[MUD-Dev] RE: MMO Communities

[Eric Random]

--- "Koster, Raph" <rkoster at soe.sony.com> wrote:

> We may not like it, but all empirical evidence at the moment seems
> to show that requiring cooperative team play for success causes
> greater retention.

I think one important distinction is that increased retention does
not necessarily mean increased enjoyment.

This distinction is one of commercial viability and is a major point
of bifurcation in virtual environment design along non-commercial,
or hobbyist, and commercial lines. I think this is one reason why
commercial MMOG's seem to evolve in one direction, and traditional
hobbyist MUDs becoming commercially viable in another as was pointed
out earlier.

It is important to note, though, that I'm not labelling commercial
MMOG designers as obsessed with bleeding the player of their
hard-earned dollar. This is not the case. This is ultimately a
business. A business is selling a service; it needs to _make_ (as
opposed to lose) money, and the player wants to be
entertained. Sometimes these goals can be in conflict, but they are
clearly not mutually exclusive. Commercial MMOG's are not exploring
the set of entertaining environments, they are exploring the set of
commercially viable entertaining environments.


Also, I am by no means relating that cooperative teamplay, or even
requiring it for success, is somehow less enjoyable than some other
option. I am simply stating that customer retention is a goal in and
of itself for a business entity and sometimes this may not be in the
best interest of the customer.

That being said, there is a difference between requiring cooperation
and providing a cooperative advantage. Certainly, it can be argued
that the majority of the user base may find cooperative teamplay
more enjoyable than solo play in a shared environment. I would argue
that not providing cooperative teamplay with an advantage in some
way is much like facilitating solo play, as cooperative teamplay has
clear organizational costs that solo play does not. If cooperative
teamplay has no clear advantages over solo play, many players, even
though initially looking for cooperative teamplay, may opt into solo
play simply to avoid paying the organizational costs since it
provides no benefit other than residual enjoyment. The player is
actually making the choice between leveling fast while soloing or
leveling slow while grouping. The player who finds cooperative
teamplay exciting may be forced to do both, just to keep
competitive. This results in a clear conflict. This scenario becomes
mutually exclusive. Either teamplayers are in conflict being forced
to solo for faster level advancement, or solo players are in
conflict being forced to group for faster level advancement. Which
group constitutes the largest base? Clearly, if a game has most
players coming to a shared environment for cooperative teamplay, I
would, therefore, provide the advantage to cooperative
teamplay. This could also have the residual effect of increasing
retention, as a conflict within the larger playerbase has been
resolved. It could also perhaps be the case such that because
retention is increased due to providing an advantage to grouping is
indicative of a particular characteristic of the _general_
playerbase which is that they want to play a game in which other
players will group with them.  This would seem reasonable, but, I
should say, entirely explorative, rather than explanative.

Concerning the aspect of requiring cooperation, rather than
providing a cooperative advantage, such as in crafting, this could
be related, albeit weak, to aspects of a USP, such as a
player-driven economy.  Requiring crafters to obtain specific
materials only from other crafters initiates a type of mandatory
economy which bootstraps the USP. Certainly, in a crafter economy,
crafters may obtain raw materials either by purchasing from NPC's or
harvesting it themselves, and then sell their final product to the
consumers. With inter-crafting dependencies, an intra-crafting
marketplace must emerge before a consumer marketplace emerges for
final products. The intra-crafting marketplace is mandatory, as the
consumer marketplace is more emergent, ensuring a player-driven
economy. Though, I think, perhaps, a previous posters argument on
this topic was one of fictional continuity rather than concerning
actual dynamics (eg. droid engineers unable to make power sources
for droids and must interact with artisans for such products).

Just some thoughts on the matter...

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