[MUD-Dev] Geometric content generation

[Daniel.Harman at barclayscapital.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koster, Raph [mailto:rkoster at verant.com]
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Mihaly
 
>> 3. Increase the complexity of the game/world.
  
>>    - The example that made me think of this is chess. Chess is a
>>    simple game, but the rules interact in such a way as to create
>>    a game of sufficient complexity that it's never been
>>    solved. It's not possible to talk about an optimum strategy in
>>    chess (at least yet. It'll be solved eventually, presumably.)

>> A game system like that (that I use because I'm familiar with it)
>> is Achaea's PvP combat system, at least to some extent. It's got
>> a huge number of possibilities in it, though they do not, by any
>> means, all intersect with each other. As I regularly add more of
>> them, it just increases to get more complex, though these days I
>> rarely add elements that connect to a huge portion of the other
>> elements. The downside (if anyone that's a gamer can call it that
>> without feeling guilty) is that the disparity between the great
>> fighters and the newbies increases, which can make things
>> discouraging for newbies.
 
> Complexity? Or is each addition simple, and the aggregate
> emergently complex because of the interactions? For example, the
> movement of each piece in chess is simple, but the game has
> emergent complexity because of the amount of movement types.

I don't think chess or go are fair comparisons to RPGs. In these,
opponents start with symmetrical and static abilities/opportunities
which makes balancing orders of magnitude simpler. As soon as you
add the customisation that is so often a tenet of rpgs, you end up
with people min-maxing and emphasising any inherent
imbalances. Whilst its easy to glibly say, adding more complexity
adds depth, its definitely not a certainty and in the end, your
playerbase will simply ignore anything that doesn't give maximum
benefit.

A better comparison in my mind, would be with Starcraft. It has
three distinct sets of pieces and a reasonable semblence of balance
even though the tactics for each team are both different and
deep. Of course starcraft slipped several years due to this
balancing, and they only had three sides to balance instead of the
10-20 classes most RPGs seem to go for.

Perhaps the easiest way to approach balancing is to throw out
classes, make everything skill based, and allow reallocation of
skill points. That way players can explore the system, discover the
lesser skills, drop them and stay happy. It also allows you to
modify skills without players getting too upset since they can
always add and remove it. Hmm, isn't that what SWG is doing anyway?

Dan

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