Have any of you noticed in all of this communities conversations about poor game play\conduct and large groups, that a single concept is identified repeatedly? This point is always reached then lamented as the good old days, just before the conversation jumps off into the morass of howto manipulate the game to control human nature.
Dunbar's number is a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.
The Rule of 150.
These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person. Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar's number, but a commonly cited approximation is 150.
Small groups of players will all know each other, feel like a common community and compete as freindly rivals for each others respect. Once you pass Dunbar's number, then new groups form with no motivation to respectfully interact with the community as a whole. Them versus Us becomes the interactive norm. The proliferation of Squads and the rise of The Super Squads. The vile language and attempts to dehumanise each other over ch200. The increased introduction of Moderator structures and privlege bans. Groups using loopholes in the game to disrupt normal game flow. The combination of this will be overwhelming to new players and cause them to view the game not as a community of like minded enthusiists to becomes freinds with. But, more likely as a chaotic realm in which to seek as much imediate reward as possible by any means before being towered. Or, to leave somewhere in the first two weeks.
FSO is one bright light in this because of the top down command structure and a large scale common goal. It works because of it's resemblence to the finals in the World Soccer Cup. In the real world the militairy is able to control large groups by using combined small group associations with a top down strict command structure.
1.) The strife will escalate as an arena population exceeds 150.
2.) Squads will form and want to compete against other groups and squads by the nature of close knit tribal communities and the need to BELONG.
3.) Them versus Us is seductive because you no longer see your opponents as human as yourself, which is a gateway to poor conduct.
4.) Bad conduct, vile language, and frequent attempts to game the game will be the norm past Dunbar's number.
5.) Groups like squads are naturaly self moderating under Dunbars number. A Super Group of groups in an arena will not moderate ITSelf and requires outside Moderation for good conduct.
6.) FSO works brilliently because it is about two large communities competeing against each other for a common goal inside of a contextual framework and time limit.
Left to our own devices, as Dunbar's number is exceeded, we eventualy become the worst of ourselves without ever more Draconian Moderation. How do we apply the success of FSO's ability to have two large groups interact and be so well behaved together? Well defined goals and objectives? Greater rewards for greater efforts? Being ejected for the night instead of loosing VOX and text privleges? HiTech introducing new updates and toys only passifys us for as SHORT as the novelty lasts. Bad game play is due to bad conduct.
