[MUD-Dev] New Bartle article

[Wells]

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard A. Bartle [mailto:richard at mud.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 4:30 AM
To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
Subject: RE: [MUD-Dev] New Bartle article


On 7th March, 2001, Dave Rickey wrote:

>> EQ *has* a very close approximation of PermaDeath: Corpse Loss.

> Yes, you're right. The fact that they don't get more complaints
> about this gives hope to all people who want some form of PD in
> their games..!

Corpse loss is the biggest source of complaints within the game.  So
much so that at higher levels, a spell was added that made corpse loss
a remote possibility.

>> At least half of an EQ character's functionality is tied up in his
>> items, and since your visible equipment is the *only* way to
>> differentiate your character from the other 10,000 human males with
>> face #4, a sizable chunk of your identity as well.

> Well, there's also your k3wl name...

>> And the response of players to a potential corpse loss?  Blind,
>> screaming panic.

> This certainly makes the game more exciting, especially if people
> do, on occasion, lose their corpses and "die".


> It would be interesting to be able to experiment, here. Would people
> be happier if they lost their character and kept their possessions
> or if they kept their character and lost their possessions?

The choice is totally dependent on the support structure of the
character and the items that would be lost.  If the character has a
large support structure (a guild that can easily aid him in gaining
back levels) and many rare items (items that enter the game at a rate
of one per day or week), then one will choose to keep the items.  On
the other hand if the character has a small support structure and
relatively few rare items, one would be more likely to choose to keep
his character.

>> This is the linchpin in the dominance of "Uberguilds" in EQ's
>> high-level game, as well.  It doesn't take a 60+ member guild to
>> raid Fear or Veeshan's Peak, it takes that many to do so with a
>> near-certainty of being able to recover everyone's corpse if
>> anything goes wrong.

> So although they make out that they're highly exprienced commando
> units, actually they're armies of stretcher-bearers? <grin>

> Well, if they're having fun.

The guilds are a combination of both.  They have the ability to
minimize the death penalty through the in game mechanics provided and
are also the best at their respective duties.

>> So, my expectation of the reaction to PD zones as you describe them
>> is that either they would be skipped, if the reward isn't high
>> enough to draw people in, or they will be ruthlessly powergamed
>> with militaristic precision by players who get in

I've no objection to that, though. The difference is that some of
those powergamers will DIE. If a giant is going to kill someone in one
blow, then sure, if there are 50 of you then you only stand a 2%
chance of dying. However, one of you IS going to die. Obviously, it
would never be quite a stark as I've outlined it there, but that's
pretty much the gist of it. Going in in numbers lessens the odds that
you're going to be killed, and it lessens the share of treasure you're
going to get, but it doesn't lessen the odds (much) that someone is
going to die. Once they're dead, it doesn't matter how many other
people are around, stretcher-bearers or not, the stay dead.


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