[MUD-Dev] UO rants

[Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services]

> From: "John Buehler" <johnbue at email.msn.com>

> > 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.
> 

It seemed pertinent at the time, but now I can't remember why. ;)  Mostly, I 
think that it was intended as an introduction to the TvT idea.  I agree with you 
that chess and perhaps football are entirely different cases of PvP, but I think 
the persistence of results is not really the major factor.  I think the level of 
abstraction is much more important.  A MMORPG is enough like the real world that 
we often call it a virtual world.  Violence, death, social interaction, etc. are 
intended to closely resemble real life.

> 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.
> 

Mostly, I agree with what you are saying regarding common crime scenarios.  
However, I'm not sure that "competitive" is even the best way to describe these 
scenarios.  I see "criminal" and "competitive" as vastly different things.  Is 
it always criminal to actively oppose the gameplay of another player?  Or can it 
be merely competitive without being criminal?

> > 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)
> 

What one gains defines the winning and not the other way around.  If a team 
builds a fortress to extend its territory and protect a silver mine, then it has 
'won' extended territory and a silver mine.  Or maybe it has 'won' an additional 
buffer from invasion and the ability to create silver objects.  If another team 
decides to feign an attack on the fortress to distract its defenders while it 
raids a caravan loaded with silver, then it will have 'won' a caravan loaded 
with silver and the right to create some silver trinkets.

Why should 'we' ensure that the folks interested in peacetime pursuits are 
insulated?  Why should we not give them the means and incentive to ensure this 
themselves, by paying taxes, gaining access to resources, and using these 
resources to expand their empire's territory and security?  This is what 
competition is all about.  I agree that there should be consequences for immoral 
gameplay, but this doesn't mean that there should not be consequences for poor 
gameplay.  To me, this is the distinction between criminal and competitive.

> 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.
> 

I agree.  Even in real life, soldiers wear uniforms to help in this regard.  Can 
you imagine Age of Empires without color distinctions between forces?  It is 
_imperative_ to be able to distinguish between friends and enemies, but there 
are many ways available to do this.  Fantasy races, Sci-Fi species, banners, 
colors, emblems, etc. along with territorial segregation should make this a 
reasonable possibility.  Of course, a "disguise" or "spy" skill might keep 
players on their toes.

> 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.
> 

Again, it seems to me that you are equating competitive and criminal.  I'm 
having a difficult time conceiving of any form of competitive gameplay in which 
one's actions never negatively impact the ability of an opponent to do the stuff 
that they are interested in doing.  But this is far from criminal.

> > 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, in reading your posts, both personal and MUD-dev, I see that you are similar 
to me in your firm beliefs regarding a designer's responsibilities when creating 
a virtual world.  As I see it, however, this responsibility can take a couple of 
different forms.  On the one hand, it seems admirable to attempt to create a 
Utopian virtual world.  When creating a world, shouldn't we make right all the 
wrong things in real life?  Shouldn't we set things straight?  I think I see you 
shading in this direction.  

On the other hand, I think that a different approach can be just as admirable 
and moral.  That is the approach that says, since I'm creating what will be 
called a virtual world, it should reflect the truth of the real world in certain 
ways.  Realistic crimes should be possible, but realistic consequences should 
ensure that crimes are not expedient.  I think that I tend to move more in this 
direction.  

Competition is an accurate depiction of life.  It is the basis of survival and 
advancement.  It is the lynchpin of many valid economic systems.  It is also the 
primary motivation within just about any type of game imaginable.  But 
competition in chess, football, and even life is only healthy inside certain 
boundaries.  I think that we would agree that there are certain "rules for life" 
which impose dire consequences on those who ignore them.  I think that these 
should be modeled inside any game which is about virtual life.  So far, I don't 
think that we've done a very good job of this.  However, in our attempts to do 
better, I think that it is important to ensure that we stay true to a reality in 
which wars, competition over resources, and other forms of PvP are not 
precluded.

But perhaps this is only a personal preference.

--Phinehas


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




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