A list of issues to address

[KillariDev]

• DAOs should be explained. They are just mentioned but not talked what they are. Molochdao could be mentioned too.
• blockchain gaming also makes it possible for everyone to keep track of the history far in the future (as long as even one blockchain node stays online)
• talk about emergent behaviour of online games: Simple game mechanics can emerge into very complex games because of complex humans interacting with them. Trading is a good example of that (the trading itself is really simple, but humans make it complex)
• Give more examples about current decentralized games

2_online_gaming_problems.md

• in current client-server design of traditional games, the players never "own" the game. Like we used to buy the game from store and always have access to the game, this is no longer true. When the company stops running the servers, the game is gone for good and can never played again. This wouldnt be the case with blockcain gaming
• Discuss about magic the gathering reserved list
• Game companies are often interested in hearing what their players think of the game and where to develop it further, but assessing community opinion is difficult. In blockchainspace the game could be forked. Runescape is somewhat good example of that, as the developer kept the old versions of the game going while developing new version.

05_blockchain_gaming_architecture.md

• Mention benefits of each model. Eg in Monolithic the advantage is that the game can easily issue rewards based on user actions as the system already knows the real state of players.
• " Huntercoin was essentially the first blockchain." -> " Huntercoin was essentially the first monolithic gaming blockchain."?
• Add optimistic rollup type: players actions are by default trusted, but if someone detects a cheating attempt, such actor can be punished.
• Other kinds of snark models could also be incorporated. So that only merkle proofs are stored on chain. ( I guess its somewhat layered approach). This could enable really complex game to run on chain while having the chain know the state of the game at all times.
• Corrupt community server operators tended to be a problem in mmorpgs I used to play. If you bribed the admins, you got very good items, which was quite unfair.

[DecentralisedGaming]

1_introduction

• DAOs should be explained. They are just mentioned but not talked what they are. Molochdao could be mentioned too.
  • I might have skipped a definition of DAOs, but perhaps I should include a quick definition in the governance chapter . See Proposed Structure #1
  • I've suggested a game could be owned controlled by a DAO, but also that guilds could be DAOs which could even have their own legal structure (See Brainstorm: Governance - network + meta-game mechanics #11) I actually just came across a project which could help to make that a reality.
• blockchain gaming also makes it possible for everyone to keep track of the history far in the future (as long as even one blockchain node stays online)
  • Agreed. This came up in conversation and is also covered lightly in Chapter 2. There can also be another recalling of this in Chapter 4 on the advantages. Chapter 2 was a broad summary of the problems with allusions to how they might be fixed with decentralised blockchain games.
• Talk about emergent behaviour of online games: Simple game mechanics can emerge into very complex games because of complex humans interacting with them. Trading is a good example of that (the trading itself is really simple, but humans make it complex)
  • That's true, but does this rely upon decentralisation / blockchain to be true? What might be unique to blockchain is the possibility that a game could in theory run forever and be autonomous in a way that hasn't been possible before. Anuj from our discussion group has raised this before.
• Give more examples about current decentralized games
  • Fair enough point! Although we are mainly looking at decentralised blockchain games. If I was to add a list I'd probably need help with that.

2_online_gaming_problems.md

• in current client-server design of traditional games, the players never "own" the game. Like we used to buy the game from store and always have access to the game, this is no longer true. When the company stops running the servers, the game is gone for good and can never played again. This wouldnt be the case with blockchain gaming
  • I completely agree with this. I actually hope I said that, because that's what I was aiming for. Edit: This is now fixed. See Update Problem of influence and governance #21
• Discuss about magic the gathering reserved list
  • can you offer more details? I'm not so familar. Edit: ok. I see comment below. This is about the transparency of economics and whether the devs can secretly add new items to the game. This will also be addressed in the advantage covered in Chapter 4.
• Game companies are often interested in hearing what their players think of the game and where to develop it further, but assessing community opinion is difficult. In blockchainspace the game could be forked. Runescape is somewhat good example of that, as the developer kept the old versions of the game going while developing new version.
  • Fully agree. I hope I covered that well. Please point out places where I could be clearer! Thanks!

05_blockchain_gaming_architecture.md

• Mention benefits of each model. Eg in Monolithic the advantage is that the game can easily issue rewards based on user actions as the system already knows the real state of players.
  • This is Chapter 5b. It was originally just one big chapter, but I feared that was too much for a single GH page.
• " Huntercoin was essentially the first blockchain." -> " Huntercoin was essentially the first monolithic gaming blockchain."?
  • I must have messed up the grammar! Fixed now!
• Add optimistic rollup type: players actions are by default trusted, but if someone detects a cheating attempt, such actor can be punished.
  • I want to cover rollups under a chapter on Scaling. See Proposed Structure #1 (will create a new issue for brainstorming).
• Other kinds of snark models could also be incorporated. So that only merkle proofs are stored on chain. ( I guess its somewhat layered approach). This could enable really complex game to run on chain while having the chain know the state of the game at all times.
  • Agreed! I'm not super knowledgeable here, but I figure this might also come up scaling (Chapter 11 - provisional numbering). Any help to write about this would be great. Even if you just provide a summary.
• Corrupt community server operators tended to be a problem in mmorpgs I used to play. If you bribed the admins, you got very good items, which was quite unfair.
  • Indeed! Which is why we need decentralised gaming. :-)

[KillariDev]

Discuss about magic the gathering reserved list
Here's the story explained: https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Reserved_List
TDLR: Card collectors got annoyed the wizards of the coast (the company behind MTG) kept reprinting old good cards while devaluing the value of the old cards. Later on the company promised to the players that they will never do reprints of the cards on the reserved list. This is now based on the trust between players and company, but could be implemented in blockchain directly.

[DecentralisedGaming]

Consolidating an issue

• fixed?

From @KillariDev

Moderation #20

I think we could also have a section about moderation. This is lesser issue in centralized platforms where we can have moderators taking care of cheaters/botters/abusers/griefers etc. But in a decentralized games these are harder to combat.

These could be combated with some kind of sybil resistance (this could be a topic on its own too) or somekind of voting DAO.

Response

Yeah, this is one of the pain points which I was intending to cover lightly in Chapter 4. I'd introduce the problem, but not offer solutions in that chapter necessarily. Some of that might be later.

The main folks I discuss with have two documents for pain points. One public and one private. I don't recall the link for the public one at the moment (on my other computer). There was an overlap with the points that I know you put into a document one time too.

A summary of the main pain points from the public doc can be found in the following blog though:
https://medium.com/web3foundation/blockchain-gaming-unconference-outcomes-51dfca561801

additionally

• One point of moderation is about the chat channels, another is about advertising (if you permit that in game). One thought I had was to make chat channels opt-in. There could be an official channel which is mostly filtered for bad words (perhaps centralised). The idea is to provide something that players can use without running regulatory risks. However, players could easily add their own chat channels "to the game". Those channels would appear in-game and could be completely unfiltered, but they would be opt-in rather than being forced to see them.
• The Xaya team had similar concerns for the advertising that they offer in-game. They wondered if that aspect should be centralised. Not sure if what the current status is.
• Could there be illegal content stored on a gaming chain? How to police this.
• For botting, I know Andy from Xaya prefers PVP, but I'd prefer another method. I hope some better designed game mechanics plus verification can help here.
• Voting on a DAO is probably for the chapter on Governance: Brainstorm: Governance - network + meta-game mechanics #11

[DecentralisedGaming]

Consolidation

• fixed?

References

(issue #15 )
From @KillariDev

There's a lot claims in the book without references, eg .btc/ethereum prices in 2017, I think we should have references for these.

Response

For sure! The book is still very much raw in that sense. The content comes from re-writing my blogs which are more conversational than academic. The first couple chapters don't have so many, but the later chapters are better.

Any help to source links would be appreciated.