[MUD-Dev] PvP Systems

[John Buehler]

Matt Mihaly writes:

> > > On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, John Buehler wrote:

>> What can I say except that I disagree with you.  If I'm following a
>> leader, and the leader is insulted by someone and that leader
>> decides to pound on the insulter, I'm not going to be very inclined
>> to follow that leader any longer.  Frankly, I consider the idea of
>> pounding on hecklers a really screwy idea.

> You might consider it screwy but players generally do not, and I
> feel very secure in saying that. Our playerbases read a lot of pulp
> fantasy/sci-fi/horror/whatever, and in many of those books, there
> are many examples of those with power killing or severely punishing
> those who insult them.

I'm really not that enthusiastic about current playerbases and would
not work to cater to their desires.  They have a lot of strange ideas
about what is entertaining.  'Strange' from my standpoint.  From their
standpoint, mine are strange, of course.

> Yes, the king is a player. I wonder, have you ever played a game
> with a real political system? Some of what you say makes me think
> you haven't.

Never played a game with a political system.  Politics is pure PvP and
I'm not interested in it.  Some people can't get enough conflict in
their lives.  I've had enough to last me a lifetime, thanks.

> They _do_ promote excessive gaming, it's true, but to claim they
> don't add entertainment to the world if down right is a bit
> ludicrous from my point of view.

Note that I didn't attempt to suggest that such systems don't add
entertainment to the world.

> I've spent the last 6 years heavily involved in playing,
> administering, and creating virtual worlds like that, and no MUD
> that doesn't involve those has so far been able to entertain me for
> any significant length of time.

As with another current thread, are you representative of current
players, and are you representative of a possible future playerbase -
that mythical 'casual' player?  I'm quite sure that there are scads of
people out there who enjoy the challenge and intrigue of political
systems.  If there are also scads of people out there who like to pick
and choose - as I do - then I would have a game system that might work
for them.

>> I imagine Disneyworld with the park attendees deciding which rides
>> will be open, what new rides will be put in and where, etc.  Only
>> the really hardcore attendees will figure out how to do such
>> things, while the occasional attendees are left to deal with the
>> consequences of their actions.  I'd rather leave the park in the
>> hands of Disney employees, whose job is to ensure that park
>> attendees enjoy themselves.

> That's not a good analogy. A political system doesn't allow the park
> attendees to decide what is built in the park. That's up to the
> administration. Meta-issues such as new areas, new systems etc are
> inherently outside the scope of players as players (ignoring players
> as administrators).

You're applying the analogy too literally.  What happens when the king
player decides that every firstborn player needs to be executed?  He
has the power and he can do it.  I consider this equivalent of one
park attendee deciding to close a ride.  Regardless of how the analogy
is applied, I would hope that you understand that I have a problem
with inordinate power lying in the hands of any player.

> The point of a political system IS to ensure the park attendees
> enjoy themselves. If set up properly, in fact, it encourages players
> to help other players enjoy your world.

I'll check out the article.  Thanks for the pointer.

> Equal eh? You think you are the equal of GW Bush? Perhaps if you met
> alone on some deserted planet you would be. But as it stands, he
> commands the military might of the most powerful nation in the
> history of the planet. So while you might be equal in some vague
> biological sense, you are not, in fact, equal at all. Whether you
> respect him as a person is an entirely different question, but his
> power is relatively unquestionable.

Real world mechanisms are not justification for what is *entertaining*
in a virtual world.  Real world mechanisms are also not automatically
applicable in a world where conventional checks and balances are not
in force.  For example, lack of permadeath, lack of single world
presence, lack of obligatory sensory feedback, etc.

> My major problem with your PK switch system is that you assume players
> know what they want. They don't, or at least, they aren't entirely
> sure what they want. If you are really serious about protecting
> players from things they're not interested, why not just let them
> eliminate any risk of death at all? Let them go out and bash orcs or
> dragons while being invulnerable.

> The above suggestion is ridiculous of course, because it is the risk
> that makes bashing exciting. It is no different with
> player-killing. Total consenuality is boring.

Total consentuality is boring to you.  It may be perfectly adequate
for us pansies, thank you.

The notion that players may not know what they want is perfectly
reasonable.  In truth, I'd assume that few players know what they
want.  The switch mechanism that I described permits changes to switch
settings over time.  As a player realizes that PvP is buckets of fun,
the switches can be changed to accomodate that realization.

> Conflicts are the basis of pretty much all interesting stories.

True, but to say that is like saying that all things are relative.  So
what?  It isn't justification for having players contend with other
players.  That is the best way to ensure maximum challenge, but hardly
the only way to present challenges to players.  There is the challenge
of nature for starters.  Epic journeys, epic tasks of construction and
so on.  Further, there is the ability to produce a hybrid of AI and
gamemasters to challenge the players.  Not as challenging as dealing
with other players, but perhaps challenging enough for more mainstream
players.

My notion of the hybrid is to have NPC 'wranglers' actively manage
NPCs at a macro level, as if the wranglers were playing a game of Age
of Empires.  The wranglers are the opposition and they move units
around and attack on flanks and mix units for effect and perform other
strategic decisions.  When the wrangler is ready, he can tell his
units to engage, retreat or otherwise react as appropriate.  I see
this as a way of providing intelligent challenges to players so that
the quality and type of entertainment is essentially defined by the
game publisher, not by other players.

JB

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