[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface

[clawrenc at cup.hp.com]

In <34282751.9009468 at relay.mnsinc.com>, on 09/23/97 
   at 08:42 AM, caliban at darklock.com (Caliban Tiresias Darklock) said:

>On Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:17:59 PST8PDT, Adam Wiggins
><nightfall at user1.inficad.com> wrote:

>This sounds really great, but unfortunately you combine this with
>some of the other factors in the game you're describing... and it's
>sort of like creating the world's greatest basketball code and making
>the world's major races dwarves, gnomes, and halflings. Character
>development is a lot of fun when you're *developing*, but after a few
>run-throughs you get tired of it. It really doesn't matter how
>detailed I can make my character when someone else can walk up and
>destroy all my work for no real reason.

One could also consider this one of the things which *add* value to a
character.  The character is now an indeterminately ephemeral beast
which survives on the skills of its player and raw luck.  The value is
then extracting the best it has to offer in as long as you can make
the time.

>Occasionally frustrating, yeah, great. But binary? Would
>you play a game like Dungeon Keeper if every time you were defeated
>on level 11 (like most of us were, repeatedly) you had to start over
>on level 1? All or nothing? 

This is of course the basis of most arcade games.  There is no state. 
It seems successful.

>Jesus, man, starting a new character is a
>tremendous pain; you put in all that work, and then you're Joe Wimp
>for at least a week. During that week, of course, you have to wander
>around hoping nobody decides he's bored enough to whap you for the
>heck of it. If you're lucky, or you have 'connections', then someone
>can hook you up with some equipment and start you off with a decent
>amount of money. The rest of us, of course, just end up going
>somewhere else.

Nahh, due to experience I then quickly build that or its replacement
character back up to something I consider useful.  After all, I'm
already interested in the *game*.  The fact and details of any
specific character are largely irrelevant.  The substitution of one
character for another doesn't remove my interest in the game.

Key of course is for a usable character to be possible quickly, even
if its not tricked out to cutting edge.  Growth curves for MUDs where
the entire lower section of the curve is largely unplayable, and its
only after weeks of effort that a new character can be anything more
than a bump on a log can be considered a Bad Thing in this regard. 
THis is perhaps the primary reason I put so much effort into investing
and valueing skill in the human player as vs the MUD character.  I
very very specifically want it so that a new character, freshly
created no 2 seconds ago, can not-infrequently tromple all over a
maxxed out SuperCharacter if the newbie is well played by a skillful
human, and the SC is poorly played.

>It's a little different when you have a game where any player can
>whip himself up to full power in less than 60 seconds and 'death'
>basically means 'hit the space bar'. Given that set of circumstances,
>as opposed to a game in which you potentially spend months developing
>a character, PK becomes a good deal more acceptable in my eyes.
>There's a tradeoff; I don't want to trade even a *day* for some dork
>to have a cheap thrill. But I'll certainly trade a couple minutes.
>(Owner and operator, Clan Hellrazor.)

Ahh.  For me the investment is in me the player, not the character. 
The character is merely an embodiment, or an example of my ability,
and thus a tool to be used to express that ability.  This was one of
the root points in my virtualising bodies and encouraging body
stealing.

--
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...