Institutionalizing human behavior (was RE: [MUD-Dev] banning the sale of items)

[Sellers]

Matt wrote:
> This might be horribly naive, as I haven't given it much thought, but if
> people want to buy these things, why the hell is Verant making them go
> offline to do it? If Verant believes that it is impossible to stop, why
> not try to exploit it? We supplement our income quite nicely by selling
> items. We've not sold characters, but there's no reason we couldn't.
> Personally, if I were Verant, I'd mainly be pissed that I'm not getting a
> piece of the action.

Along the lines that Randy posted, when faced with an inevibility of human
behavior, you can either ignore it, take a disproportionate and ultimately
futile counter-action to try and stop it, or co-opt it.  In this case,
adding the ability for players to have their own marketplace -- for real
dollars if they want -- would be an example of co-opting this behavior.  It
would keep the players loyal to Sony and could represent a significant
additional revenue stream.  

Thus far, Verant has ignored these particular inevibilities (i.e., selling
items and using the data they give you as a way to cheat); now they are
switching to strategy #2, futile resistance.  Far better, I think -- and I'm
speaking in terms of both business practices and game design -- to follow
strategy #3.  If you're worried about a particular popular and rewarding
behavior ruining your game, don't ignore it or attempt to outlaw it.
Institutionalize it.  This is design-judo: don't push against what you can't
move.  Make the player's desires work FOR your game, not against it.  

IMO, if in the design or operation of a persistent world game you become
faced with a widespread behavior that somehow offends your design
sensibilities or which makes you think the game is being destroyed, then
it's foolish to try to "save" the game by eradicating the behavior.  This is
the proverbial hydra's head.  Of course, focusing on the symptom is a whole
lot easier and less painful than focusing on the root of the problem -- but
if you're really interested in keeping the game balanced and enjoyable for
the majority of your players, you have to take the hard road of figuring out
what it is about the game that is driving people to this behavior.  

In the current example, consider for example how a simple change like
randomized spawn points would change the nature of farming items.  Combine
this with player-run stores (ala UO) and the ability for people to transfer
either gold or dollars as they choose, and you have the beginnings of a
robust and subtle solution that embraces the former problem.  And not
incidentally, strengthens the game and the players' devotion to it.

Or you could take the easy road, make the popular action forbidden by fiat,
and turn the relationship with the players into one of fear and threat
rather than engagement and service.  Which do you think provides a better
game and business atmosphere?


Mike Sellers



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev