[MUD-Dev] Justifying twinking

[Raph Koster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> Ryan Palacio
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:10 PM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] Justifying twinking
>
> is it merely the incentive for
> experienced players to assist newbies, take them under their wing, and
keep
> them playing, or is it the newbies receipt of material goods that get the
> newbies over "the hump"?

That will depend on the game, I'd guess. Is the game dependent on material
goods, or on formation of social ties?

There is no doubt in my mind that we'd all LIKE to make twinking be purely
social ties, and not any goods or equipment. But it'd be pretty hard to
separate the two in existing game designs.

(When I say that twinking isn't a bad thing and should be institutionalized,
I am not suggesting that it would work in your average Diku clone. It would
take designing the game to suit it. The issue is whether the tradeoffs are
worthwhile. My current impression is that they are.)

> In the paragraph above, the use of the words
> "confusing", "directionless", "boring", "monotonous" suggests to me a
> disorientation and/or lack of understanding of the environment.  In turn,
> this suggests an "ill-equipped" player, not an "ill-equipped" character.

You'd think so, but you didn't see me try to get out of Qeynos on my first
day--and I am not a novice mudder by any means. :) Not to pick on EQ, of
course. :) We've all seen cases where players expert in muds still use those
terms to describe a new mud they are trying out. The fact is that muds are,
by nature right now, all of those things: confusing because there's a
bewildering array of options (and more every day, because all designers in
the field rightly feel that more options attracts players and retains them
better), directionless (relative to standalone experience), boring (the
pacing of a mud is glacial compared to most forms of entertainment,
certainly to most games), and monotonous (most muds have very repetitive
game mechanics).

The thing about having a better equipped character and a higher level player
to walk you around is that it gives a direction, clears away confusion,
offer a wider range of experiences than you could get alone, and offers
excitement you couldn't get fighting the rats you were supposed to fight.
This doesn't mean that a mud couldn't offer all these things to every
newbie--they just don't, right now. Wish they did!

> Following that logic, it would appear that the learning curve to the
> environment and establishment of a firm footing in the in-game world (be
it
> socially or with regards to the UI) is the issue.  I guess I still fail to
> see that inter-level interaction necessitates the transfer of goods, coin,
> or xp.  Knowledge is the ultimate resource in any game, and the tranfer of
> this is what should be encouraged.

Agreed there. But let's return to those four issues of boredom, monotony,
confusion, and direction. It's very unlikely that you can give me sufficient
information to solve those four problems when all I have to kill is rats.
Hence players give each other stuff, which CAN solve the problem. They are
being very pragmatic about it. Again, it's not to say that a mud couldn't be
set up so that information was paramount, but it's a much harder nut to
crack than to simply accept the current styles of twinking, I suspect. Love
to see it done, though.

> Let us now side-step to an issue that I believe weighs heavily upon the
> "twinking" thread: Item Importance/Value.
[snip two examples of an item-dependent and a less-item-dependent design]
> I believe these represent two relative extremes, and whereever your own
> game/design fall between these two will determine the ramifications and
> magnitude of potential symptoms.  On one hand, you have to minimize
symptoms
> through various forms of restriction to curb high-to-low level item
trading.
> On the other, you have a system where items, in general, lack permanence,
> significant character impact, and significant RL value.  (eBay typically
> sells EQ items, and some accounts, whereas the UO selection primarily
> consists of accounts, coin, and housing)

Correct. In most GoP games, two separate areas get the bulk of the
attention: item dependency and level dependency (using level here as an
abstraction to represent stats in general). Obviously, it is easier to twink
items than to twink character level, but both are possible.

There are lots of easily observable issues with dependencies on these two.
FOr one, they represent finite advancement scales, which have a host of
problems; for another, they tend to depend on static data, which has a host
of its own problems.

The question to ask, it seems to me, is whether these are the correct things
on which to put the central emphasis. (Not to say that they shouldn't be
elements, but rather whether they should be the core advancement mechanic of
the game). Now, I don't know an answer, since a) virtually nothing has been
done in the GoP field that isn't this way and b) I'm sure that other ways
have their own hosts of problems that I just don't know much about); but I
am pretty sure that finding advancement ladders distinct from these easily
transferrable goods is a desirable thing--in part because it opens up the
games to a wider audience, in part because it permits institutionalized
twinking, and in part because it does not preclude the traditional
advancement ladders from existing (meaning, you get more advancement ladders
within a single game, increasing game longevity).

The tactics for handling the key issues in a typical GoP design are pretty
well known; on level and item dependency we can pin all of the following
design decisions:

- remort systems
- deathtraps
- PK
- grouping systems
- item level limits
- item align restrictions
- grouping level limits
- scaling XP split systems
etc etc

> Let's not put the cart before the horse here.  No doubt the first
impression
> must be significant and intrigue.  However, in EQ, many landmark rewards
> (such as viewing - much less killing - a dragon) are representative of
lots
> of invested time and effort.  It's a "pay before you pump" system, but not
> to the exclusion of occassionally providing new and intriguing things to
> keep you "on track".

Oh, I am not suggesting that you remove these later rewards. FOr that
matter, even in that example, it might b months before that twinked newbie
even sees a dragon again, especially once he is on his own. There's
something to be said for "I have seen the promised land, and now all I need
to do is play for six months to enter it again!"

> As for the humiliating part, it's all a matter of perception of power.
> Starting by killing goblin whelps, or drudges, or skeletons, or some
> creature perceived as potentially capable of fighting back provides an
> initial level of power greater than that garnered by killing
> rats, bunnies, etc.

Yes; although players are not stupid, and will quickly realize that a rat
that happens to look like an orc king is still a rat.

>
> > What more welcoming thing is there than to get outfitted like a hero,
> handed
> > thousands of gold pieces, and invited along to kill a [insert
> critter you
> > couldn't possibly tackle solo]? [snip...]
>
> Doing it myself and having a complete self-satisfaction that I was able to
> achieve it alone as compared to the "twinks" that needed
> friends/help to do it.  Call me masochistic.  But I personally enjoy the
trials and
> tribulations each level or trial has to offer.  And in the end, I know
that
> everything I accomplished or acquired was through my own hardships and
> conquerings thereof.  I have a pride in myself (RL) as well as my
> character.

I said "welcoming." :) Not overall eventual satisfaction. After all, even
with institutionalized twinking, you are free to refuse the assistance.
Unless you feel that you are somehow competing with otehrs in terms of
advancement rates or access to stuff (that they are somehow beating you or
better than you ni standing because they were twinked), who cares if twinked
and non-twinked players co-exist?

Players do seem to care, though. Why? The answer is, I suspect, "because the
game system cares." If we can fix that so that you don't feel like it's
unfair to you for someone else to accept aid, then we could extend that
advantage institutionally and gain player retention.

> > So twinking, to a point, actually extends player longevity. Now, if your
> > game system is such that someone being twinked basically runs
> through all
> of
> > your game data in a far shorter timespan, then leaves, then
> yes, you have
> a
> > problem. But that means that the problem lies with your game system, and
> not
> > with the very natural tendency of humans to assist friends who are less
> > fortunate.
>
> I disagree with this overall.  Let me turn this around a little bit.
>
> "Does average Joe Gamer consistantly 'complete', 'finish', or 'win' the
> majority of single-player titles he/she owns if the difficulty
> level exceeds his/her _initial_ skill level?"

The average Joe Gamer does not complete, finish, or win ANY titles, is my
impression.

My play pattern is that of a "casual gamer" -- not "mass market" but who
likes games, picks up a few a year, and plays them. I got to the third
scenario on Populous, and may play again. I stopped at the second (yes,
second) mission in Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun, because it was too hard.
I got halfway through Half-Life, first mission in Rollercoaster Tycoon... I
found Total Annihilation and Starcraft both, when shown them by an advanced
player, to be too complicated for me to bother with. I resort to
walkthroughs for console games regularly.

(Only reason my game list is so long is because I got many free from work,
btw. I _buy_ less than 5 games a year. Usually 1 or 2 for me, 1 or 2 as
gifts for my wife.

And I am WAY more hardcore than my wife is.

> If to the latter one answers "yes", you cannot help Joe Gamer unless you
> provide them a dedicated baby-sitter.

They're called "friends." :) Seriously, a social support network in the game
will in fact do this for that player who needs the support.

> The game will ultimately become "too
> hard" for them and they will leave unless cared for constantly.

Only if a) that aspect of the game is the only thing the game defines as
mattering, and b) if there is a *need* of some sort to keep advancing (eg,
you can't decide to just stay put at that level of achievement and muddle
along as you have been). Neither of those need to be true, and b) in
particular can be pernicious, because it DOES chase away players.

>  And since
> noone likes a leech, Joe Gamer will not have friends very long and will
> decide to quit.

Whoa--it's a stretch from "needs assistance on one particular advancement
ladder" to "is a leech." It betrays a direct focus on the game's primary
ladder as the only thing that counts--and it's a cultural thing within a
game, not only a game design issue.

Let's take the case of Marian the Tailor. Is she a leech because whenever
she wants to play the hack n slash part of the game, she needs assistance?
Every time Bubba the Triple Threat Tank wants to play the social game, HE'S
a leech. To bring it into a more traditional class-based hack n slash model,
consider the same scenario (that so often occurs) with healers and tanks.

This multiplicity of roles exists even in games wherein there is no overt
recognition of them by the game system. It's pernicious for one role to
assume such complete primacy that the other roles are seen merely as
leeches--that's why class balance is such a big deal in systems like that.

> "Help" _should_ primarily involve knowledge and social association.

Agreed, cf my reply to Adam.

> If I can't complete Quake III on medium, I am not about
> to try and complete it on hard or impossible difficulty.

If you were twinked to max level, you DID complete it on medium. Whereupon
you might well go ahead and try it on hard. :)

> I also don't get my
> friend to come over and complete a specific level for me.

Interesting. I do this all the time. I also see enough references to it in
other media (comic strips, a "Felicity" episode, hell, even that execrable
X-Files episode) that I believe it to be commonplace. ("Hey Fred, can you
come over and show me how to beat the 12th boss on the satellite level? I
wanna see the end movie.")

In fact, I think it is a driving factor behind the socialization model of
console games. The way we always played them was to pass the controller
around at every death or something, until we had collaboratively beaten the
entire game. When some of the friends I had been playing Crash 2 with went
and finished it on their own, I actually abandoned playing the game feeling
it had become pointless--they had gone ahead and done it, why should I
bother? I was enjoying the mutually-twinked ride (particularly twinked, in
my case!) way more than I was enjoying the challenge.

> That would be
> pointless as I would be effectively turning the game over to my friend
> permanently (assuming progressional increase in difficulty).

I don't know any games that have a perfect linear increase in difficulty for
every player of every skill level. They tend to have dips and peaks; it's
the principle behind having "boss" monsters after all.

> I believe the largest percentage
> of twinking in EQ occurs with "secondary" (or later) characters.  The
> purpose is to make it "easier", and therefore "faster", and/or attempt to
> skip content the second time around.  I guess this in itself could hold a
> message.

Oh yes. The common refrain here is, "the game doesn't really start until
level x." The common design answer is, "we should just start the game at
level x" which doesn't really work--some people really do need x-10 through
x-1, for one thing, and for another, it's likely that the game that is
starting at level x has little to do with level X per se, and more to do
with other subgames or complexities that happen to develop alongside the
standard advancement ladder around the time when you reach level x (say,
your combat model doesn't have sufficient complexity to interest a hardcore
hack n slasher because until level x, the smaller range of available skills,
magic items, and special attacks is too small to provide sufficient tactical
interest to an advanced player. The advancement ladder here is NOT reaching
level x+1, but exploring and mastering the intricacies of the combat
mechanic--it just happens to result on XP applied back to the level system).

> I do not feel that twinking as
> necessarily bad, but that the stance on twinking taken by a development
team
> is completely situational and based on the individual project's game
design
> and "vision" philosophy.

Certainly. For any given game, the answer is going to vary. The statement I
made was that twinking itself, as a mode of operation and as a mechanic, is
a good thing and deserves to be institutionalized. That says nothing abotu
how well it would work in existing game designs. I am thinking more about
future game designs. Currently, the general assumption is that twinking is
bad. I like to question assumptions. :)

-Raph




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