[MUD-Dev] MUDs vs. MMUDs

[Steven Kaskinen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian 'Psychochild' Green [mailto:brian at psychochild.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:05 PM
> 
> Steven Kaskinen wrote:
> 
> > Very similar...but the larger scale of player base does 
> > indeed change some things.
> 
> Yes, but is it enough of a change that the two games are totally
> different?  From the point of view of working on both a small text MUD
> and a commercial game (admittedly, not "massive" by today's 
> standards), I'd argue that they are not.

I wouldn't argue that they are "totally" different either.  Yes, there are
massive similarities between the two.  More similar about them then is
different, I would think.  But there is enough different due to the number
of people that blind assumption that because X works in this small MUD it
will also work just fine in this Huge MMOG because adding 2000+ people
doesn't change how things might work is more than a little silly.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian 'Psychochild' Green [mailto:brian at psychochild.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:05 PM
>
> Steven Kaskinen wrote:
> > Having a larger player base means a more dynamic player interaction
> 
> *blink*  Huh?  Maybe you weren't playing some of the more interesting
> text MUDs, but there was *plenty* of dynamic player 
> interaction on the I played.  Try playing some of the PK-only text
> MUDs if you want to see really dynamic interaction.

For that matter Quake can be viewed to have more dynamic player interaction
with only 4 people in the game as some MMOGs with 2000+ people that are
primarily PVE in nature.  The type of player interaction you describe in
in-character interaction and is driven by the game's design.

Obviously I wasn't very clear in what I meant.  With more people you have a
more dynamic flow of people coming in and out of the game.  More people mean
a wider assortment of viewpoint, lifestyles, ways of thinking, languages
spoken, differences in societies, and even the number of people on-line at
any given moment.  The numbers swing around more...there is more variance,
etc...I meant a more dynamic player base.  Adding 2000+ people to a game
environment just does that.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian 'Psychochild' Green [mailto:brian at psychochild.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:05 PM
>
> Steven Kaskinen wrote:
> > ...hence player balance between the different player
> > types is more difficult to achieve...if even possible 
> > at all.
> 
> This is a cop out.  Scale has nothing to do with balance, 
> IMNSHO.  Flaws in a system can be found and exploited if
> there are 20 players or 20,000.  Good design has
> everything to do with it.  Paper RPGs have had
> balanced systems for quite a while. [1]  Wanna talk
> about dynamic interaction? :)

I really don't think its a cop-out at all.  And yes...good design has
everything to do with.  That's what I'm trying to drive at.  What is a good
and workable design for 8 people, or 100 people, 200 people, may not be a
good and workable design for 2000 people, or 8,000 people...etc...

What I meant by player balance is not exposing exploits or this class, world
position, dungeon loot, is more powerful than this one over here.

Mostly I was thinking of Bartle's article, "HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES"
and trying to achieve a balance between different styles of players.  I
don't necessarily want to spring up an argument about player balance, as I'm
sure its already been debated before to death.  But the point I was trying
to make is if you are attempting to achieve a balance between different play
styles but the number of people in that particular playstyle is never a
consistent number due to a more dynamic player base...then the problem is
indeed very difficult, if not impossible.  Feel free to dissent as I'd like
to hear how it could be done.  As well as its not an area I've really sat
down and dedicated to think about so I'm likely missing something myself.
:)

As far Paper RPGs go...Balance is in my opinion mostly unimportant in a
Paper RPG.  Its not the same animal at all as a CRPG game (MUD, MMOG,
Single-Player, whatever).  The are intrinsically different in nature, in
goal, in playstyle, and even in player-base.  I really don't like
comparisons between paper and computer RPGs because they are different
enough that the comparison end up being meaningless too many times.  Perhaps
good for analogy at times, but for actual comparison?
  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian 'Psychochild' Green [mailto:brian at psychochild.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:05 PM
>
> Steven Kaskinen wrote:
> > Larger scale means less of a sense of community.
> 
> Larger scale *can mean* less of a sense of community.  The 
> community is made up of the people, and a highly motivated
> socializer can make a large game seem friendly while a bunch
> of apathetic players can make a small game seen hostile.

So its a hostile community.  :)  Its still a cohesive community that is
based in hostility.  Those people still know each other...they just hate
each other is all.

More people means fewer of them will know each other at all...in a friendly
or a hostile manner it doesn't matter, they simply will just never interact.
Keep adding people and this just happens more and more.  If they don't ever
get a chance to interact...that to me is less of a sense of community right
there...its automatic when you start adding significant numbers of people.
Happens in Real-Life...it would happen in a MUD as well.  I don't think
there is any "might" or "can mean" to it...it just happens.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian 'Psychochild' Green [mailto:brian at psychochild.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:05 PM
>
> So, of course, here comes my rant.  Only, not quite so ranty today.
> 
> I was talking with JC Lawrence one night after a local dinner, and we
> came to the same conclusion that Matt is applauding: these 
> games should be called MUDs.  Why?

I already stated in a reply to somebody else...I don't care what they are
called.  Abstract the language out far enough and just call them all
'games'.  Its a label...nothing more.  It just depends on if you want a
shorter way to describe something or if you want to type out a description
every time you want to refer to it.  A Computer Roleplaying 'game' with alot
of people playing it, a racing 'game', a first-person shooting
'game'...etc...

I like the shorthand...I try to be a lazy typist.
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian 'Psychochild' Green [mailto:brian at psychochild.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:05 PM
>
> C. The other acronyms are just ugly.  MMOG?  MMORPG?  MMRPG?  PSW? 
> MMOPSW?  MMOPSWRPG?  MMOWEIOJCALISJPQQJCXOIJVWKMEWLKJSDOIFJWZNXMCPE? 
> How do you pronounce any of these monstrosities?

Okay...I'm just responding to this part for fun.  :)

MMOG = Mmmm...MOG.  (sounds like SMOG.)
MMORPG = Mmmmm...More Pig.
MMRPG = Mmmm...er...Pig?

The rest I have no clue.  :)

- Steve



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