[MUD-Dev] UO rants

[John Buehler]

> Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 4:07 PM

> > From: "John Buehler" <johnbue at email.msn.com>
>
> > I understand.  But later in your post you state that cooperative gameplay
> > is harder to implement in a game.  That's a statement that I certainly
> > agree with.  I guess we don't have a world that provides both cooperative
> > and competitive gameplay at equivalent levels of 'enjoyment'.  The fact
> > that those games succeeded in attracting a large group of cooperative
> > gamers who eschewed the competitive aspect of the game suggests to me
> > that cooperative gameplay is at least attractive.  I'll still maintain
> > that cooperative games (PvEs) will be the real means of advancing to the
> > truly massive multiplayer vehicles.
> >
>
> So is a pick-up game of football cooperative or competitive gameplay?

Both, of course.  But is that pertinent to the discussion?  Pick-up football
is a very isolated context, just like a game of chess.  You play for a while
and you walk away.  The next time you play has nothing to do with the last
time you played.

Note that I am not averse to competition in the game world.  I think it's a
great thing to have.  I am averse to one player actively opposing the gameplay
of another player - as a natural matter of course in gameplay.  By dealing
with some common crime scenarios, I think players will be more prone to stick
to more reasonable avenues of activity - and which MUST be made available,
interesting and enduring for the players.

> IMHO, I think that a Team(s) vs. Team(s) approach will
> provide the best mix of cooperative and competitive gameplay.
> Ideally, in a TvT
> virtual world, each team will be able to maintain territory that it
> controls.
> This in turn can allow players within that team to select a level
> of risk with
> which they are comfortable--safe and boring at the center of the territory,
> while dangerous and exciting on the front lines.

I agree with the notion that players should be able to pick their level of
danger.  I have my doubts about the TvT notion.  It has appeal, but can only
be carried forward to a certain extent.  If one team 'wins', what does it
gain?  Some of the resources of the losing team?  Territories?  Cities?  How
do we ensure that the folks interested in peacetime pursuits are insulated
from the non-peacetime activities?  Are cities a bit like poker chips that are
passed back and forth between teams as a result of open-field combat?  Are
some other cities declared as dangerous, and that's where sieges and such take
place?  (When the technology for such things becomes available for a
graphical, massively multiplayer context)

That approach might work.  If it did, then it would offer something for the
team-oriented people as well as the more sedate crowd.  If I knew who was on
my team and who was on the other team, I'd be more of a mind to dive into such
a scenario.  I dislike not knowing who my friends are.

An approach that sucks away resources from one team would be a problem.  Those
resources are used by the peaceful types, and would negatively impact their
ability to do the stuff that they're interested in doing.  Of course, if a
city changes hands, it's unclear how that wouldn't really have an impact.  If
possession of cities really boils down to bragging rights and the benefit of
tax money, then cities would be games within the world game.

> In my mind, it is this type of model which is likely to capture the truly
> massively multiplayer title.

It would be interesting to try.

JB





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