[MUD-Dev] On balance and reality

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

"William Leader" <leader at k2wrpg.org> writes:

> I began to feel as you that the faucet-sink paradigm must be wrong
> and that there had to be a better way. I set forth looking into
> the

...

> My take on the whole thing is that we can have better balanced and
> realistic feeling worlds. We just don't need to track every fish
> to have varying cod populations, nor do we need build a reserve
> system to control inflation. The only reason we can do this is in
> virtual worlds we are allowed to have black holes and miracles. We
> don't need to explaine where things come from or where they go
> to. If in the real world the answer to inflation was to just pay
> people less that would blow up faster than you can say revolution,
> but in the game I don't need to explaine why monsters suddenly
> start carrying less cash. I've been running with that idea so far
> and it hasn't failed me yet. I don't need to explain why things
> happen so long as when they do happen they appear plausible.

I think it is wonderful that at least some on the list try to use
simulations and even question faucet-sink. I am not so sure that
designers of a MMO would get away with letting monsters suddenly
drop loot. Fortunately, it is possible to device mechanisms for
dampening oscillations and sudden changes. Of course, there is
nothing wrong with having a faucet and a sink, and your design seems
to use those too, but it is a matter of its place in the overall
system.

  Metaphor: do you let your players have fun with the water, splash
  it around and create floods and what not, or do you simple let
  them sit and watch the water pour out of the tap and down the
  drain...?

DESIGN PATTERN: INFLATION BASED DESIGN BY EXPANSION

I don't really see any problems with a inflation based design per
se. In many ways it is desirable as it solves the long term
consequences of hoarding and content starvation without taking
anything away from the players by force. If you have the resources
to develop enough new "more valuable" content it can also shorten
the gap between the old players and the newer ones, simply by
gradually deprecating the old world. I am not sure if designers
follow this strategy consciously though. Of course, they think that
they need to add new content, but do they think about the various
effects that has on the play experience?

Basically, inflation based design is just another treadmill, but it
can be a slightly less visible treadmill than the core RPG game
play. Which is well, at least better, if not perfect...

Advantages of offsetting inflasion by expansion:

  - you can keep the game fresh and competitive

  - you get to take things away without really doing it

  - you might be able to get a less visible treadmill

Disadvantages:

  - the game expands too much and becomes desert like

  - you risk having a big gap between oldbies and newbies

  - development costs of new content

  - you get lots of useless items, making the world confusing for
  newbies

  - revisiting players from other games may feel like newbies and
  choose not to come back

Some of these disadvantages can be addressed by recycling and
deprecation.

  Problem:

    When adding content it is easy to focus on just high level
    content. This is a mistake for the following reasons: casual
    players feel left out and it also increases the gap between
    harcore and casual, oldbies and newbies.

  Solution:

    RESCALING of the ladder. Some games do this by extending the
    number of levels and increasing XP gain at lower
    levels. Basically, as real time progress the lower level players
    get their efficiency improved. This we might call
    level-inflation. Synergy: adding low level content increases
    replayability. Design tip: launch with 50 levels, plan for 150.

Expansions are easier to do than changes, both technologically and
socially.  But, too much expansion leads to a less socializable
desert, too many trash items and lower usability for newbies.

  Suggestion:

    DEPRECATE content. Maintain 2-3 sets of content at all levels,
    of which one set is meant to be less attractive. When the
    popularity of this set is low, remove it.

Developement cost is an obvious problem. There are no obvious
solutions, but some possibilities exist.

  Suggestion:

    Plan and design for RECYCLING and REFURBISHMENT.

  Recycling:

    High level content that has been deprecated can be introduced as
    mid-level content, thus retaining those players who never will
    make it to the highest levels. Removed monsters can be
    refurbished and tweaked and play a secondary role in new
    content.

The problem of making revisiting players feel powerful is more
problematic.

  Suggestion:

    let players gain some XP/money even when not playing.

--
Ola - http://folk.uio.no/olag/
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev