[MUD-Dev] Alternative team based approaches to game-play

[Mike Oxford]

Adam Martin wrote:

<snip list of current mmo aspects, such as forced grouping, class
imbalance and inter-class dependencies.>

>> What are the problems with this approach? (well, except the
>> identity issues)

> So...what, *exactly*, is wrong with the status quo from those
> games (which is pretty easy to appropriate) that you're hoping to
> improve upon here?

Perspective:

  D&D -> DIKU mud -> EQ2/WoW/AO/etc

Goals: To become "uber", achieve "l33t phat l00t" and explore the
world.  Design: You kill things.  You gain items and experience.
Rinse, repeat.  Variations: D&D and WoW accentuate the "quest
completion" aspect more than other realms do.  Generally you gain
more xp and more items from farming monster in a per-hour gameplay
session, especially at the higher levels.

Thus, farming mobs is still the #1 way to character advancement.
Most class-defining skills and abilities are tied to your level, as
well as the fact that most decent items are level-based (or cannot
be obtained without significant investment of time into levelling to
gain those items.) You have to farm tradeskill items, or cash to buy
said items.  You also must advance in level to be able to survive in
various world areas.

I submit, then, that farming and levelling is, therefore, the #1 way
to "advance" your character.

D&D was released in 19..73?  Maybe Dave Arneson is lurking around
and can provide an exact time reference. :)

Regardless, it is now 2005 and we're still basing games on the same
model some 30 years after the baseline.  Granted, it's a very good
model but 30 years?  The infusion of fresh blood into the gaming
world every year helps, but just as many people burn out on
RPGs...why?  Because they're all basically the same, with minor
variation?

Now gamers are being pushed into forced grouping.  Class-based
interdependencies?  Why force it?  Sure, you may need a group to
take out the big orc camp but...why is killing things the only real
way to "advance?"  If you remove the combat aspect of a given game,
what remains?  You can't explore without levelling.  You can't raise
tradeskills too high because you need item drops.  You can't make
money because no one has any money since they're not farming and you
have no economy.  Thus, you kill monsters.  To kill monsters...you
need a group and you need those other class-based characters.

Posting that "gaming is alive and well" because GameX has N number
of players is flawed because that is transient.  Gamers have choice
now, unlike the old days of limited access.  Attention spans are
dropping across the board.  EQ was a "freak" because it was the
best, and really the ONLY game in town.  Latter releases don't have
that luxury.  To keep it going, new content is constantly being
released...but it's more of the same underlying concept.

There's room for games like TSO or other virtual-communities, but
they won't (in their current incarnations) reach the epic
proportions of, say, WoW.  People LIKE advancing, not only for the
material aspects but also for the status (or perceived status) it
brings.

Even now, 30 years later, we continue to see games utilizing the
same basic archtypes as D&D, and most of the same concepts.

Sounds like a good time to shake up that status quo instead of
building more "me too" games with a different visual spin.

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