[MUD-Dev] Homogeneity and choice (Was DESIGN: Why do people like weather in MMORPGs?)

[John Buehler]

Mike Rozak writes:
> John Bueler wrote:

>> And the question to ask is whether or not choosing one type of
>> armor and living with the implications of that choice is
>> entertaining to players.  Or does it serve as an impediment to
>> the experience that you're really trying to give to your players:
>> that of getting into combat.  Is getting the equipment matched to
>> the challenge all that entertaining?  Or would you rather use one
>> set of equipment and try to creatively come up with a solution to
>> various problems?

> Unlike most MUDs/MMORPGs, I don't intend to make combat the
> central experience. (Which may be a mistake as far as market
> size.)

> Besides, if players want a 100% combat experience they can
> purchase a fight console game and get infinitely better combat
> than any MUD/MMORPG has to offer. I view a virtual world as a
> collection of sub-games; by themselves the sub-games are inferior
> to their stand-alone counterparts.  When the right set of inferior
> sub-games are combined into a whole, they produce an experience
> more valuable than the sum of the parts... synergy.

Yeah, that's my comment about tapestry versus thread again.  I
disagree that the sum of the whole is all that valuable as a source
of entertainment for the individual.  My current belief is that the
whole is something that designers enjoy far more than the players
do.

> Equipment matching being entertaining - Everything in moderation.
> I've seen players (including myself) spend a fair amount of time
> choosing their kit.

As with any action that the player has an opportunity to engage in,
I'd encourage any designers to examine the simple task of changing
gear to make it as entertaining as possible - if they're going to
retain it as a regular action for a player.

> One set of equipment - If you take this to an extreme and get rid
> of equipment then you have a scenario like COH where all abilities
> are innate. Some people may like it. I'd prefer equipment as well
> as innate abilities.

Everquest, Asheron's Call and Dark Age of Camelot have turned me off
to equipment juggling.  It wasn't an inherently fun thing for me to
do.  If the whole juggling process was in some way entertaining I
might be more inclined to look forward to the juggling.  For now, I
lean towards light equipment use and an emphasis on less-frequent
selection of innate abilities.  It also helps to keep down the eBay
activity :)

>> In realm versus realm there is no denial of service per se.  It
>> is the basic game structure that there are multiple realms, and
>> each character operates within its one, clearly demarked, realm.
>> It is a structure that is self-consistent, and which permits the
>> higher-order entertainment of realm versus realm combat.  Players
>> welcome the limits because of the implications.  So the content
>> denial is entertaining.  I'd guess that a lot of the acceptance
>> of the situation is that the content that can't be accessed also
>> can't be seen by those who can't access it.

> Maybe some of the issue is nomenclature... "denial of content" is
> fine with me.

I don't believe that this is an issue of nomenclature.  My reasoning
follows.

> Personally, I don't find realms to be all that different than a
> snow-blocked pass. The both block off content.

They do.  The blocked pass is a denial of service when the blockage
is not consistent with the entertainment that a player was engaging
in.  If it is a challenge for those engaged in challenge-based
entertainment, it is denial of content, and that denial is part of
the entertainment.  If it is a removal of access to content that
players expect to be available, it is denial of service.

The distinction is why some people consider a dark monitor to
simulate nighttime to be an unentertaining denial of service, while
others consider it to be challenging, entertaining, denial of
content.

> Likewise, which side of the mountains my character is stuck on is
> a choice I make, based on what content is available. You seem to
> think that if a player is stuck, they'll be limited to wandering
> around the village. I'm not thinking about those sorts of
> limitations.  Maybe the snow that closes the passes also freezes a
> rushing river, making it passable, and allows players to get to
> content that they couldn't in the warmer months.

I believe that to be the mindset of a designer, who sees all game
experiences as 'good stuff'.  I don't believe that players think
that way.  Players don't just want to do *something*, they want to
do their specific thing.  They're open to new adventures, changes of
plan, opportunities and such, but only as they choose to alter their
plans, not as the game dictates such alterations to them.

Because I believe that, I believe that temporarily chopping off
content that was available (my phrase for this was 'barrier to
entertainment') is a disservice to the player.  Presenting a
challenge to players who are seeking challenges by chopping off
content is VERY different.  The entertainment there IS the
challenge.  So the chopped content is anticipated and welcome.
Challenges to accessing content is the very nature of PvP, and when
a game has designer-created challenges, it's PvD (player versus
designer, aka PvE).

> The differences between the two are: Visting another realm can be
> done on a whim, but a RvR system will never let a character from
> one realm fully experience the other realm. A snow-blocked pass is
> a temporary barrier that will be unblocked in 2 weeks... A time
> period which may be upsetting to those teenagers and adults with
> short attention spans, but seen as an organizational challenge to
> the patient ones.

I don't believe this to be a case of attention spans, nor of
patience.  I believe this to be a case of giving a customer value
for their money.  If customers are unhappy that the pass is blocked,
then somehow the game's entertainment has flaws in its structure.
By definition.

I believe that it's possible to examine a set of experiences to
determine if they are self-consistent in the type of entertainment
that they provide to customers.  When they are, a certain type of
customer will seek that entertainment out and be consistently
entertained by it.  When the entertainment has universal appeal, all
customers will seek it out.  When it has niche appeal, a subset will
seek it out.

In the case of the mountain pass, it should only be blocked if the
only people who ever use it are those who expect, and are
entertained by, a pass blockage.  So a pass between two high
altitude camps full of players who are seeking the challenge of
operating in the mountains, perhaps to mine ores, makes sense.
Occasional blockages are part and parcel of the entertainment
experience.

But when artists, craftsmen, politicians and such are all using that
same pass, its blockage only interferes with the entertainment that
they seek.  If miners need a challenge for a shared bit of content
like the mountain pass, have something else happen, such as the
ground turning muddy.  That prevents the heavily laden carts of the
miners from passing, but the more lightly laden vehicles, horses and
foot traffic to pass.  This is why weather needs to be applied
judiciously, to vary and not to impede the player's entertainment.

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