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

[Ted L. Chen]

> Ola Fosheim Grxstad
> "Ted L. Chen" <tedlchen at yahoo.com> writes:

>> Actually, no one buys DOOM twice.  If I rearranged the levels in

> They bought all the Quakes. Same game, new engine.

They may look similar, but Quake 1, Quake 2, and Quake 3 aren't just
rearrangments of code lines or level blocks.  Heck, if it were that
simple, wouldn't you think they'd come out at a quicker pace?
You've been arguing taking a MOG, tweak and rearrange, then relaunch
- a far cry from any games you mention.

The closest thing there, would be "Gold Editions" or bundle packs.
Those sell, but rarely to the same person.

>> Nerfing isn't only about thinking you're getting less than other
>> people.  Instances where across-the-board nerfing occurs
>> (cf. Anarchy Online's overequipping changes) still meets with
>> resistance just because it's change.

> Well, some disliked it because they enjoy beating the
> system. I.e. getting-more-than-you-should-achievers, feeling
> uber. The implantsystem nurtures achievers.

Hence, a change in how they would play the game.

> Others disliked it because the designers had increased the
> difficulty of monsters, effectively making overequipping necessary
> to progress at a reasonable rate etc etc etc.

Hence, a change in how they would play the game.

> They feared for their own ability to progress.

Which is one reason why people don't like change.

> You enjoyed the IP reset, didn't you?

Personally yes.  It was one of the few things that decreased the
"cost" of the overequipping change (ie. it decreased the fear that I
wouldn't be able to progress because of my IP allocations).  As a
member of 'people', I might accept change, but that doesn't mean I
like it.

> Obviously players also complained when AO did not change at a rate
> they were happy with.

I didn't say players were fully rational beings.  Quite the
contrary.  ;)

>> And I know you mean relaunches.  But in order to do so, you
>> propose to reset everything so that effectively it is a nerf (and
>> a might big one at that) to those players that already exist in
>> the game.

> No, it isn't. It is a new world. It is like playing up a different
> class. Players do that! Anyway, I am interested in discussing the
> concept of reconfigured relaunches.

And a nerf does not reconfigure the game mechanics?  Would it be so
far-fetched to believe that current MOG players would conversely
view a change in game-mechanics as a nerf?

Wouldn't the removal or change of my favoriate hunting spot change
the way I play?  Some consider that a nerf.

>> You gave the mechanism for "improving the world" as you saw it as
>> rearranging the entire world, gameplay rules included.  I don't
>> agree that's improving the world as it add no value.  It's just a
>> reset with tweaks.  Much like I never felt I got any new content
>> when Tradewars reset - even if it was a new world.

> SimCity would probably be a better example. At some point the
> world is a big mess or too predictable and stable. You would like
> to reset the world with some new tiles, some new welldesigned
> scenarios and some new interesting dynamics.

New tiles in SimCity are a cosmetic change and neither helps nor
hinders the world from becomming too big of a mess or too
predictable.  New scenarios...  well, if you're creating "new"
content, then that's not really merely rearranging is it.  You've
lost one advantage of morphable worlds there.

And you need to clarify new dynamics - I'd hardly call changing the
coefficients in the commercial/residential formulas in SimCity an
'improving' factor, let alone new content.

>> a simple thing like a new bread type in Everquest is new content
>> if I'm a baker.

> Which is rather sad...

And it's rather sad that you think it's rather sad (if you truely
wanted to create a world, and not a game).

>> If my utility centers around my possessions (as it does in most
>> current MOGs) then anything that causes me to lose all that,
>> excluding my my own actions, is definately not content.

> So, socializing is not what prevents you from jumping to a new
> game then.

First, you're wrongly assuming that either one makes or breaks my
will to stay in the game.  Chances are that for most people, if you
had to rely on only one or the other, no one would stay.

There's also the assumption that a relaunching world would increase
my sociability to a level that justifies all of this.  Others have
brought up that point and argued against it.  Even if you manage to
convince me that it does (which you haven't), it still doesn't
address the fact that you just made me soley reliant on
socialization.  In which case, there is no "level playfield"
required since there is no real achievement.  Which begs the
question, why bother?

Why not play a MUSH?  ;)

TLC


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