[MUD-Dev] Morphable worlds, Reset based systems revisited

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

"Brian Hook" <brianhook at pyrogon.com> writes:

> be the most interesting, IF the game is centered around either
> exploration or achievement.  It is not necessarily the most
> interesting if it's centered around socializing, politics,
> diplomacy, and other player-player interaction.

I don't know. It is easier for newbies to get into the system if
everybody else are "newbies". Planetarion is based on politics and
diplomacy and is reset based. Politics without interference tends to
lead to "monopolies" of some sort. For instance, one of the German
Meridian59 servers were (according to one player) wiped clean by a
strong PK alliance.

> Everyone being "at your own level" does provide more opportunities
> for socializing, but at the same time it's a pretty strong
> indicator that you're already on a level treadmill somewhere.

Hmm... not convinced! :)

> This is only true if you're an achiever ("no level playfield") or
> explorer/achiever ("everything has been discovered by somebody
> else").  While this surely encompasses a large group of players,
> it's important to note that this isn't an absolute.

Yes, it is true that this applies most to achievment and
exploration, but then I think most, and perhaps all, players want to
do that!

> They do, it's called "nerfing", and it pisses people off =)

Yes, it pisses people of if they don't get any new benefit as well
though. Or if other classes get benefits. What doesn't piss people
off? ;)

> Adding content is fine, changing existing content isn't, it
> alienates too many players that have gotten into a groove and that
> have achieved a level of familiarity and comfort with the way the
> system works.

Yes, but adding content doesn't make the world more attractive to
newbies. It is counter productive in that respect.

> It's frustrating and annoying to spend a lot of time figuring
> something out, only to have it change on you capriciously.

On the other hand, people buy new games all the time and I doubt
they go back to their old games too often. Clearly, you don't want
to change something that users expects to be stable. Besides, I am
not talking about changing.

> The bigger problem is "how do you generate a constant stream of
> content"?  I think the answer to this is pretty clear -- make the
> players become the content.  If content is described in terms of

No it wasn't. The problem I tried to address was maintaining an
interesting and overall improving design with minimal costs.

Most players are dull and boring out-of-context (unless you think
you are going to have sex with them). Maybe I will find 2-3
interesting people, but why would we stay in the same old dump and
not move to more interesting places?

> When people get into a vibe where they're no longer trying to
> "consume the environment" but must instead think in terms of
> social alliances, then there's much less need to provide new
> rocks, new monsters, new armor, etc. because the players can
> remain interested even if it's a static world.

Solving a quest cooperatively with another player is a cathalyst for
social bonding! Conquering the world with your fellow players is
rewarding. Basically, feeling progress and mastery through
cooperation is a very rewarding activity.

> The extreme of this is something like Counter Strike, where the
> world never, ever changes, there is no sense of discovery, and
> it's a completely level playing field.  It's still popular as hell
> today, because the challenge doesn't come from jumping across lava
> or a battle of patience against a rare spawn.  The challenge is
> derived from other players.  We're seeing this with Battlefield
> 1942 as well.

Maybe, but is it a world, or is it sports? I don't play CS and would
never dream of doing so either. You are changing the basic theme
now. If I wanted sports I'd rather play paintball or something in
the physical world. I want a world which supports creativity,
intellectual activity and progress, not sports and agility.

> itself, and where other players provide a significant amount of
> the game interaction, you'll find that things don't grow as
> boring, stagnant and predictable as you would expect.

*shrug* I play games as art. If there is not a world or roleplay, I
will loose interest real fast. I'd have more fun playing devil's
advocate on a mailinglist!

> Unfortunately I don't think a game design like this is tenable for
> large commercial ventures -- it's McDonalds vs. Ruth's Chris Steak
> House.  But for niche genres, it's definitely one way to avoid the
> constant need to provide new stuff for players to acquire and
> become.

Which game design, yours or mine?

--
Ola - http://folk.uio.no/olag/

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