MMO Communities (was RE: [MUD-Dev] MMORPG Cancellations:Theskyisfalling?)

[Byron Ellacott]

HRose wrote:
> Douglas Goodall wrote:

> From my point of view this is a problem about the PvE. A PvE game
> isn't a real MMOG, it's more near to a form of cooperative play,
> when you include massive aspects you finish to "complicate" the
> situation and produce side effects like griefing and competition
> for content. It's an inner problem. A PvE-only game works better
> if instanced, that's why examples like CoH are successful, because
> they aren't really using the potential of a MMOG. They are
> cooperative arcades in a semi-static environment (the static
> aspect is just related to your character).

Oh?  What is it about cooperative play that defeats the concept of
an MMOG?  Is Quake not an FPS if you play through cooperatively
instead of deathmatch, or Warcraft III still an RTS if several
players play against computer opponents?  The experience is
different to PvP, but I don't think it is diminished by that
difference.

My queries about instancing were answered pretty thoroughly by Raph
Koster and Brad McQuaid earlier this month: it is counter to social
interaction, and largely incompatible with world altering
consequences. Cooperative play requires social interaction as much
as competetive play.

> The side effects and the problems happen because designers try to
> denaturalize the PvE game. A PvE game works better when instanced,
> and this simply because of its characteristics.

Griefing exists whenever there is a way for one player to cause a
detrimental effect to another player.  Training, kill stealing,
ninja looting and offensive language don't rely on player combat,
but corpse camping, ganking and player looting do require player
combat.  Griefing is not specific to either PvE or PvP play.  It's
also not specific to non-instanced play: there are griefers in
Diablo II, Counter-Strike and Warcraft III, and those are all very
strongly instanced.

Competition occurs as a result of the supply and demand ratio of
content being heavily tipped to the demand end.  Adding one piece of
content at a time essentially ensures that a significant number of
players will want to consume that content in the near future.
Compare this to competition for content at the low end of the game,
where there are generally enough different types of content offering
similar experiences to go around and fill demand.

You can use instancing to solve the problem of singly added content
that concentrates high end players, but at the cost of the negatives
that instancing brings.  Or you can introduce new content that
doesn't concentrate players attempting to consume that content to
one place (think: there's a new cult arising, priests of this cult
can be found in or near most major cities, versus: there's a new
cult arising, which can be found in the northern mountains).  Or,
you can just accept that new content will be hotly contested when
launched, but will settle down over time (or when the next new piece
of content is added).

Saying that the PvE playstyle is at fault really is throwing out the
baby with the bathwater.  Limiting yourself to PvP only means you
limit yourself to those who can compete in a PvP world, which is
exclusively the people with eight hours a day to tweak, tune, and
practice.

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