[MUD-Dev] PvP Systems

[J C Lawrence]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 16:48:00 -0800 
John Buehler <johnbue at msn.com> wrote:

> 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?

Players who react to the word about them and don't edit it, and
players who attempt to author their game world.  I don't see that a
game necessarily can't cater to both populations, or that one that
caters to the latter won't necessarily also cater to the former.

> 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.

Absolutely.  The general reason for this is that the game staf
simply don't scale, especially across time.

> 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.

<nod> The tendency, and the problem, is for spice to be addictive
and to then manifest all the normal problems of fixated behaviour
patterns.

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

I have a generic problem with gallery games (more or less, "look at
all the pretty scenery").  While there is a population that enjoys
such tourism, that's not me, and I'm not convinced is even medium
term tenable.

>>> 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?  

Because they can make something in your world which is entertaining,
or they can do something with or to your worl, or more likely with
or to its population which is entertaining.

Worlds and their populations are in themselves game tokens.

> My marketing will target people very clearly to suggest that when
> they get into the world, their experience will be such-and-such.

That's not the problem.  The problem is the first fellow who walks
in there and notices that when he does something untoward he gets an
interesting reaction and then tells his mates about that.  Baiting
the bear is a well established game.

> 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.

The problem I see is that you are defining anyone who does not
intersect with your game in an approved manner as essentially a
grief player.  Even outside of the normal grief problems, that
instantly makes being a grief player quite attractive.

>> 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 problem is that you don't control the advertising, and in
particular, you don't control the message.  The players do.  You can
try and seed it through normal media channels, but you have no
control or particular influence over fan sites, -sucks sites, web
boards, mailing lists, Quake clans, and so forth.

> 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.

<nod>

--
J C Lawrence                                       claw at kanga.nu
---------(*)                          http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev