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

[Rayzam]

From: "Dave Scheffer" <dubiousadvocate at hotmail.com>

> 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.

I've never tried it, but is it the case that on EQ, you can't have 2
computers logging in two characters from 1 account? Or does it only
work with 2 separate accounts?

Otherwise, I understand your definition of operational codependency.

>> (...) 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.

Why is this economic codependency?

  1) With MCS, you don't pay your crafter, alchemist, repairer, for
  their goods/services.

  2) The crafter, alchemist, repairer doesn't pay your other
  characters for the raw materials they provide him for services.

  3) Multiple characters perform acts selflessly for others.

So in essence, there's no economy here for there to be economic
codependency. In fact, it hinders the development of an economy in
the game overall.

By the way, do you have an example of the comprehensive design
approach to remove the negative impact? So far, it's been just
turning the other way.  And what are the assumptions you mention
above that result in 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.

Or the player doing this in interest of muling is not fully
developing each of the characters. Instead, the player is passing
equipment and goods from the main character to a mule, using it to
advance that mule is one, maybe 2, abilities. The alchemist may only
need to make 1 type of healing potion, and 2 types of buff. That's a
lot more limited. The repairer has limited skill investment too, as
does the crafter, and each other character.

When you lower that barrier you mention, time to develop the
character, then the player's equation changes: X amount of
investment results in the ability to (1) never have to wait for Y
character type to be on, (2) go find Y, (3) wait for his turn at Y,
(4) pay Y. It's a balance between the investment time and the
perceived and real benefits down the road. The criterion for making
that decision varies from player to player, of course.  But the
threshold is not as high as is seemingly implied.

> 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.

All these cases don't need MCS. Want a different avatar, just log
onto a different server. The same for the casual players. It's the
hardcore players that start off using mules. Then as mules become
more prevalent there's a shift to the average players using
them. That's because everyone is doing it, and because in practice
it upsets the overall balance between service and combat
characters. Ex: EQ.

> 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.

I disagree again. The casual player can play SCS with multiple
servers.  These are the players that won't want to have to handle 5
characters because when they log on for their only 3 hour session
each week, they can't find someone to repair their weapon. This
happens two weeks in a row, and they quit. Loss of customer, loss of
revenue. Especially profitable, same fee but low bandwidth usage,
revenue.

> 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.

How about agreeing to disagree? I've seen and felt the impact of
MCS. I believe that SCS removes certain problems from being an
issue. Now that may result in new problems, but that's an empirical
question. We won't see whether the new problems are better or worse
until the game comes out.

    rayzam
    www.travellingbard.com




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