a myriad of my actions.
They are replaced by new objects or characters -- these are of course low level adaptive programming.
The next level up controls the story line and environment -- always fresh - surprising - never the same.
I would even settle for an area of the game to be unreachable for a while if my choices or actions required a complete rebuild of that section and resulting story line.
The never ending story ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28627309</id>
	<title>And Sinestro wasn't any bettah.</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1247085780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm.  No jackhammers or giant hands.  I guess Green Lantern is a pretty stupid dude after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
No jackhammers or giant hands .
I guess Green Lantern is a pretty stupid dude after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
No jackhammers or giant hands.
I guess Green Lantern is a pretty stupid dude after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624493</id>
	<title>Re:NEAT</title>
	<author>castorvx</author>
	<datestamp>1247076000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has also been used for various other things.  My girlfriend is actually a part of that research group (EPLEX - <a href="http://eplex.cs.ucf.edu/" title="ucf.edu" rel="nofollow">http://eplex.cs.ucf.edu/</a> [ucf.edu])<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  It has been used for all kinds of things.  Everywhere from <a href="http://picbreeder.org/" title="picbreeder.org" rel="nofollow">evolving complex pictures</a> [picbreeder.org] to music generation to our future overlords: <a href="http://eplex.cs.ucf.edu/dance\_evolution/" title="ucf.edu" rel="nofollow">hyper evolved zombie dancers</a> [ucf.edu].</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has also been used for various other things .
My girlfriend is actually a part of that research group ( EPLEX - http : //eplex.cs.ucf.edu/ [ ucf.edu ] ) ... It has been used for all kinds of things .
Everywhere from evolving complex pictures [ picbreeder.org ] to music generation to our future overlords : hyper evolved zombie dancers [ ucf.edu ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has also been used for various other things.
My girlfriend is actually a part of that research group (EPLEX - http://eplex.cs.ucf.edu/ [ucf.edu]) ...  It has been used for all kinds of things.
Everywhere from evolving complex pictures [picbreeder.org] to music generation to our future overlords: hyper evolved zombie dancers [ucf.edu].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28625739</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1247080200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should try playing Eve online.  Join one of the big corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should try playing Eve online .
Join one of the big corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should try playing Eve online.
Join one of the big corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624539</id>
	<title>In a word:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247076120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Does the resulting experience in this game, called Galactic Arms Race, suggest that evolutionary algorithms may be the key to automated content generation in future multiplayer gaming and MMOs?"</p></div><p>Answer: No.</p><p>Reasoning: Simple. Without some type of controlling force or entity, the general population will simply create random and chaotic environments. This is true in the real world and in video games.</p><p>To expound a bit- Dynamic worlds and competing, "evolving" AI systems are not new, even in the video game context. This is not news.<br>The critical issue is not figuring out how to make such a world. The critical issue is that anytime the content evolves or changes, you now have to push that information to everyone playing the game. This isn't such a big deal if you have small changes and only a couple users, but say, for example, that WoW implements a system where the terrain changes dynamically, you have to push all that data out to millions of users, in real time. THAT is a very big problem due to the sheer amount of information &amp; limited bandwidth issues. If everybody was riding a 20meg connection it would be more feasible, but when your average person is lucky to max out at 8megs it gets really tricy. And that doesn't even consider the additional upload capacity the game servers would have to pay for on top of things.</p><p>So to sum it up, we will see this type of thing become more common as bandwidth increases over time. Just don't expect anything "revolutionary" in the near future.</p><p>The other issues, that others have pointed out, is that when you either crowdsource a project (let the community help develop) or use an AI routine to do the same, you begin to lose cohesiveness and a solid theme. Often in MMO's, a big part of the game is the story &amp; themes that run through them, and you really need a human to at least coordinate, if not manage completely, game-world changes to keep things focused and on track.</p><p>Here's an example- let's say you start a new MMO with a nice, beautiful world, but no cities at all. And then give the players completely free reign to build structures. What you end up with is a random hodge-podge of buildings that don't really resemble cities at all, all over the place. This also happens in the real world when you have no communication or city planning, just look at some 3rd world slums that have no oversight. Roads and services are non-existant, etc.<br>The solution is to pursue a combination of both- you create some areas in the game that are modifiable by the players in a somewhat limited fashion, and give the AI routines a limited scope of control that they can operate within. Then the human game content devs can control and keep things moving in a good manner.</p><p>But all this speak of OMFG it's Ender's Game in RL is just silly. Remember, even in that book, the AI that ran the game was actually a sentient entity in of itself. So unless these guys can claim they have achieved TRUE sentient AI, this is just a bunch of hype.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the resulting experience in this game , called Galactic Arms Race , suggest that evolutionary algorithms may be the key to automated content generation in future multiplayer gaming and MMOs ?
" Answer : No.Reasoning : Simple .
Without some type of controlling force or entity , the general population will simply create random and chaotic environments .
This is true in the real world and in video games.To expound a bit- Dynamic worlds and competing , " evolving " AI systems are not new , even in the video game context .
This is not news.The critical issue is not figuring out how to make such a world .
The critical issue is that anytime the content evolves or changes , you now have to push that information to everyone playing the game .
This is n't such a big deal if you have small changes and only a couple users , but say , for example , that WoW implements a system where the terrain changes dynamically , you have to push all that data out to millions of users , in real time .
THAT is a very big problem due to the sheer amount of information &amp; limited bandwidth issues .
If everybody was riding a 20meg connection it would be more feasible , but when your average person is lucky to max out at 8megs it gets really tricy .
And that does n't even consider the additional upload capacity the game servers would have to pay for on top of things.So to sum it up , we will see this type of thing become more common as bandwidth increases over time .
Just do n't expect anything " revolutionary " in the near future.The other issues , that others have pointed out , is that when you either crowdsource a project ( let the community help develop ) or use an AI routine to do the same , you begin to lose cohesiveness and a solid theme .
Often in MMO 's , a big part of the game is the story &amp; themes that run through them , and you really need a human to at least coordinate , if not manage completely , game-world changes to keep things focused and on track.Here 's an example- let 's say you start a new MMO with a nice , beautiful world , but no cities at all .
And then give the players completely free reign to build structures .
What you end up with is a random hodge-podge of buildings that do n't really resemble cities at all , all over the place .
This also happens in the real world when you have no communication or city planning , just look at some 3rd world slums that have no oversight .
Roads and services are non-existant , etc.The solution is to pursue a combination of both- you create some areas in the game that are modifiable by the players in a somewhat limited fashion , and give the AI routines a limited scope of control that they can operate within .
Then the human game content devs can control and keep things moving in a good manner.But all this speak of OMFG it 's Ender 's Game in RL is just silly .
Remember , even in that book , the AI that ran the game was actually a sentient entity in of itself .
So unless these guys can claim they have achieved TRUE sentient AI , this is just a bunch of hype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Does the resulting experience in this game, called Galactic Arms Race, suggest that evolutionary algorithms may be the key to automated content generation in future multiplayer gaming and MMOs?
"Answer: No.Reasoning: Simple.
Without some type of controlling force or entity, the general population will simply create random and chaotic environments.
This is true in the real world and in video games.To expound a bit- Dynamic worlds and competing, "evolving" AI systems are not new, even in the video game context.
This is not news.The critical issue is not figuring out how to make such a world.
The critical issue is that anytime the content evolves or changes, you now have to push that information to everyone playing the game.
This isn't such a big deal if you have small changes and only a couple users, but say, for example, that WoW implements a system where the terrain changes dynamically, you have to push all that data out to millions of users, in real time.
THAT is a very big problem due to the sheer amount of information &amp; limited bandwidth issues.
If everybody was riding a 20meg connection it would be more feasible, but when your average person is lucky to max out at 8megs it gets really tricy.
And that doesn't even consider the additional upload capacity the game servers would have to pay for on top of things.So to sum it up, we will see this type of thing become more common as bandwidth increases over time.
Just don't expect anything "revolutionary" in the near future.The other issues, that others have pointed out, is that when you either crowdsource a project (let the community help develop) or use an AI routine to do the same, you begin to lose cohesiveness and a solid theme.
Often in MMO's, a big part of the game is the story &amp; themes that run through them, and you really need a human to at least coordinate, if not manage completely, game-world changes to keep things focused and on track.Here's an example- let's say you start a new MMO with a nice, beautiful world, but no cities at all.
And then give the players completely free reign to build structures.
What you end up with is a random hodge-podge of buildings that don't really resemble cities at all, all over the place.
This also happens in the real world when you have no communication or city planning, just look at some 3rd world slums that have no oversight.
Roads and services are non-existant, etc.The solution is to pursue a combination of both- you create some areas in the game that are modifiable by the players in a somewhat limited fashion, and give the AI routines a limited scope of control that they can operate within.
Then the human game content devs can control and keep things moving in a good manner.But all this speak of OMFG it's Ender's Game in RL is just silly.
Remember, even in that book, the AI that ran the game was actually a sentient entity in of itself.
So unless these guys can claim they have achieved TRUE sentient AI, this is just a bunch of hype.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623317</id>
	<title>Cool but does anyone remember...</title>
	<author>DnemoniX</author>
	<datestamp>1247071740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I took a look at this game, and well it looks kind of fun. Sometimes you just want to fly around and shoot stuff. It brought back memories of the late 90's. I worked for as a contractor at a large hospital. In our downtime a few of us would gather and play a space based lan game. It reminded me quite a lot of this game, a top down space shooter. For the life of me I cannot think of the title. Does anyone remember the name of that game?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I took a look at this game , and well it looks kind of fun .
Sometimes you just want to fly around and shoot stuff .
It brought back memories of the late 90 's .
I worked for as a contractor at a large hospital .
In our downtime a few of us would gather and play a space based lan game .
It reminded me quite a lot of this game , a top down space shooter .
For the life of me I can not think of the title .
Does anyone remember the name of that game ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took a look at this game, and well it looks kind of fun.
Sometimes you just want to fly around and shoot stuff.
It brought back memories of the late 90's.
I worked for as a contractor at a large hospital.
In our downtime a few of us would gather and play a space based lan game.
It reminded me quite a lot of this game, a top down space shooter.
For the life of me I cannot think of the title.
Does anyone remember the name of that game?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622767</id>
	<title>Great idea for a business</title>
	<author>dan\_sdot</author>
	<datestamp>1247069760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now you just need to create a video game that purchases and plays its own content and it seems like you might have quite a booming business on your hands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you just need to create a video game that purchases and plays its own content and it seems like you might have quite a booming business on your hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you just need to create a video game that purchases and plays its own content and it seems like you might have quite a booming business on your hands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623275</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1247071560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually you'd end up with everyone starting as a scantily clad max level female nelf/belf hunter. All the major towns would be burnt to the ground, there would be a huge rainstorm, and all gameplay would afterward revolve around PvP mud wrestling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually you 'd end up with everyone starting as a scantily clad max level female nelf/belf hunter .
All the major towns would be burnt to the ground , there would be a huge rainstorm , and all gameplay would afterward revolve around PvP mud wrestling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually you'd end up with everyone starting as a scantily clad max level female nelf/belf hunter.
All the major towns would be burnt to the ground, there would be a huge rainstorm, and all gameplay would afterward revolve around PvP mud wrestling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28627287</id>
	<title>Content isn't hard, tuning is</title>
	<author>davevr</author>
	<datestamp>1247085720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who has actually designed a game - whether it is was Pac-Man or WoW - will tell you that the hard part is not the content - it is in tuning the game to be that ideal mix of challenging, fun, and rewarding without being too hard or discouraging.  Say what you want about WoW's limitations but I think any game designer can appreciate the fantastic job they have done with making a game appealing to an extremely wide range of players.</p><p>Making content by hand is extremely expensive in terms of both time and money, but so far any non-trivial attempt to do this automatically has failed because of the tuning issue, even for "simple" games like Pac-Man.  Hand-made maps in RTS or Counter-Strike or even Load Runner are just more fun than generated ones.  Random behavior in a top-selling game is mostly limited to what is inside a locked chest or other things like that.</p><p>If you think about it, creating a fun game is no different than creating an interesting film or book.  You will probably see fully computer-generated games that are fun to play about the same time you see a computer writing a best-seller.</p><p>I am also skeptical of user generated content/crowd-sourcing.  Most people just make crap, so you need to have some human process in there acting as the editor.  Most of the games that have any success at user content at all rely on professional content builders who are not themselves players.  I don't even consider that user-generated content.  Those authors are basically members of the development team who are not being paid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has actually designed a game - whether it is was Pac-Man or WoW - will tell you that the hard part is not the content - it is in tuning the game to be that ideal mix of challenging , fun , and rewarding without being too hard or discouraging .
Say what you want about WoW 's limitations but I think any game designer can appreciate the fantastic job they have done with making a game appealing to an extremely wide range of players.Making content by hand is extremely expensive in terms of both time and money , but so far any non-trivial attempt to do this automatically has failed because of the tuning issue , even for " simple " games like Pac-Man .
Hand-made maps in RTS or Counter-Strike or even Load Runner are just more fun than generated ones .
Random behavior in a top-selling game is mostly limited to what is inside a locked chest or other things like that.If you think about it , creating a fun game is no different than creating an interesting film or book .
You will probably see fully computer-generated games that are fun to play about the same time you see a computer writing a best-seller.I am also skeptical of user generated content/crowd-sourcing .
Most people just make crap , so you need to have some human process in there acting as the editor .
Most of the games that have any success at user content at all rely on professional content builders who are not themselves players .
I do n't even consider that user-generated content .
Those authors are basically members of the development team who are not being paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has actually designed a game - whether it is was Pac-Man or WoW - will tell you that the hard part is not the content - it is in tuning the game to be that ideal mix of challenging, fun, and rewarding without being too hard or discouraging.
Say what you want about WoW's limitations but I think any game designer can appreciate the fantastic job they have done with making a game appealing to an extremely wide range of players.Making content by hand is extremely expensive in terms of both time and money, but so far any non-trivial attempt to do this automatically has failed because of the tuning issue, even for "simple" games like Pac-Man.
Hand-made maps in RTS or Counter-Strike or even Load Runner are just more fun than generated ones.
Random behavior in a top-selling game is mostly limited to what is inside a locked chest or other things like that.If you think about it, creating a fun game is no different than creating an interesting film or book.
You will probably see fully computer-generated games that are fun to play about the same time you see a computer writing a best-seller.I am also skeptical of user generated content/crowd-sourcing.
Most people just make crap, so you need to have some human process in there acting as the editor.
Most of the games that have any success at user content at all rely on professional content builders who are not themselves players.
I don't even consider that user-generated content.
Those authors are basically members of the development team who are not being paid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623119</id>
	<title>Kinda like the fantasy game</title>
	<author>ImprovOmega</author>
	<datestamp>1247071020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Ender's Game, that Ender keeps going back to over and over.</p><p>The moment some kid gets past the giant's drink into the end of the world - well, we really need to shut it down before it becomes a world spanning AI is all I'm saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Ender 's Game , that Ender keeps going back to over and over.The moment some kid gets past the giant 's drink into the end of the world - well , we really need to shut it down before it becomes a world spanning AI is all I 'm saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Ender's Game, that Ender keeps going back to over and over.The moment some kid gets past the giant's drink into the end of the world - well, we really need to shut it down before it becomes a world spanning AI is all I'm saying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622953</id>
	<title>How to achieve this: Dynamic world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been thinking along these lines quite a bit.  Here's what I've come up with:</p><p>Let your players design their own ships.  (For the Space games.  Armor/Mounts/Minions for the others.)  The appearance of the items will determine the stats according to some simple geometric rules.  (Examples: A part of the hull which is angled back will have more armor resistance from certain directions.  The larger your ship is in any direction, the slower it can turn, etc.)  There will also be "design points" players can spend.  The player will then submit the design by spending the in-game money for a "research project."  During this time, the item will be submitted to a user-driven forum much like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. or reddit, and the top vote-getters during their "research period" will succeed in their research projects and actually get prototyped.  Players are rewarded for designing cool ships by being given the opportunity to <b>license</b> their designs for a royalty.</p><p>Now here's the kicker -- the stats of ships of a certain design will shrink over time.  So players who want the best ships will constantly have to seek out new designs.  (All items would be temporary in this scheme.  Nothing would ever be permanently bound to any player.)</p><p>I'd also like to see opportunities for players to legitimately program their own bots/minions.  The code could run on a specialized VM only on the servers, so you could sandbox them and enforce DRM.  Then the scripts could again be <b>licensed</b>.  Balance this out by having genetic algorithms constantly evolving the monsters.  Also, this would co-opt farming and macros, and make them a part of the game.  (And subject to game balance by he devs.)</p><p>Don't try to fight the forces of evolution and economics and the scheming of crowds.  CO-OPT them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been thinking along these lines quite a bit .
Here 's what I 've come up with : Let your players design their own ships .
( For the Space games .
Armor/Mounts/Minions for the others .
) The appearance of the items will determine the stats according to some simple geometric rules .
( Examples : A part of the hull which is angled back will have more armor resistance from certain directions .
The larger your ship is in any direction , the slower it can turn , etc .
) There will also be " design points " players can spend .
The player will then submit the design by spending the in-game money for a " research project .
" During this time , the item will be submitted to a user-driven forum much like / .
or reddit , and the top vote-getters during their " research period " will succeed in their research projects and actually get prototyped .
Players are rewarded for designing cool ships by being given the opportunity to license their designs for a royalty.Now here 's the kicker -- the stats of ships of a certain design will shrink over time .
So players who want the best ships will constantly have to seek out new designs .
( All items would be temporary in this scheme .
Nothing would ever be permanently bound to any player .
) I 'd also like to see opportunities for players to legitimately program their own bots/minions .
The code could run on a specialized VM only on the servers , so you could sandbox them and enforce DRM .
Then the scripts could again be licensed .
Balance this out by having genetic algorithms constantly evolving the monsters .
Also , this would co-opt farming and macros , and make them a part of the game .
( And subject to game balance by he devs .
) Do n't try to fight the forces of evolution and economics and the scheming of crowds .
CO-OPT them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been thinking along these lines quite a bit.
Here's what I've come up with:Let your players design their own ships.
(For the Space games.
Armor/Mounts/Minions for the others.
)  The appearance of the items will determine the stats according to some simple geometric rules.
(Examples: A part of the hull which is angled back will have more armor resistance from certain directions.
The larger your ship is in any direction, the slower it can turn, etc.
)  There will also be "design points" players can spend.
The player will then submit the design by spending the in-game money for a "research project.
"  During this time, the item will be submitted to a user-driven forum much like /.
or reddit, and the top vote-getters during their "research period" will succeed in their research projects and actually get prototyped.
Players are rewarded for designing cool ships by being given the opportunity to license their designs for a royalty.Now here's the kicker -- the stats of ships of a certain design will shrink over time.
So players who want the best ships will constantly have to seek out new designs.
(All items would be temporary in this scheme.
Nothing would ever be permanently bound to any player.
)I'd also like to see opportunities for players to legitimately program their own bots/minions.
The code could run on a specialized VM only on the servers, so you could sandbox them and enforce DRM.
Then the scripts could again be licensed.
Balance this out by having genetic algorithms constantly evolving the monsters.
Also, this would co-opt farming and macros, and make them a part of the game.
(And subject to game balance by he devs.
)Don't try to fight the forces of evolution and economics and the scheming of crowds.
CO-OPT them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28627061</id>
	<title>Re:How logn have you got?</title>
	<author>AlXtreme</author>
	<datestamp>1247084820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>GAs are potentially extremely powerful (obviously - human biology is evidence of that) but they need to be iterated an astronomical number of times to divine anything useful</p></div></blockquote><p>Not really, as it mostly depends on what kind of fitness landscape you're evolving your GA on together with the complexity of each entity in your GA.</p><p>On fairly complicated fitness landscapes, near-optimal solutions can be found in 50-100 generations. If however you are evolving monkeys into humans, you might need a few thousand generations more.</p><p>Large? Yes. Astronomical? Not even close.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GAs are potentially extremely powerful ( obviously - human biology is evidence of that ) but they need to be iterated an astronomical number of times to divine anything usefulNot really , as it mostly depends on what kind of fitness landscape you 're evolving your GA on together with the complexity of each entity in your GA.On fairly complicated fitness landscapes , near-optimal solutions can be found in 50-100 generations .
If however you are evolving monkeys into humans , you might need a few thousand generations more.Large ?
Yes. Astronomical ?
Not even close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GAs are potentially extremely powerful (obviously - human biology is evidence of that) but they need to be iterated an astronomical number of times to divine anything usefulNot really, as it mostly depends on what kind of fitness landscape you're evolving your GA on together with the complexity of each entity in your GA.On fairly complicated fitness landscapes, near-optimal solutions can be found in 50-100 generations.
If however you are evolving monkeys into humans, you might need a few thousand generations more.Large?
Yes. Astronomical?
Not even close.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622733</id>
	<title>Chaching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a brilliant way to make money, at least. Horray for microtransactions! <br>What are the implications of buying virtual items with credit, anyway? Buying nothing with nothing. It boggles the mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a brilliant way to make money , at least .
Horray for microtransactions !
What are the implications of buying virtual items with credit , anyway ?
Buying nothing with nothing .
It boggles the mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a brilliant way to make money, at least.
Horray for microtransactions!
What are the implications of buying virtual items with credit, anyway?
Buying nothing with nothing.
It boggles the mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623167</id>
	<title>Re:Logical conclusion</title>
	<author>iCodemonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247071140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so where does this leave spawn campers? please say "as steaming piles of flesh"</htmltext>
<tokenext>so where does this leave spawn campers ?
please say " as steaming piles of flesh "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so where does this leave spawn campers?
please say "as steaming piles of flesh"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28628223</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>Sparton</author>
	<datestamp>1247046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately, game studios still  seem to shy away from dynamic content because the behavior of dynamic systems is generally hard to predict. Some might fear that the game world suddenly becomes unstable and drops into chaos. But the game studios could hire more people with a strong physics/dynamic systems modeling background to deal with these problems.</p></div><p>Actually, the main reason is probably that it would be a bitch to test. If you have 1000 possible ways of something happening, how can you be sure that all 1000 ways are possible, and each possibility won't break the game? Getting enough testers to make sure they can happen naturally without breaking would take a ridiculous amount of time. If you have so much as 1 texture missing, you'd have a bug that could be as innocuous as that emitter not appearing, or as bad as having the whole application crash (depending on how generous your programmers are in implementing failsafes).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , game studios still seem to shy away from dynamic content because the behavior of dynamic systems is generally hard to predict .
Some might fear that the game world suddenly becomes unstable and drops into chaos .
But the game studios could hire more people with a strong physics/dynamic systems modeling background to deal with these problems.Actually , the main reason is probably that it would be a bitch to test .
If you have 1000 possible ways of something happening , how can you be sure that all 1000 ways are possible , and each possibility wo n't break the game ?
Getting enough testers to make sure they can happen naturally without breaking would take a ridiculous amount of time .
If you have so much as 1 texture missing , you 'd have a bug that could be as innocuous as that emitter not appearing , or as bad as having the whole application crash ( depending on how generous your programmers are in implementing failsafes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, game studios still  seem to shy away from dynamic content because the behavior of dynamic systems is generally hard to predict.
Some might fear that the game world suddenly becomes unstable and drops into chaos.
But the game studios could hire more people with a strong physics/dynamic systems modeling background to deal with these problems.Actually, the main reason is probably that it would be a bitch to test.
If you have 1000 possible ways of something happening, how can you be sure that all 1000 ways are possible, and each possibility won't break the game?
Getting enough testers to make sure they can happen naturally without breaking would take a ridiculous amount of time.
If you have so much as 1 texture missing, you'd have a bug that could be as innocuous as that emitter not appearing, or as bad as having the whole application crash (depending on how generous your programmers are in implementing failsafes).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623471</id>
	<title>Re:Logical conclusion</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247072340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot that it is a fight for limited resources (and tools?). Which makes it impossible to create something like this, and is the <em>point</em> of the game.<br>You have to be the most efficient, get the resources faster than anyone else, and then use the results in the best possible way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot that it is a fight for limited resources ( and tools ? ) .
Which makes it impossible to create something like this , and is the point of the game.You have to be the most efficient , get the resources faster than anyone else , and then use the results in the best possible way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot that it is a fight for limited resources (and tools?).
Which makes it impossible to create something like this, and is the point of the game.You have to be the most efficient, get the resources faster than anyone else, and then use the results in the best possible way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28629125</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>Lotana</author>
	<datestamp>1247051340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where is the downside?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is the downside ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is the downside?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624043</id>
	<title>Magic the Gathering</title>
	<author>Luyseyal</author>
	<datestamp>1247074500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of Magic the Gathering where they issue new cards every year that are better and if your deck doesn't have them (i.e., you don't keep buying more cards) then you lose the arms race.</p><p>$0.02USD,<br>-l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of Magic the Gathering where they issue new cards every year that are better and if your deck does n't have them ( i.e. , you do n't keep buying more cards ) then you lose the arms race. $ 0.02USD,-l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of Magic the Gathering where they issue new cards every year that are better and if your deck doesn't have them (i.e., you don't keep buying more cards) then you lose the arms race.$0.02USD,-l</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28626417</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>zz\_fish</author>
	<datestamp>1247082480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shadowbane allowed players to create their own city, build shops, hire guards and etc. <br>
It never really became a big hit, and slowly died out. <br>
<br>
The reason I see behind that is in such games there is no place for casual players who make up majority of the population. In a competing game world, if you slack, you will be ruled out. Many times I log back in the game after a break and got completely lost - the guild I belonged to disbanded, city I bound to got destroyed etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shadowbane allowed players to create their own city , build shops , hire guards and etc .
It never really became a big hit , and slowly died out .
The reason I see behind that is in such games there is no place for casual players who make up majority of the population .
In a competing game world , if you slack , you will be ruled out .
Many times I log back in the game after a break and got completely lost - the guild I belonged to disbanded , city I bound to got destroyed etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shadowbane allowed players to create their own city, build shops, hire guards and etc.
It never really became a big hit, and slowly died out.
The reason I see behind that is in such games there is no place for casual players who make up majority of the population.
In a competing game world, if you slack, you will be ruled out.
Many times I log back in the game after a break and got completely lost - the guild I belonged to disbanded, city I bound to got destroyed etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622985</id>
	<title>NEAT</title>
	<author>theinvisibleguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247070480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This game has come a long way since I saw a demo version in my AI class at UCF, the techniques have a lot of potential to be utilized in other video games as well for dynamic content creation.  The NEAT algorithm (NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies is really cool too, in fact I believe it's open source and can be found at Professor Ken Stanley's UCF website.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This game has come a long way since I saw a demo version in my AI class at UCF , the techniques have a lot of potential to be utilized in other video games as well for dynamic content creation .
The NEAT algorithm ( NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies is really cool too , in fact I believe it 's open source and can be found at Professor Ken Stanley 's UCF website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This game has come a long way since I saw a demo version in my AI class at UCF, the techniques have a lot of potential to be utilized in other video games as well for dynamic content creation.
The NEAT algorithm (NeuroEvolution of Augmenting Topologies is really cool too, in fact I believe it's open source and can be found at Professor Ken Stanley's UCF website.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623493</id>
	<title>DOD is crowd sourcing weapon development</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The obvious thing here is that this is a military sponsored research program which is crowd sourcing weapon development. The DOD has been exploring these avenues for awhile now, and it is brilliant. It won't be a one to one relationship between video game weapons and real world weapons, but they will gather important insight into the tactics and needs of players and how they are addressed by various weapon capabilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious thing here is that this is a military sponsored research program which is crowd sourcing weapon development .
The DOD has been exploring these avenues for awhile now , and it is brilliant .
It wo n't be a one to one relationship between video game weapons and real world weapons , but they will gather important insight into the tactics and needs of players and how they are addressed by various weapon capabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious thing here is that this is a military sponsored research program which is crowd sourcing weapon development.
The DOD has been exploring these avenues for awhile now, and it is brilliant.
It won't be a one to one relationship between video game weapons and real world weapons, but they will gather important insight into the tactics and needs of players and how they are addressed by various weapon capabilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623055</id>
	<title>Win-crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Win-only, dotnet based - throw this crap into the bioreactor, plz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Win-only , dotnet based - throw this crap into the bioreactor , plz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Win-only, dotnet based - throw this crap into the bioreactor, plz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28634297</id>
	<title>It's all fun and games until...</title>
	<author>DanJ\_UK</author>
	<datestamp>1247140140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...your game's evolutionary algorithms become self aware and start turning the weapons it's created on you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...your game 's evolutionary algorithms become self aware and start turning the weapons it 's created on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...your game's evolutionary algorithms become self aware and start turning the weapons it's created on you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623697</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>Trojan35</author>
	<datestamp>1247073180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that unless you continually change the rules, playerbases are smart enough to figure out the formulas behind things and turn it into a grind. My recommendation? A MMO where the rules change monthly. It wouldn't appeal to the hardcore raiders, but I'd sure like it.</p><p>I guess that's kinda pulling from the Roguelikes, but I did enjoy those too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that unless you continually change the rules , playerbases are smart enough to figure out the formulas behind things and turn it into a grind .
My recommendation ?
A MMO where the rules change monthly .
It would n't appeal to the hardcore raiders , but I 'd sure like it.I guess that 's kinda pulling from the Roguelikes , but I did enjoy those too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that unless you continually change the rules, playerbases are smart enough to figure out the formulas behind things and turn it into a grind.
My recommendation?
A MMO where the rules change monthly.
It wouldn't appeal to the hardcore raiders, but I'd sure like it.I guess that's kinda pulling from the Roguelikes, but I did enjoy those too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622705</id>
	<title>Prediction</title>
	<author>davegravy</author>
	<datestamp>1247069520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I foresee a lot of pron-related content in this game's future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I foresee a lot of pron-related content in this game 's future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I foresee a lot of pron-related content in this game's future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28632677</id>
	<title>Would much rather put the weapon generator</title>
	<author>PotatoHead</author>
	<datestamp>1247078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>into the hands of the gamers and let their interactions "evolve" the content.</p><p>Where is the "game" in this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>into the hands of the gamers and let their interactions " evolve " the content.Where is the " game " in this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>into the hands of the gamers and let their interactions "evolve" the content.Where is the "game" in this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28634015</id>
	<title>Re:Dynamic world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247137440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion a good improvement to e.g. WoW would be to make the enemies more adoptable. When a group kills a mob and that mob respawans, it would have silghtly different resisances, such that it would be harder to kill exactly the same way as before.<br>This would automatically balance all classes in a PvE environment. E.g. boss A gets killed by several lightning bolts while being tanked by someone resistant to meelee attacks, the next respawn would be slightly less vulnerable to lightning and deal a little more often ranged damage, but maybe be slightly more vulnerable to ice attacks. All these modifications would of course be only within certain limitations (i.e. a beserker would not become a caster after being killed several times, but he might become more resistant to ranged attacks or faster).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion a good improvement to e.g .
WoW would be to make the enemies more adoptable .
When a group kills a mob and that mob respawans , it would have silghtly different resisances , such that it would be harder to kill exactly the same way as before.This would automatically balance all classes in a PvE environment .
E.g. boss A gets killed by several lightning bolts while being tanked by someone resistant to meelee attacks , the next respawn would be slightly less vulnerable to lightning and deal a little more often ranged damage , but maybe be slightly more vulnerable to ice attacks .
All these modifications would of course be only within certain limitations ( i.e .
a beserker would not become a caster after being killed several times , but he might become more resistant to ranged attacks or faster ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion a good improvement to e.g.
WoW would be to make the enemies more adoptable.
When a group kills a mob and that mob respawans, it would have silghtly different resisances, such that it would be harder to kill exactly the same way as before.This would automatically balance all classes in a PvE environment.
E.g. boss A gets killed by several lightning bolts while being tanked by someone resistant to meelee attacks, the next respawn would be slightly less vulnerable to lightning and deal a little more often ranged damage, but maybe be slightly more vulnerable to ice attacks.
All these modifications would of course be only within certain limitations (i.e.
a beserker would not become a caster after being killed several times, but he might become more resistant to ranged attacks or faster).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623403</id>
	<title>Evolution</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1247072100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having the game auto-evolve the weapons based on user response is very neat, but is it the best way?</p><p>Wouldn't have the users be able to make their own decisions about it and set up their own weapon be better?  It involves the users in more points, and gives them control over the system instead of hoping the weapon becomes more like they want.  It allows for more play-styles as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having the game auto-evolve the weapons based on user response is very neat , but is it the best way ? Would n't have the users be able to make their own decisions about it and set up their own weapon be better ?
It involves the users in more points , and gives them control over the system instead of hoping the weapon becomes more like they want .
It allows for more play-styles as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having the game auto-evolve the weapons based on user response is very neat, but is it the best way?Wouldn't have the users be able to make their own decisions about it and set up their own weapon be better?
It involves the users in more points, and gives them control over the system instead of hoping the weapon becomes more like they want.
It allows for more play-styles as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623029</id>
	<title>Re:Logical conclusion</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1247070660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you have a system to keep the weapons balanced, like a point system to share between accuracy/recoil/reload time/clip size/damage/etc...

</p><p>You could imagine that you could have an algorithm that would figure out on its own the right weights to that point system based on the users' preferences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you have a system to keep the weapons balanced , like a point system to share between accuracy/recoil/reload time/clip size/damage/etc.. . You could imagine that you could have an algorithm that would figure out on its own the right weights to that point system based on the users ' preferences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you have a system to keep the weapons balanced, like a point system to share between accuracy/recoil/reload time/clip size/damage/etc...

You could imagine that you could have an algorithm that would figure out on its own the right weights to that point system based on the users' preferences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622825</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28629125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28632015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28631987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28626347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28626417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28625799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28630509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28627061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28628223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28634015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28625739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28626153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28634893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1419242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622785
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28627061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28630509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623167
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28626417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28634015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623275
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28629125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28632015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28628223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28626153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28626347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28623697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28625739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28625799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28622953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28634893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28631987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1419242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1419242.28624043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
