[MUD-Dev] Star Wars Galaxies: 1 character per server

[Dave Scheffer]

I think we need to draw a distinction between codependency of operational 
game play versus codependency of economics.

From: "Rayzam" <rayzam at travellingbard.com>
> From: "Dubious Advocate" <dubiousadvocate at hotmail.com>

>> I think you're taking a polar stance - again I apologize if I
>> somehow implied "all abilities".  UO, and AC2 for that matter,
>> demonstrate that players can have the ability to mix and match
>> abilities.  If I want to craft a hybrid (e.g. a soloist template)
>> I'm not going to be the best of the best in everything but I can
>> manage and still be a valuable addition to a group.

> In an MCS, you've argued that you should be able to have your
> wizard teleport your monk around. If you can also then have your
> healer heal your monk

In general these are examples of operational codependency.  These
particular scenarios require both characters to be simultaneously
logged on. I've seen very few game worlds, and no commercial
products, that intentionally permit this.

Should my wizard be able to summon a gate, logout, and log back
in... this suggests a flaw in the implementation of gates.  Not that
I need my players to adopt an uncomfortable constriction.

I don't think SCS/MCS really apply to these exact scenarios.  But to
suggest others, perhaps a player might wear down a mob with a ranged
character and then switch to a meleer or someother alternate for the
final kill.

I don't think this happens often enough to be worth penalizing but I
have a hard time thinking of operational codependency where SCS/MCS
really apply.

> (...) and your crafter make him equipment, and your alchemist make
> him potions, then what you're doing is bypassing the
> developer/designer character balance.

Ok here we have economic codependency.  In this case I agree with
your observation, but disagree on the negative impact to the game if
we take a comprehensive design approach.  Where a game does NOT take
a comprehensive approach we see certain assumptions that burden the
player, and encourage Player vs. Developer.

I think if we examine in detail why players do this we find it
mostly comes down to the accumulated impact of various design
assumptions.  In other words even otherwise "constructive" players
are enticed to become some weird form of power player.

So let's break apart the motivations why a player could rationalize
this approach.  Nearly all worlds require significant time to fully
develop any single character.  Developing a suite of characters able
to make themselves fully self-sufficient in the economic sense is an
impressive investment of time (and for a commercial product revenue
to us).

A player doing this in the interest of muling is underscoring some
flaw in the game as designed when it comes to economic distribution,
such as goods are hard to get, craft players hard to locate,
craftables priced disproportionately to uncovery time.  DAOC and to
a lesser extent AC2 characterize the problem.  UO once did and
resolved it through player vendors.

There are other, and desirable!, reasons why a player would do this.
They may be casual players, or customers who live in a "minority"
time zone.  They may (like myself) be easily bored by with a single
avatar and want to trade personalities often to keep the experience
fresh.

More clearly, any game world where any adventurer can be also be a
craft player without restriction (DAOC, AC2) other than resources we
will find guild mules and high-end players sucking up what few
buyers can be found.

This second group of players are not a burden to the rest of the
server population.  But they have been penalized in game worlds
where developers chose to punish fundamental human behaviors rather
than recognize and incorporate them.  They constitute the "casual"
player who is largely an untapped market and a class of customer
most profitable for the publisher.

In UO this problem was identified in the design stage and so
advancement in any class came out of a common "bucket" of points,
and there were caps on the overall divestment of points.  This is a
preferable approach than the current favored modes of forcing
codependency such as SCS.

The way to combat power players dominating economics and ruining
codependecy through monopoly is to open up distribution channels and
advancement so that casual players compete as well.  UO does this
very nicely.  The sole flaw in UO's implementation is that player
vendors are tied to personal housing.

Anyway I think the SCS/MCS debate really comes down to issues other
than player impact on the gameworld.  It doesn't faze me much either
way, and I have every intention of trying out SWG.  The
ramifications of their decision is that they'll get a short term pop
in revenue by forcing players to monetize a popular playstyle.  And
when another competitor comes along that is just as compelling and
lacks this burden on customers the folks as SWG will remove it.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev