[MUD-Dev] PvP Systems

[John Buehler]

J C Lawrence writes:

> > 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.

While it may be possible, I don't see how it can be done.  I consider it as
axiomatic that if there are players who are altering the world and there are
players who rely on the 'advertised' world, then there is a conflict of what
players will encounter.  Do they get the 'advertised' world or the one that
the players are altering?

Obviously, if I say that players can alter the world and advertise my game
that way, players who step into the world will have to understand that other
players will be altering the world.  If stated up front, then players can
choose whether or not to try out the world.  The 'advertised' world
experience is one inclusive of player modifications.

Personally, I don't believe in community authoring of creative works unless
the goal of the work is well understood.   In the case of a game world, some
few folks who work for the game company will decide how the world is going
to change in the coming days and weeks.  I leave it to the players to react
to that macro activity.  I have no problem with players altering the game
experience at a lower level.

> > 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.

Depending on what you're after from the game staff.  Remember that I'm
trying to think of these games as being like a theme park.  More money, more
staff, etc.  My staffing requirements are not excessive, however.  I have
not worked out the financials, but the general idea is that there are:

1. Story planners, who watch the goings on in the world and see how players
are reacting to the activities to date.  Then they decide what twists and
turns the world storyline will take.  Invasions, plagues, droughts, new
cities, royal weddings, etc.  Some is backdrop for world storylines (royal
wedding), some is just 'impact' (drought) and others are story elements that
players can directly interact with (invasion).

2. Wranglers, who take the story ideas and manipulate large numbers of NPCs
in order to get the effect that is needed.  They would have a fairly
tactical or even strategic view of the NPCs in the world, as opposed to the
player view of a single character.  Wranglers do not roleplay individual
NPCs.

3. Support folks, who are responsible for liason with players, whether on
the phone, via email or live in the game.  Their presence is out-of-game and
never has a visible indication in the game world.  The player may see a
talking paper clip on his screen, but the indication would be kept out of
game.

They are all paid, with planners and wranglers getting most of the money,
and support folks closer to minimum wage.  At no time do any of these people
play the game or use game controls while working.  Further, only support
folks actually interact with players.  This excludes technical folks for
hardware and for the game software itself.

In addition to that, players can volunteer to be 'guides' or 'helpers' or
whatever.  Their volunteering - as players - means that they can have other
players' requests for help about living in the game world directed to them.
These would be player to player interactions, not character to character.
Players can turn the feature on and off at will, depending on whether
they're interested in taking a player request.  The player making the
requests must be very clearly informed that this is a casual mechanism and
is only an advice line.  Something that is not a goal of such a system is to
hook up experienced players with novices so that their characters can go
adventuring together.  That is addressed in other, in-game ways.

Although your comment about time is undoubtedly meant to mean 'as the months
elapse', it occurs to me that I might run my game such that it is open from
something like 3PM until 1AM each day.  The park actually closes at the end
of each day.

1. Plenty of time for maintenance.

2. The concept of playing in an adventure park is reinforced. "The park will
be closing in one hour."

3. Players are required to take breaks.  This is something that I'd really
like to have in place.

4. Game world instances would be regional by timezone.

A downside would be the burst of connections when the park opens each day.

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

A good point.  For this reason and others, I've been assuming that the
introduction of PvP would be gradual.  At first, the most extreme PvP would
be the ability to block someone with your body.  Then the ability to
actually punch somebody.  Then the ability to attack.  Then the ability to
take items.  And so on.  Only as the PvP activity's impact on the world is
understood would an incremental step be taken.

This assumes that each incremental step along the way is viable, which may
not be true.  But I'm willing to go as far as those incremental steps will
take me.  I want to know how much grief players will attempt with limited
abilities to impact other players.

> 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.

I'm decidedly not interested in such things either.  I want to *do*.  But I
tend more towards cooperation with other players, and competition with the
forces controlled by the game company.

> > 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.

Which brings us right back to the issue of 'entertaining for who'?

> > 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.

I would absolutely define a grief player in that way.  I won't hit the
market with an open enrollment game until the  internet solves the identity
problem.  I simply don't need the money more than I care to deal with the
corresponding customer support problem.

> > 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.

I control the message until the game is made available.  Then it's in the
hands of the public.  Although hijacking a brand name can help.  For
example, Disney.

JB

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