[MUD-Dev] Mass customization in MM***s

[Sasha Hart]

[Marian Griffith]

> Players would purchase an account with a number of 'lifes' to
> it. If they lose all lifes the account is cancelled, and they have
> to buy a new account to resume playing. In compensation the game
> world is not really out to kill the character.  Players can
> happily spend their time on a little backwater planet and never be
> bothered by anything, much the same way nothing much is going to
> bother you or me in real life.  However, if they become involved
> in the game's main politics, then they are likely to get into a
> fight, and those deaths are per- manent. That way the big assault
> on the rebel stronghold is going to mean a great deal to the
> players defending it, seeing that if they lose they are one step
> closer to being forced to reinvest in the game.

I certainly think you have found a way to make people care
(gambling's very old).

What follows is intended to be constructive criticism, and I hope it
can be taken that way, because I really doubt that anything at all
blockheaded is being said here.

My biggest concern is that it will feel like being forced one way or
the other - forced to risk dying and therefore paying money if you
must do the good stuff, or forced to chat on a boring backwater
planet if you don't have the money. In either case the game isn't
enhanced at all. Instead you are punishing players for trying to
fulfill the box-copy promise of the game.

  (Obviously at this point the discussion could be taken to
  "maturity" and how it is "immature" to have this kind of
  reaction. To me it is an indicator of a *MUD operator's* maturity
  when he demands that players have his arbitrarily determined
  reactions to his arbitrarily constructed game. By excluding
  everyone who isn't happy you can ensure a 100% happy player base,
  but this is just you covering inadequacies in the game. By
  contrast, you might justifiably ban exploiters, or you might
  pretty unjustifiably ban Jews - although I guess you would at
  least have a reason if your playerbase was all neo-nazi. Arghhh,
  what a tangent..)

The given plan doesn't manage perceived prospect well. Which would
you rather have - a game in which you were assessed costs (which of
course you could not pay - if you wanted to quit the game) for being
on the losing side of a war? Or a game in which you could get a
bonus ($7 off next month's fee) for winning?  The loss is punishing
and unpleasant in a way that the winning side getting subscription
breaks would not be, even if the same total payments are being made
by the same people. By making the point of reference different you
can make the result less surprising. If I pay my usual subscription,
I might be disappointed but after all, I pay my fee up front, and I
get my play time. But if instead I start by default paying less and
apparently get a price hike for certain game events -not pleasant,
for the players or for your game, which will suffer. I would much
rather play a game which gave bonuses, and I would much rather have
one - if the bonus is applied to next month's subscription then
players have an incentive to pay next month's reduced rate. If this
is still sufficient, wow. Basically this involves making everyone
pay for the politics and combat, and if they sit on the backwater
planet then it is their prerogative because they have paid for all
of it. As wasteful as this seems it is less damaging to
expectations, and I think you are overestimating the number of
people and the amount of enjoyment derived by engaging in
second-class activities in a game, like sitting on the sidelines and
trying clothes on when there is intergalactic intrigue.

The given plan also manages prior expectations poorly. When I buy
(time on) a game, I expect to pay up front for a very good shot at
entertainment. I expect to get an experience which is comparable in
quality to other games and activities I could buy at the same
price. I expect the billing to take certain forms and not others. If
there are premium services I expect them to be very clearly marked
and to guarantee me something extra, certain and tangible. But in
this system it seems like I pay right after I die to continue, or
quit (which is also not so pleasant - if the game had promise, it is
only going to make me more bitter that I was forced to quit because
I wouldn't give up the money.) There is also a difficult issue of to
what extent I pay to win, or just to get a chance to win - I think
it depends substantially on how awful it is in non-money terms to
die.

If your "backwater planet" is actually engaging, then that's fine;
but it sounds to me like you are relegating everyone who doesn't
want to pay the extra fines to plodding noncombatant status, whether
they like it or not. Of course, no big dea if the basic fee is low:
if I want to talk to my friends on the planet it is pretty decent to
pay $3-5 and do so freely, but pay something more in the
neighborhood of typical subscription fees to be an active
participant. But if each account costs $40 one-time then this is
totally out of the question - You're dreaming if you think I am
supposed to compare a cost:benefit ratio that continuously drops as
time goes on to one which plods along at $40/mo. I will recognize
right away that you are milking me for all I'm worth. So it depends
a lot on the backwater planet actually being worthwhile generally,
and the amounts of money for dying not being too overwhelming.

I think right to the point of making the backwater planet
worthwhile, we have an issue which is in a way independent of the
backwater planet per se. And that is the perceived difference
between being on the backwater planet vs. being in the action. You
might call it "on-centerness."

Contrast: 

  1. Planet #452 on the Outer Rim is under attack. 

  2. The Offices of the Galactic Empire are under attack. 

Everything might be exactly the same between these two - same
physical experience, same graphics and sound and actions,
everything. But because the first is understood to be an important
place, the Offices of the Galactic Empire, missing out on it is a
big deal! Whereas missing out on planet #452 isn't as big a
deal. (Unless we deliberately try to break the example by assuming
that everyone knows #452 is the most important site of natural
resources in the universe, and that the Offices of the Galactic
Empire are the equivalent of the DMV.)

  1. "You cannot become a citizen of Vault City." (one place of
  many)

  2. "You cannot become a citizen of Vault City." (vault city is the
  only city in the game.) Again, because we've paid we might expect
  to get basic rights of some kinds, like being a citizen of the
  only city, or having opportunity to become a citizen. But that
  we've paid doesn't so strongly lead to the expectation that we can
  become citizens of any city we want, if there are a few of them.

What I would propose is this. That certain parts of the game have
explicitly attached to them the increased risk you propose, rather
than the entire game being focused on the aspect which is most
risky. If you decide to join a secret elite crime society, your
expectations are less violated by losing big than if you followed
the newbie school signs. If you decide to make a Wookiee character,
much stronger but with a greater chance of being harassed out of
prejudice, you are more likely to accept the loss. If you decide to
participate in a war of assassins, you will recognize the
appropriate conclusion of that war when you are poisoned.

On the other hand, if you have to deliberately withdraw into your
shell to avoid major loss, you have only made people who lose
nothing by doing so happy by allowing the backwater-planet option.
As far as the non-chatter is concerned you might as well have made
the loss noncontingent. When I weigh playing the game you describe,
I think the only way I could do it is if I assumed up front that
every character was going to die soon, and if the costs involved
were still low enough given that assumption, and only then, would I
consider playing.

---

In summary, the problem I identify is that it feels like it gives me
no choice as a player, not because I am immature and can't handle
loss, but because it punishes the pursuit of desired activity very
harshly. To the end of making it less I harsh I suggested:

  -- It would help to manage prospect, so that it's not a loss but a
  failure to gain. This isn't a confidence game because people
  really do make the distinction and feel that it matters. Some very
  funny experiments have shown this (although, as with all research,
  YMMV). This applies especially to premium services - I would much
  rather pay extra money for extra cool content than pay extra money
  not to be stuck in the poopy newbie school. The difference is
  partially in whether newbie school sucks, but also to a great
  extent in how it's framed, as a gain or a loss.

  -- I should be able to get adequate entertainment out of the safer
  options. Basically because I could always pick up and go somewhere
  else, and because sucky games are awful, and because I absolutely
  don't want to pay for a game not to suck at all, whether or not
  I'm interested in paying to make it better than adequate.

  -- The cost of losing should not in any case exceed some amount (I
  wouldn't pay more than $20/mo for any game that was less than
  outstanding). This is also ethically important - you should watch
  out trying to make people lay a lot on gambles, they will ruin
  themselves on your game and not blink an eye. Because it is so
  certain that it will happen it really is partly your
  responsibility to mitigate the problem as much as you can without
  sacrificing too much else.

  -- Signs should mark where I am risking the loss very clearly. I
  should not be able to stumble onto the risk; it should be a
  calculated choice of mine.

  -- Even accepting that I see the signs, I should get some help
  with feeling that my actions are free. Just that I know the score
  doesn't mean that it is agreeable. Just because I have a choice
  doesn't mean that I am happy, because the whole choice I am
  offered may be sour.  Actions and parts of the game which are
  "on-center," like being a Galactic Citizen, or engaging in an
  exciting ongoing war over the fate of the universe, should not be
  punished because they stand in the way of the most typical and
  reasonably expected activities. If my expectations here are not
  met, then you could argue that I'm childish, but that doesn't mean
  you did right in the design. On the other hand, parts of the game
  which are "off-center," like burglary, drug dealing, waging
  vendettas on other people, being an explicitly marginalized sort
  of person like a half-orc by choice, playing on planets which are
  specifically understood to be nasty war zones, playing with people
  who are specifically understood to be dangerous and/or seedy,
  playing with devices which are understood to be immensely powerful
  and/or unstable, ETC. With gambling, we know it's gambling; we
  might lose and feel bad, but, after all, we were in the casino.

But who wants to eat at a restaurant where you are allowed to order
sugar packets and water, but if you order chicken and dumplings you
have a 50% chance of being kicked out, having already paid the fee
up front? Even if we have to have the equivalent of a wacky gambling
restaurant, we need to be persnickety about the details to do it.

Sasha

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