[MUD-Dev] Community?

[Sean Howard]

"Erik Bethke" <erikbethke at gmail.com> wrote:

> Before argueing more and more about whether or not community
> breaks down at 250 or 10,000 or even what we mean by community (in
> order to better define this point) - we should get back to what
> the question is in the first place.

It is possible that in order to answer that question, whatever it
was, it is required to make certain definitions. Before you can talk
about how community affects your design decisions, you must decide
what you mean by "community"... and possibly "design decisions".

> Perhaps it would be better if we thought less rigidly between the
> choices of instance vs. seemless and thought more about actual
> gameplay.

Just like instancing affects community, it affects gameplay as
well. Not for better or for worse, but it is a factor that needs to
be considered.

For instance, I am a HUGE fan of procedurally created content (aka
random dungeons, though I see more potential). The point of PCC is
to create new content on demand. Instancing is probably the best way
to ensure that demand and provide the context for that content to be
continually regenerated.

> I for one am tired of the level grind.

No arguments there.... from anybody. Nobody likes the grind, but it
is a convenient and overly effect gameplay pattern that works, even
when it is poorly implemented. Unfortunately, that's more common
than not.

I'm only tired of the grind in that it is the SAME grind, game after
game after game. Playing something like Disgaea, which has a unique
grind (but still a grind), is a wonderful experience. Let's leave
our AD&D roots behind and forge a new path towards a new grind to
get tired of!

> We need new work in world building tools.  Algorithmic stuff mixed
> in with hand placed stuff.  Something like editors for each level
> of scale from 1000 km to 10 km to 1 km to 100 meters to meters to
> inside of buildings.  Different, integrated tools for each of
> these levels with smart, fuzzy editiors that know something about
> erosion and fractals and such.

I've mentioned that I'm a fan of PCC. However, I should add that to
make a good PCC generator means to understand gameplay itself. It
isn't just breaking something down into the basic parts, but
understanding how those parts work together and how to build
something like that.

Using something like erosion will create effective looking
landscapes, but it won't produce something effectively playable. PCC
is fairly easy to get something out of, but difficult to do if you
want depth and/or variety.

> And we need a heck of a lot better AI.

That depends on what you mean by "better". If you mean smarter, I
don't agree. If you mean appropriately used, I'll sign my name to
that.

> All we have is dumb bunnies to whack.

The thing is, I doubt you are tired of whacking bunnies. I'll bet
good money that I can make something involving the wackying of
bunnies - even the dumb kind - that you would fall off your rocker
with pure glee. We need to move past what appears to be the problem
and focus on what really is the problem. The problem isn't that they
are bunnies, and you are wacking them, but that you've already
wacked a thousand similar bunnies in a thousand similar games.

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