[MUD-Dev] UO rants

[Dan Merillat]

"John Buehler" writes:

> You're assuming that them 'getting off their asses' is what they find
> entertaining.  You're being very centric to the style of gameplay that you
> enjoy.  This is the fundamental problem with PvP activities.  One player
> decides that the world is a certain way and everyone else should adhere to
> those rules.  That one player invariably states "that is reality".
> Unfortunately, the game is supposed to be entertainment.  Entertainment is
> very subjective.  If we put 50,000 players into a world with each having his
> or her own subjective view of what entertainment is, we have a tough balancing
> act.
> 
> The question is: can 50,000 players who enjoy different things actually enjoy
> the same game world?

No.  If you put in a war without affecting the non-war players, you've got two
seperate games with instant messanging between them.

> > I fail to see how it's "fun" to be coddled.  Why must online games
> > have cheat
> > codes?  single player games with cheat codes are extremely boring.
> > Why do we
> > keep assuming that online games would be any different?
> 
> You see peace as being in the same ballpark as cheat codes.  I'm interested in

No, I don't.  I see being able to choose to ignore a war that other
characters participate in as being cheating.  If there is no war, then
it's hardly cheating to not be in it.

> Or wars ARE.  If we say that wars are a part of town life, the question
> remains: will players interested in more peaceful pursuits of building,
> crafting and the like be interested in the game?

Yes.  Especially if their crafts are needed to fuel the war engine.

> > And yes, deciding what things in the world impact you is a cheat code.  Just
> > because you don't have a "give me infinite levels" cheat dosn't mean that
> > "make me immune to the war" isn't.  It's the same vein as "make me immune to
> > fire-breathing dragons."  Specific, but cheating nonetheless.
> 
> It's only cheating if you assume that war is part of the game.  That's your
> assumption.  Other players may not go near the game because of the problem of

If war isn't "part of the game" then the game better not have a war tacked 
onto it.   You can't put something that fundamental on as decoration.

> war intruding on what they're trying to do in a different part of the game.
> Other players are trying to play the subgame of the trades.  All they are
> interested in is buying, selling, crafting, and various political maneuvers.
> You are interested in the subgame of war.  The two need not overlap.

If they don't overlap you have seperate games.  I think it'd be pretty confusing
to have completely seperate games going on in the same world.   Mind you, the
war dosn't have to mean "slaughter all the civilians", either.  In fact, you can
set it up so that that's a fairly rare problem.   They still might not be able
to get all their materials, but that's a challenge, not a "problem".  
 
> Again, PvP is something that can only go into a massive game in a certain way.
> I'm trying to figure out what that certain way is.  I'm not quite sure whether
> you're pursuing the same goal or simply shooting at people who are trying to
> come up with a solution.

I don't know how "massive" my development is going to be but I'm targetting
100+ players online to give me the interactivity I'm after.

--Dan



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