[MUD-Dev] PvP Systems

[John Buehler]

J C Lawrence writes:

> > Jon Lambert writes:
>
> > Second, I very definitely want players to react to the world.
> > Many folks are far more interested in having the players control
> > the world.  That only works for a limited population of players
> > who are of a like mind.
>
> What defines those two qualities as contradictory?

Sorry, you lost me.  Which two qualities?

Having players control the world means that players will have to react
to other players.  That's different from players reacting to the
world.  I define 'the world' as the game publisher and their support
staff.  The folks who are under an obligation to provide entertainment
to the paying players.

If players can derive significant entertainment by interacting with
the environment and enjoy the experience that it provides, then
players uninterested in PvP can enjoy themselves with a consistent
quality of entertainment.  Those players who are more adventuresome
can engage in PvP.  The PvP support mechanisms that actually structure
and promote PvP would always be targetted at keeping PvP entertaining,
but not anything like the focus of the game world.  I want it to be
the spice of the game world, not the meat.

This will not appeal to a lot of players.  And I'm content with that.
It *will* appeal to some number.

>> Whose atmosphere?  The one that I wanted or the one that the
>> roleplayers want?

> There's a judgement call in here.  If you're aiming for a
> child-friendly atmosphere a furry-sex campis not quite par.  OTOH
> setting yourself up in opposition to a (significant) chunk of your
> player base doesn't tend to work well.

Why are those players in my world if it's not entertaining for them?
My marketing will target people very clearly to suggest that when they
get into the world, their experience will be such-and-such.  If I
claim to be all things to all players, then sure, I'm going to have a
huge group of people who will get into the world and be unhappy that
they are unable to pursue the entertainment that they thought they
would.

Other players who visit my world and are uninterested in experiencing
it the way I invited them to are grief players.  Dealing with grief
players is its own animal.

> You seem to assume a general level of homogeneity among your player
> base that just doesn't exist when you build populations of the size
> you are talking about.  You are going to get clans and cults and
> heavy RP groups and light RP groups and white supremecists and rabid
> PKers and rabble rousers and politicians those looking at your whole
> world as merely a glorified IRC and...  About the only thing you can
> be absolutely positive of is that once you assemble a group of
> people of that size, that the group itself will become the most
> attractive gaming target present; orders of magnitude more
> interesting than your piddly little world or its mechanics.

As before, it will be an issue of how the game is presented.  This is
why I postulate treatments such as the adventure park.  The way that
games are presented to the players will inform the players as to what
they can expect to find there.  If I say that this world has a
sophisticated blacksmith system and nothing else, then I'll get anyone
who believes that blacksmithing in any way, shape or form is
interesting.  If I narrow that statement to talk specifically about
what being a blacksmith is like, I'll get fewer people.  If I broaden
it, I'll get more people.

As before, those who choose to visit the world knowing that they are
not interested in the targeted entertainment of the game are grief
players.

Do I have a solution for grief players?  Not really.  The best I can
manage is reliable game ejection when player anonymity to the game
publisher is removed.  Many other processes (such as effective
marketing) are going to be needed to dissuade grief players from
entering the world in the first place.

JB

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