[MUD-Dev] ghost mode

[Daniel.Harman at barclayscapital.com]

From: Tess Lowe [mailto:tess at soulsong.org.uk]
> Dan Harman wrote:

>> Which is why league tables are actually pretty depressing. At
>> least with with levels, there is a cap (even if developers do
>> move it periodically). It gives you a target, you can get to
>> level 50 and say 'I've made it', and you know you'll still be
>> level 50 the next day. League tables are treadmills, you can't
>> ever get off if you want to keep that achievement, and for me the
>> obvious futility is a huge turn off.

> It's curious isn't it, that where achiever goals are concerned, I
> want it to be open ended whereas you want there to be finite
> goalpost (even though apparently people leave once the goal is
> reached); but where content is concerned, I dont need lots of new
> content all the time, whereas apparently most achievers do. It
> seems somehow contradictory.

> You want there to be a level treadmill to rate your achievement,
> but you want it to be finite, but you'll leave when you reach the
> end of it. Not a play style I particularly understand.

Ah, but for a dangling carrot to motivate me, it has to at least be
within reasonable grasp. One of the mistakes I feel AO made was to
start the game with a level cap of 200. That's terribly off putting
to a lot of players as that carrot is so far out, its not even worth
making a move for!

As to saying I'll leave when I achieve level x, that's making an
assumption that isn't correct. Most every MMO has an endgame that
one plays once the leveling is done. Getting to level x is getting
to the endgame. When they then go and increase the level cap or
whatever in an expansion its actually quite nice as it provides an
interlude from the endgame activities.

>>> Fair comment, although I suspect you are writing that from the
>>> point of view of someone who quits when the content runs out.

>> Don't you? I suspect its just our definition of content that
>> differs.

> By content I assumed you meant "new monsters, loot and new
> dungeons" or similar. Not sure if you'd include an increased level
> cap in that category since you dont like the moving goalposts. But
> If that's what you mean by content, then I prefer to keep with the
> content I have. If it gets crowded, instance it and maybe let me
> choose the group i share the instance with. I dont like the
> unknown unless I'm perfectly safe within it from losing all my
> hard (and boring) work. Even then, I'd rather become excellent at
> what I know, rather than start over. It's why I tend to play games
> like Subspace/Continuum which have been around for years and years
> with hardly any change. I'd pay a subscription for that game
> actually, but fortunately it's free.

Well I guess that's all about personal levels of risk adversity
etc. On another front, I've yet to see an implementation of
instancing that doesn't thoroughly undermine player interactions and
make the world seem incredibly barren.

As to the definition of content, for me its far more than 'monsters,
loot & levels'. It's the whole problem space of the game. I get
bored when I've fully explored as much of that as interests me.

>> Ok, so what mechanics would you add to EQ that would motivate you
>> to stay?  These have to be systems that won't undermine the core
>> mechanism of the game or unduly damage other players enjoyment.

> I'm not sure EQ could be changed in a minor way to incorporate my
> style unless you let me simply choose my level and gave me a pool
> of items from which I could choose my equipment - which is
> something that would irritate to hell people who would feel their
> grunt work was devalued - unless perhaps there was some other way
> to rank their effort and skill than simply level, like league
> tables, special avatar appearance or whatever.

> In single-player games I give myself all the cheats and play on
> the easiest level. I'm just not somebody who gets any pleasure
> from succeeding at a difficult task, unless that task depends on
> real player skill, rather than grunt time. Now sit me in front of
> Soul Calibur II and you can bet I'll be making everything as hard
> as I possible can for myself. Get the difference?  Actually,
> someone please make a Massively Multiplayer Soul Calibur II - just
> dont make us level up.

I think we are coming from poles apart here. I fundamentally detest
cheats, for me they totally devalue any achivements I make within a
game. The few times I've tried it, I run through the game at a
ridiculous pace, get to the end and say 'I've done it'. Boy does the
victory feel hollow. Nor do I feel inclined to play it again, but
without the cheat - I've now seen it all and ruined the game for
myself.

I'm also not sure I understand what games you think its ok to cheat
in, and which you wouldn't. How does lowering a difficulty level
alleviate grunt time unless the reason its taking so long is through
a lack of skill?

Either way, your approach to gameplay is going to be hard to support
in a multiplayer game as its utterly incompatible with what appears
to be a popular playstyle.

One question I have though, is whether you really want all these
things in a game, or perhaps is it your reaction to the parchment
thin stretching of content in current games? The entertainment
density is so low, that I could see that leading you to the
conclusions you've come to. Would you feel the same though if
leveling wasn't a boring slog of mouse clicking in a semi-comatose
state?

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