[MUD-Dev] MMORPGs & MUDs

[Michael Tresca]

Dave Rickey posted on Saturday, January 12, 2002 1:30 PM

>> Yes it does.  So how do you define RP?

> I don't.  If two or more people are communicating, and *they*
> consider what they are doing RP, I accept their standard.  Our RP
> servers are an experiment, the people who like to RP said they
> could in an MMOG if we'd just keep the OOC elements out of their
> face.  *Something* is happening on those servers, and most of
> those involved seem to feel it is RP, whyshould anyone else get a
> vote?

I'm confused.  You opened a role-play server but didn't define it.
What screens those OOC elements?  Peer pressure?

Surely, from a business perspective, you didn't just open a server
and hope for the best, right?

>> Because if the next, "best thing" comes around, that social group
>> may move on.  In which case you weren't retaining them in the
>> first place.

> I've still got the money they spent while they were there.  What
> would you count as "long term"?  Cradle to grave?

I consider long term to be at least a year.

Heh.  Yes, you've still got their money.  But do you want to retain
the cash flow?  I've already argued that the short-term effect will
speed up as time goes on.  That is, the same current game structure
will retain players for a shorter and shorter time.

>From a business perspective, creating games that people play for a
decade is a beautiful thing.  It's like a mortgage on a house.
Hopefully, the folks living in the house will be paying you for
years if not decades.

If you're in the "make money now" business, that's fine.  That's not
evolving the game design, but it certainly makes money.  Even the
spectacular failure of some games has not managed to sink companies
completely, and there still are SOME people playing said MMORPGs.
So really, if it's all about credit cards, and that's the only
physical filter that matters, then there you have it.

> I get the impression you come from the MOO side of things, where
> the whole construct *is* the social grouping, and all
> communication and community is inside the structure because that's
> the point.  I came into this from the fan community (I was a
> fansite operator), to me community is a much more flexible thing.
> The fact that many of the community-forming occurs outside the
> game structure is irrelevant, the game is the focus and without it
> that particular community wouldn't exist, at least not in that
> form.

Heh, I come from the MUD side of things (which is why I'm on this
list).  To follow the logic I was attempting to lay out in other
posts, the game gets them there, the community KEEPS them there.  If
the community exists outside of the game, then the community is
subject to external forces that you have less control over.  When a
new game comes along, POOF! your "external community" moves on.  If
the community is internal to the game, it's MUCH more difficult to
lure people away.  You want, essentially, to own every aspect of
your player's involvement in the game, including the fan community
that talks about it when they're not playing it.

> SWG, as I understand, is going to move a lot of the current
> web-based community tools inside the game structure, but they have
> two advantages we lacked: A bigger budget, and a theme into which
> web-based tools can be integrated almost as-is.  We looked at it,
> and decided that there wasn't any point in doing badly what the
> players could do well.

I definitely respect a well-informed choice.  I agree, if you're
going to do it badly, don't do it.  Maybe in DAoC2. > :)

> The community as a whole maturing has little to do with it,
> there's always a new batch.  Griefers are a bad apple problem, you
> always have some, the question is which side of the entropy curve
> grief behaviour is on.

Can you explain the "entropy curve"?

>> To elaborate, griefing has a few proponents that encourage it:

>>   1) anonymity

>>   2) a reward system not tied to social structure (i.e., killing
>>   something independent of any other character)

>>   3) a means of expressing a contrary behavior (violence to other
>>   players, cursing on channels, etc.)

>>   4) lack of accountability to a particular body (multiple
>>   accounts)

>> So how does DAoC discourage any of the above points?  It sounds
>> like by "limiting their options" your discouraging #3.  How?  Do
>> you have code that scans for inappropriate names and kicks them
>> out?

> We do not allow you to fight with members of your own Realm, or
> talk to members of other Realms inside the game.  Talking to
> members of your own Realm is supported, and fighting members of
> other Realms is not only supported, it's encouraged.

Hmmm.  Okay, you controlled #3.  That's it.  That doesn't stop #1,
2, and 4.

>> Did DAoC just start with great players, or did you cultivate them
>> in some way?

> We did try to cultivate the community, but around beta 3 it got
> completely beyond our capability to manage (which was expected).
> When you have over 160K players, your influence on what the
> community does is limited.  We have occasional problems with
> harassment and exploits, but in general grief activities never
> impinge on the majority of the players.

Which ultimately goes back to the feasibility and expense of the
"close, personal MUD-touch" on a MMORPG. Sounds like you tried,
anyway, which I applaud.

Here's the question: with a larger budget, would it still be
valuable to devote staff to cultivating the community?

After a certain point, I imagine it's too late.  The community you
have is what you've got, unless you're willing to start canceling
accounts and knocking players off, which is a bad business decision
all around.

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