Are Decentralized Video Games Possible?
Decentralized Video Games
Recently, there has been interesting on the Internet in decentralized technologies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum; and I wonder if the same kind of decentralization can be implemented in video games.
What is decentralization?
Decentralization is a quality of a system in which no one party has divine control over the system or is capable of causing it to fail.
Structure the decentralization
I will be developing the game in Blockchain format. The blockchain is highly efficient, untrustworthy, and immune to latency errors.
Most video games with multiplayer compatibility have some way to list community servers, but how can players find a game if no one has a list of places to find the game? My solution is to have a server browser that lists the IP addresses of the server on all nodes, much like the way cryptocurrency transactions are stored on all blockchain nodes.
If a player finds a node that consistently has a different list of IP addresses than others, the player can choose to ignore that node and report it.
Due to the fact that people will inevitably reprogram the game to be on the engine (or the best version), guidance is needed to operate the game environment. The code must be bug-free so that people can update the game engine. Game bugs like missing map borders don’t matter.
If there is a single error in the code, games with different versions of the game on the client may be incorrectly processed in parallel with the server or vice versa; as long as there are no bugs in the game.
To correct this, it is necessary to develop very specific and useful recommendations, including the smallest details, such as how to round.
To have a decentralized trading system, there must be a blockchain. Blockchain, in order for each node to remain synchronized and not have to process every single transaction, must have mined. Mining (not the underground type) takes a data set, modifies it a bit, and solves mathematical problems on it to perform some function, whether it’s validating a transaction or mining the next block.
Even with a total chopping rate of 3 million trillion chopping per second, it takes about 5 minutes to reach the goal, and mining is expensive for miners. Miners who have mined the block receive a reward according to a set formula. Rewards are generated briefly and added to the limits of the blockchain market. However, transaction mining is deducted from the account of the person who sent the transaction.
Both types of mining require the use of decimal places at some point; block mining declined over time to deter the public as computers became faster and transaction fees were much smaller than the transaction itself. In any case, the mining reward cannot be an item, because the item cannot be divided. To rectify this, the universal currency should be the number counted in the account and should be reasonably broken down so that the transaction fee is low enough for small transactions.
The high computing power required for mining will cause people to unite in large groups to reduce costs; if there were only a few groups controlling everything, the system would not be decent enough and would cause some large companies to fully determine the future of the game.
If mining incentives are set high enough, people don’t have to congregate. However, another problem arises: if the rewards of mining are set too high, inflation will also be too high. It seems like a paradox, but there is a solution to this: complexity.
If market capitalization is high, large rewards will not increase value too much; although market capitalization must be distributed among many players; otherwise, the great rewards of the former will seem insignificant in the hands of a handful of people.
There should be a system to account for both the amount of wealth in each account and the cost of mining. If the mining reward and the mining difficulty depend on the block size, then the rewards will be equalized.
When a blockchain starts with a few people who usually use it; the block size is smaller than if more people were using it because there were fewer transactions.
As a rule, the fewer people use blockchain, the fewer people mine it. If the complexity is proportional to the size, the computational power required will be less with fewer people using the system and therefore mining it.
However, the rewards of mining should not increase, as more people use it and more computing power is needed, more people are mining, and more computing power is needed for each miner.
However, as more people use the system, the value of mining rewards increases according to the rate of difficulty; therefore, incentives will still be sufficient, while eliminating all problems.
Updates and corrections
In video games, every weapon, player, prop, and behavior of everything requires a list of attributes that must be followed by everyone, player, and server. From time to time, these attributes need to be modified slightly for the balance or functionality of the game.
But allowing anyone to make changes to attributes at any time they want would be anarchy; somehow the game node needs to be able to vote on how this attribute is changed without moving too fast like the old server when it was just upgraded. I will return to this after considering the next question.
When a node submits a new transaction block, the node will also add a small file detailing the changes it wants to make. After a few blocks, Blockchain will take the most frequently encountered offers and use them in updates. This will allow changes to be made while still allowing the majority of the community (which is usually part of a community that wants the best for the game and will most likely spend more money on mining machines) to make decisions along the way. game.
However, taking each sentence as your sentence is not a good idea. Sometimes if there are two ways to change something that requires multiple suggestions, the result may be something that doesn’t work. There is a need to group sentences into one main sentence. For example, suggestions on weapons will be collected automatically.
Let’s take three competing weapon changes as an example.
Change A adds +10% damage, +30% wearer health and -25% fire rate. Change B adds +25% health to the wearer, +30% damage immunity, and -50% movement speed to the wearer. Switch C adds +10% damage, +25% health, and -50% movement speed to the wearer. When the results come. Change A got a total of 385 votes, Change B got 365 votes, and Change C got 274 votes. If Blockchain uses every single change mode, the end result for that weapon is +10% damage and -50% movement speed for the wearer.
While all three competing changes may be balanced, the final product may be worse than the original. If Blockchain uses the mode of each shared change, then change A will win.
Applications and usage
Programming this game will take a lot of time and may not be worth it because the party programming it cannot get money for their work and therefore may not want to program it. However, the decentralization of the game will allow the community, not the game developer, to choose the future for the game.