[MUD-Dev] Attractive Grouping (Was: Focus vs. Scope)

[John Buehler]

Cruise writes:
> P J wrote:

>> Back in beta, I heard WoW called - the best single-player game
>> I've ever played with other people.  That pretty much sums it up
>> in a nutshell. While there are things you need other people for -
>> and I totally disagree that you have to FORCE grouping - it
>> addresses the fact that there is little beyond game mechanic
>> goals to retain users. You CAN 'win' WoW - or at least it feels
>> that way.  Great as a game - IMHO longterm death for a MMO.

> Interestingly, this is similar to the complaints many have about
> CoH - the lack of socialisation.

> It seems likely that this is a result of the streamlining...you're
> too busy playing to worry about other people. I guess the question
> then becomes: "Can we have focused MMORPGs that are also social?"

> A better way of phrasing it might be: "Is it possible to make
> socialising and grouping as much fun and /rewarding/ as just
> playing the game as if it were a single-player game?"

> So what of problems need to be overcome?

>   - Time to group
>   - Lumped with bad team-mates
>   - Communication is awkward or too fiddly

> And no doubt there's more...

> Again, can we blame the grind? Is anything that doesn't contribute
> to that next level going to be ignored? Is it possible to have
> socialising aid the levelling process in other ways from just
> getting more XP in teams?

If the primary entertainment of a game is personal advancement, then
players will be encouraged to focus on themselves.  If the primary
entertainment of a game is group advancement, then players will be
encouraged to focus on the group.

This doesn't mean 'form a group of six and split the experience
gained'.  It means that games should take a page from Paul Schwanz's
book of design ideas and look to the gains of the broader community.
As I recall, Paul tends to use PvP examples.  My preference is
always with PvE.  Technically, Players Versus Gamemasters, as was
the case in the days of D&D.

For example, my idea for sating the desires of the combat-hungry is
to have a kind of Front Lines Area where the NPC baddies are.  There
is literally a front line, as with WWI or WWII combat.  Through the
actions of player characters, that line can be pushed back and
forth.  The pushing back exposes new ground (to vary the combat),
new resources (to vary the trade and exploration experiences) and
perhaps new opponents.  On day one of the game, the Vandals are at
the gates of Rome.  On day one thousand of the game, the Vandals
have long been defeated, and many other enemies (probably all
members kingdoms of some vast evil empire), and the lands claimed
have been settled by the other players.

The point of doing this is to ensure that no grouping is necessary,
that the combat-interested have a place to gather, that there is
always a ready stream of opponents (directed at the macro level by
company employees for maximum challenge), and that progress is
measured for the group, not for individuals.  Capturing the Third
Orc Tower is a moment in game history.  Perhaps to be lost again,
but the gaining of the tower is a landmark moment.

Dark Age of Camelot presented a primitive form of this with the
contested frontier areas, where warring realms could do combat en
masse.  The problem with such an approach is that player
entertainment is predicated entirely on the actions of other
players.  And the result tends to be mob rushes of
frequently-dissimilar sized groups.  The larger group crushes the
weaker.  Same ground, same tactics, ultimately boring except as a
vehicle for personal advancement.

The gamemasters would play the part of the opposing realm, picking
tactics as well as force size in order to keep the combat
entertaining.  As ground is gained by the players, the new terrain
will demand new tactics by both sides, avoiding the stagnancy of
experience that evolves when the exact same terrain is involved.
New monster types can also be brought in to permute the experience.

Such a game cannot have character levels that significantly affect
character effectiveness.  Levels inherently oppose a group identity.
Recognition of standing in a group is perfectly reasonable, but
distinct power levels immediately results in partitioning of game
content, meaning partitioning of social groups according to
character effectiveness.  It's the classic case of 'keep up or drop
out'.

I believe that large scale group goals permit a more fluid social
model.  In the combat system, I can fight with whoever is present at
the front lines.  I know where the front lines are, and I know how
to fight.  I can join in on any fight that is going on.  The
gamemasters will ensure that the fights remain challenging.  The
more impressed they are with the actions of the players, the more
they are willing to have their forces fall back.  If the players are
acting ineptly, the gamemasters may push forward.

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