[MUD-Dev] New Bartle article

[John Buehler]

Trump writes:
>> From: "Koster, Raph"
>> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
>> Subject: RE: [MUD-Dev] New Bartle article

>> Key part of that sentence is "the end." Do we WANT end points in
>> these games?

> I'd say we do.  For a number of reasons.

In that you are a hardcore gamer, I hope you get what you want.
However, I'll step in and argue the opposite end of the spectrum -
that we don't want them to have an end.  Perhaps one happens
eventually, after perhaps five years or something, but the players
typically don't play the game to see THE end.

>   1.  If the players were never going to leave then an unending game
>   would be great.  The fact is everyone will quit eventually.

You're assuming that seeing a game to its end is important.  In my
opinion, it's not.  What is important is to give a player a sense of
closure on tasks.  This doesn't mean that the entire game has to
conclude with one massive climax.

>   2.  One thing that turned me off from all the ORPGS I've played is
>   the lack of a victory situation.  In my ethical code you dont quit
>   until you've won.  Quitters are losers.  If there is no way to win
>   your game you are making everyone a loser.

Thank you.  I couldn't disagree more, but I'm glad to see someone post
this viewpoint.

At some point you were indicating the value of victory and intense
situations, leading to players being online a lot because they enjoyed
the game so much.  This is a phenomenon that I am opposing and
attempting to indicate that, although there is a sizeable player base
that plays that way, there is a huge base of players who don't really
want to be playing the games for 5 hours a day.

>   3.  Early direction or early rejection.  Oh the number of times
>   I've seen this.  "Hey Bob wanna try UO?"  "Sure, what am I
>   supposed to do?"  "Whatever you want."  "OK, I want to watch TV."
>   *Bob watches TV* "Hey bob, wanna try Diablo?"  "Sure, what am I
>   supposed to do?"  "Kill Diablo" "OK" *Bob begins his quest to kill
>   Diablo* ORPGs are losing thousands of players because they dont
>   have a goal to get players into the game before that emotional
>   attachment develops.  I'd guess this is one of the main reasons
>   the various types of MUDs and ORPGs fail to attract even close to
>   the numbers of single player games.  New players without direction
>   are likely to become ex-players rather quickly.

I'll agree that players should be offered direction early in the game.
In truth, direction should be offered constantly to players.  I don't
think that games should merely be a place to go looking for
entertainment.  It should be a place where entertainment is offered to
the player.  Players should be seeing opportunities all the time.
Ships sailing and taking passengers.  Lords hiring on troops or scouts
to deal with this or that military problem.  Construction projects
requiring tradesmen, etc.

There should be *goals* within the game.  Organizations that take
members and direct them to accomplish tasks or to attain certain
goals.  An organization could be devoted to the elimination of the
Blue Foot Gnolls, with the climax being the death of their king (the
Diablo scenario).  But the death of lesser lieutenants and captains
are certainly cause for celebration and comment.  And taking out those
gnolls shouldn't be trivial.  Certainly not in the assembly-line
mentality of EverQuest.  Or the instantaneous-trash mentality of
Diablo II.  Once those gnolls are dead, they stay dead.  The reason
that many little Diablo scenarios must exist is because there's only
one King.  You may not even be logged on when the King goes down.  So
there have to be lots of opportunities for any player who is involved
with that organization to be involved in a good kill.

Most players should get a sense of closure for small events quickly.
This supports my goal of supporting casual players.  Little 'wins'
every 30 minutes or so.  Tracking and killing a deer might take 30
minutes.  Working on a trade item might take 30 minutes.  Exploring
and finding something interesting (cave, canyon, lake) might take 30
minutes.  Each of these is a game, something like playing solitaire or
FreeCell on your computer.  That's not the intensity level that you're
going for, but it's an intensity level that I believe many players
could thrive on.

>   4.  Fresh starts are needed and sometimes they need to be
>   forced. With UO's Zog Cabal story line many players were thinking
>   it was going to lead up to a server wipe.  Some didnt like that
>   idea, but many did.  The game had recently fallen to numerous dupe
>   bugs, bugged "1 hit killer" weapons and housing was out of hand.
>   It would have been a perfect time to erase all the duped gains and
>   all the houses clogging the landscape.

If a game only provides a single line of entertainment, then certainly
players will get more or less dissatisfied with the goings on in that
one line.  This is why these online worlds must provide many avenues
of entertainment.  WHen you get bored with one, you move away from it
and go to another.  You may be called back to the one you were bored
with and you might find yourself resuming that line.  Players are
different breeds and having a single line, with its ups and downs, is
going to alienate just about every player at one point or another.  It
seems silly to abandon an entire game simply because it gets into a
rut at one point in one story line.

Linear games have this problem.  And that includes EverQuest and
Diablo II.  If you get to a point where the game gets boring, you
either soldier your way through it or you move on to a different game.
Don't do that.  Put multiple sources of entertainment in the game so
that the character investment by the player is retained and the player
can then resume the boring section if they are so inclined at a later
time.  I stopped playing EverQuest at level 45 and I stopped playing
Diablo II when I started having to clear the 7 lieutenants or whatever
they were.  Both got sufficiently boring that I didn't bother going
any farther.  If there were other things to do, I would probably have
stayed.

> What better ending point is there than a Pwipe? You should be able
> to tell us all what percentage of players quit UO's open beta test
> after every wipe, and there sure were a lot of them.  If it really
> was devastating then there would have been no testers that last day
> after the dozens of wipes.  If I remember correctly, the server was
> still packed.

Your liking of 'pwipes' is a very personal statement that you like
fresh starts.  Many people like to have a history that they can point
to and talk about.  I wouldn't get too enamoured with 'pwipes' because
they will get less and less common over time.  Players like to retain
their investment in their character once they've made it.  In games
that don't invest in character development (e.g. Quake), wiping that
investment will remain viable.  I suppose you could also get wipes of
the world and keep your character, as AD&D operated (if my memory is
correct).

JB

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