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

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

From: "Marc Fielding" <fielding at computer.org>

> Well, my specific angle was on what is needed to grow the MMOG
> market.  In that case the question of "What do people want/avoid?"
> is quite valid.

I'm confused. What does that have to do with anything?

I mean, granted, people will seek out games that have what they want
and avoid games that have what they don't. But whenever you tell the
potential player "you can't have EVERYTHING you want", the player
generally responds *immediately* with "then I won't buy the
game". Then he goes on planning gameplay regardless. Apparently, he
still intends to play the game. So we have a few different
scenarios. (This list is nonexhaustive.)

  1. The player has changed his mind.

  2. The player never actually meant he wouldn't buy the game.

  3. The player will play without buying, via piracy or
  account-sharing.

  4. The player is actually not going to play, and just wants to
  hang out in the forum.

I think we all recognise that there is a potential danger of option
3, but I *also* think -- and other people probably disagree -- that
option 3 is something players plan all the way from the "I want"
stage of first seeing the game. In other words, I don't think anyone
flips over from "customer" to "pirate". (They might go the other
way, however, if you have good anti-piracy protection.)

No, this is not an alteration of my original statement. I do assume
that most people saying "I won't buy" mean they're going to pirate,
but I don't think this is a *change*. I think they were going to
pirate from day one, and this is just the nail on which they're
going to hang the excuse of "I was going to buy but".

Option 4 doesn't matter. If this is the case, your biggest worry is
that there are enough of these idiots to talk other people out of
buying the game, which is pretty unlikely.

That leaves the first two options as the relevant choices, in my
opinion -- and what strikes me about this is that option 2 seems to
be the most likely.  People jump up and say they won't buy
something, not because they won't buy it, but because they perceive
this to be the only legitimate argument they can raise. Even if
option 1 is the case, we still end up with the same situation.

> I think you're right on target here. The people who argue points
> like this in community forums are a vocal minority. They are
> dedicated to their particular playstyle with little understanding
> of overall balancing issues.

Well, that's my real question.

Doesn't that imply that they're likely to become a problem later?

After all, they want what they want and they don't care about
everyone else... so aren't these people actively destructive to the
user community, whether deliberately or through ignorance?

> I think the link between "forum hothead" and "problem player" is a
> bit more tenuous, though. Simply being a protester doesn't imply
> griefer tendencies.

I've always viewed a "griefer" as someone who is actively attempting
to disrupt other people's play. I don't think a protester is
necessarily more likely to harass and annoy people as an aim in
itself, but I *do* think he's more likely to harass and annoy others
as an incidental side effect of his other actions. If someone is
quick to argue with others even when he doesn't have a good reason,
isn't he generally going to end up being a big pain in the ass?


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