[MUD-Dev] MMORPGs & MUDs

[Michael Tresca]

Freeman, Jeff posted on Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:13 PM

> What constitutes "long term" to you?

> Creating social groups, discouraging griefers and rewarding
> non-griefers all seem to me to be the same thing - carrot and
> stick of the same pursuit, anyway, the purpose of which is to
> foster communities to develop in game: MMO's try *very* hard to do
> these things.  IMO, The social groups are key to retention.
> Retention is The Name of The Game.

Is it?  Or is it to get new players and not worry about the ones
that are already playing?

> I think EQ does a wonderful job of creating social groups.  Not as
> good a job of then tying that group to the world, but I think MMO
> design, in general, is making a lot of progress on that front.

This would be what I mean by long term.  I've seen clans more
detailed and have more depth than the games those clans play on.  To
me, any social aspect of a game should be contained within the game.
When that isn't being served, players will do it on their own.

This goes back to having a chat line (ICQ, AIM) within the game, as
well as the ability to create social groups.  Players do it ANYWAY.
It's not a secret.  No MMORPG should be without those basic social
supports that players create on their own.  By keeping it in the
game, it keeps the social group online, which is of course part of
retention.

Credit should not be given to MMORPGs for social groups that arise
outside of their game.  If there's a million people playing, the
likelihood of some small percentage of them forming a social bond is
almost guaranteed.  Social bonds are good.  They help invest players
in their characters, which makes them less likely to be griefers.
By playing long term, by having strong social bonds with others,
they are less anonymous, and thus less likely to be problematic
players. Outside of the game, that's just two guys talking about
what they do. Or, to be more specific, that's "Mike" who's part of a
clan. Inside the game, that's "Talien" (my character) who's part of
a clan.  Verrrrrry important difference.

> One of AC's core systems was designed to foster the creation of
> social groups.  I don't know how well it worked in practice, but I
> know the developers thought that important enough to make it a key
> component of their game.

Ah yes, the fabled pyramid game.  I won't go into here because I
haven't personally experienced it.  It does foster social groups, so
in the context of the discussion, I agree.

> I agree, to a point.  I think the systems in place have an awful
> lot to do with what tone the players set for the game.  Game
> systems that force the players to compete, vs. game systems that
> force the players to cooperate, vs. game systems that don't really
> do either one, result in three distinctly different tones.

Yes.  I believe MMORPGs set the tone of the game.  If it's a hand
off setting with a level-based system, which by its nature generates
competition (in effect, trying to be higher level than anyone else)
or if it allows PK (directly conflict between players), these
settings discourage social groups as a cooperative effort.  More
likely, it turns into "soloers" trying to get ahead.

However, I believe a lot of MMORPGs were not designed with any
particular philosophy in mind (I imagine this changed with DAoC,
though). That is, there's the general assumption that players will
just "work it out."  They won't work it out.  A stable social system
doesn't just start on a new game, it has to be cultivated first,
then the social supporters reinforce the positive behavior and pass
it on to newcomers, even as older players leave.  This ensures a
more stable social environment.  Throw in a million people, give
them all virtual bodies they can toss away at a moment's notice, and
a point system for them to accumulate power by killing things...well
now you're just asking for trouble.

> I've posted much the same sentiment to this list, not all that
> long ago.  So, "everyone" doesn't think that.

Okay, you and me. >:)

>> Flashy graphics, exciting gameplay, cool effects -- that draw
>> players.  Viable social communities keeps them there.

>I don't know of any designers that believe otherwise.

Believe?  I'm sure it's easy enough to pay lip service to the idea.
It's a whole 'nother thing to recognize that cultivating viable
social communities will require PEOPLE -- and thus money -- to
create.  Social communities cannot merely be coded into the system.

Mike "Talien" Tresca
RetroMUD Administrator
http://www.retromud.org/talien


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