[MUD-Dev] Re: Marian's Tailor vs. Psychopaths

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

"S. Patrick Gallaty" wrote:

> Compare this to something like EQ's fundamental design -
> where it's pretty much impossible to advance without
> participating in parties and groups past the 20th level
> (of 50).
> 
> Already the power-gamers, "killers" if you will (no apologies
> to the recently hysterical here) are howling that this will 'ruin
> the game.'  The truth is that the socializers and players
> are seeing that they are coming out on top, since they tend
> to make friends and cooperate - at least in the selective
> audience that the beta represents.

Hysterical?  The idea that successful Quake-style-players won't cooperate is
somewhat optimistic.  From what little I know, nobody cooperates (and trade
secrets) more efficiently than technically skilled powergamers trying to
break and control the system.
They organize themselves in other systems, why shouldn't they in EQ when the
system reaches a critical user mass?  Group action is good, but not for
putting down users with a "high need" for power.   Basically, you can't beat
powergamers in their own game??

> So don't dismiss the power of peer control.  That's how most
> society works.  Question the tools you give the peers, not
> the fundament.

Says who?  An example of a (larger) society applicable to the virtual which
works entirely by peer control would be good.  Anyway, one basic problem is
that the technically skilled and smart users with a lot of spare time will
always have an advantage if intelligence is an advantage in your system at
all. Furthermore, I believe most smaller societies works by members having a
strong desire for inclusion (they fear being left out). This cannot work
with subgroups who see themselves as the "antithesis" of the society. These
groups can be very cohesive.

(Besides, how can you have "powergaming" peer control with a PvP (no PK)
switch?)
--
Ola