[MUD-Dev] Spawning and quests (was Sony ban)

[Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services]

Phin said:
> > Regarding spawning, has anyone seriously considered or
> > implemented a system
> > in which mobs only spawn where heroes are not present?
> 
Raph replied:
> Oh, yeah, countless Dikus have a crude form of this. Zonewide resets do not
> trigger if there are any players in the zone. It leads to camping on zone
> boundaries.
> 

That's interesting, but I was speaking more about mobs not spawning _where_ 
heroes are present as opposed to mobs not spawning _when_ heroes are present.  
In other words, when it is time to spawn, it spawns, but where it spawns is not 
static, but dynamic.  This would mean that mobs spawn in more "remote" 
locations.  Additionally, if some sort of "monster food chain" existed, the 
spawn point would be in the middle of lower level monsters.  This would help 
preserve the progressively-harder-monsters-encountered such that an area left 
alone would initially spawn lower level crits; when enough "food" was available, 
a higher level crit would begin spawning; lower crits move out-ward to escape 
the new predators; repeat the process with even higher level crits; this 
continues until you have a hot spot of crits which over time can become rather 
large and can lead to very high level crits at the center.

Of course, a realistically functioning eco-system of crits would be great to 
nail eventually, but the above might make for a more simplistic, while 
interesting start.
 
> > Yes...it seems that many developers confuse easily programmable
> > activities
> > with fun activities.
> 
> Many players like easily programmable activities. Tetris anyone? Heck--the
> whole gameplay premise of The Sims could probably be coded into an optimum
> solution by many of us on this list within a day or two. The gaming sites
> have already posted optimum movement sequences for the simulation.
> 
Yes, easily programmable activities can be fun, but that they are not synonymous 
with fun is closer to the point I was making...which probably didn't need to be 
made in the first place.  :-)  Some of the articles which came out of the GDC 
which talk about many iterations of simple schemes (eg. DNA) or layers of 
simplicity leading to wonderful complexity might be applicable to this thread.

>   Is anyone really doing _epic_ quests?  Why not?  It
> > seems to me that Frodo's ring would be good fodder for such a quest.  One
> > half of the world could try to prevent the other half from moving
> > an object
> > from one corner of the map to another...it works for football.  :-)
> 
> Your example of epic seems to be team-based capture the flag? Yes, several
> muds have tried that. UO's try at it is going in within the next few weeks
> as part of UO: Renaissance. I think Meridian 59 had a coupleof versions of
> it. Players quickly see it as football and not as an epic quest.
> 
> I've written very epic, narratively based quests for Legend. They take a
> long time to craft, aren't repeatable, and get reduced to walkthroughs no
> matter how compellingly written.

Hmmm.  My use of _epic_ was probably not entirely appropriate to my meaning.  In 
addition, my example was rather inadequate to express my vision.  Let me try 
again.

I'm trying to get accross the idea of having quests affect a larger number of 
people (but perhaps many to a smaller degree).  A "quest" is merely an RPGism 
for goals.  When gamers refer to an MMORPG as "Levelquest" they are expressing, 
IMHO, dissatisfaction wrt goals in the MMORPG.  Other MMORPGs do a bit better in 
this regard, but I think the majority suffer in this area.  It may very well be 
the intention of the designer to simply provide a sandbox, but many gamers are 
looking for bigger, better, and more interesting goals.  Perhaps some feel as 
though they've purchased a book with a great cover, but upon opening it, they 
find only blank pages and a note from the "author" to fill in the pages.  But 
perhaps I'm straying from the topic a bit.

When I think of games which have goal management nailed, I think of RTS games.  
So, what if MMORPGs adopted some of the characteristics of an RTS?  What would a 
MMORPG/RTS hybrid look like?  Well, I think this could be a wide range.  At one 
end of the spectrum, you could have "Age of Empires Online" where each unit was 
played online by a particular person.  In this game, building a "wonder" would 
be my idea of an _epic_ quest.  _Everyone_ is involved.  Some characters gather 
necessary resources.  Some characters build walls.  Some characters deploy the 
troops.  Some characters _are_ the troops.  Some characters scout for signs of 
an enemy attack.  Some characters actually build the "wonder."  The long term 
goal creates _many_ short term goals.  

At the other end of the spectrun, you could simply make powerful items affect 
_many_ people to a small degree instead of only having powerful items that 
affect _few_ people to a large degree.  I used a WOT example on another post to 
this thread to make this very point.  It hasn't made it into the archives yet, 
so let me repeat it here.  (I apologize for the noise.)

----->begin quote
I'd like to see it go even farther.  Consider the case where the Forsaken are 
high-level, evil PCs in conflict with Whitecloaks and the White Tower, etc.  
Perhaps some ancient tome falls into a Forsaken's hands and he is able to 
discern the location of a powerful ter'angreal that can affect weather.  
However, the ter'angreal is hidden deep within Aes Sedai "territory."  How will 
he retrieve it?  Perhaps he will seek another ter'angreal that will allow him to 
"travel" or "skim."  Perhaps he will take a band of Trollocs through the ways.  
Maybe he will succeed and maybe he will not.  Perhaps other Forsaken will learn 
of his intent and try to beat him to the item.  If he does succeed and uses the 
item to alter the weather, this will automatically create a new quest for the 
Aes Sedai who are adversely affected.

The point is to have or introduce items into a conflict which will actually give 
some real in-game advantage to its weilder (or a group represented by the 
weilder) on a broad scale and not an individual scale.  It seems most (if not 
all) "powerful" items in current MMORPGs are geared toward having an immediate 
and immense effect on a relative few.  What if some "powerful" items had a 
relatively small effect on many?  The many then become automatically embroiled 
in the quest to lessen or reverse the effect by controlling the item.  Community 
is generated by the common cause.  The chance for glory is high since many will 
benefit and therefore will be more inclined to praise whatever key players 
accomplish the goal.

Pipe dream?

----->end quote

Perhaps much of this rests on the need for clearly defined groups (perhaps 
nations, cultures, good vs. evil, etc) competing for dominance.  However, this 
paradigm might simply exchange old challenges for new ones:  How do you handle a 
win situation?  If a win situation is not possible, how do you keep choices from 
feeling as arbitrary as before?  Is a goal enough, or must it be attainable?  
Perhaps we could make it attainable, but very difficult.  Does it need to seem 
attainable?  (Warbirds pops into my mind.  Three countries are at constant war, 
but I've never seen one win.  Is it possible?  What is important is that the 
conflict gives opportunity for clearly designated sides which in turn provides a 
context for the pursuit of personal glory.)  

Many issues here, but I'd love to see them explored a bit more.

--Phinehas



-----------------------------------------------------------------
		"All things are permissable,
			but not all things are expedient."
-----------------------------------------------------------------                 




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