[MUD-Dev2] [REPOST] Value

[Sean Howard]

"William Leader" <leader at k2wrpg.org> wrote:

> The basic concept is simple, adjust the difficulty to a players skill.
> This is perfectly fine for Single player games. Even in some multilayer
> games with a relatively small number of players (Say 8 or less) its even
> easy to set handicaps to compensate for player skill to allow a group to
> enjoy the game despite various skill levels. But How do you do this with
> a massively multi player game?

You just answered your own question. How many MMORPGs have instance
dungeons that could benefit from dynamic content tailored to the party
members?

> If you take your average MMORPG and take one of your shards and somehow
> make it easier, whats to stop skilled players from playing on it.

Don't underestimate the ego of the "skilled" players. I think there is
mertit to this approach. I mean, if you have a solo-only server and some
guy complains that nobody wants to group with him... well, he looks like
at idiot.

I'm COMPLETELY in favor of allowing different playstyles to have different
servers. Why should PvP and RP be the only distinctions? It's because
nobody else likes PvPers, and RPers can't function when they are the only
ones doing it. Can't the same thing be said for soloers vs groupers, or
once a week players vs 80 hours a week players?

The first MMORPG that has a solo-only server will have my money.

> Or what if you suck at a game, but your buddy is really good, Then your
> choice is for one of you to play out of your skill bracket, or play
> separately.

That's really a choice up to the individual. The "sucky" player could play
on a hardcore server successfully under the wings of his "skilled" friends
- you know, I'm having issues with the terminology you are using, or the
"skilled" player can slum it to hang out with his friends. Most likely, if
you've got a hardcore gamer trying to play with a casual gamer (ie husband
and wife) neither of them are going to be satisfied playing together 100%
of the time, and I'd wager that the "skilled" gamer has an alt
specifically for playing with his less hardcore friends.

> On the other hand lets compare to other non-video game multi-player
> activities. If a group of friends is playing poker, and one player sucks
> either they won't play for money and just play for fun, or the player
> that sucks will stop playing.

You really seem to think this is a conversation about "skilled" vs
"sucky", don't you? Let me guess... You consider yourself a "skilled"
gamer? This is a discussion about preference, not skill. I'm rather
skilled myself, but I play solo-only and due to family obligations, I do
not have more than a few hours a week to play. You could call me "casual",
but that's not entirely true either.

I don't think this discussion will get very far as long as we try to
pidgeon hole players into "sucky", "skilled", "casual", or "hardcore".
It's about preference, and even skilled players have different
preferences. To take you analogy, it's like a group of friends sitting
down to play poker, and half of them prefer to play Monopoly.

> I'm not trying to flame here but what I find particularly disturbing is
> the sense of entitlement I felt in Brian's message.

OMG! I hope you see the hypocrisy in your statement! Please tell me that
you understand that you see entitlement in his post only because it
conflicts with your own entitlement for "skilled" players?

> However with an MMORPG, you pay to be entertained by the
> game, but you didn't pay so that you could experience all of it, rather
> you paid to participate in it.

That's one viewpoint. I don't think it is the only one.

> Consider a sports tournament, You pay
> registration fees, and  teams get eliminated. Now Two teams end up
> playing more games than other teams, one of them being declared winner.

There's that skilled versus sucky attitude again. You see to think that an
online community is all about competition. That's not true. You don't have
to have a #1. In fact, in the past, I've proposed a MUD that would
probably piss you off. It was based on the concept of communism, that no
one player or one preference was over represented. You couldn't even keep
your social connections because I thought that grouping and guilds
cliquified a game, which grossly balanced the game in favor of groupers
and hardcore gamers. You don't even get a name so that you couldn't even
tell if your friends were on or not. I got a really good response to this
proposal, even from those who would consider themselves part of the
hardcore elite.

So, no, I don't think your belief system on what a MMORPG should be is at
all valid. You've been spending a lot of time telling us that "skilled"
gamers DESERVE it. I disagree. You aren't just excluding the "sucky"
players. You're excluding every viewpoint but a very small minority, which
you believe to be superior. I think they call that "elitist".

> I guess I would sum up my point by saying that the expectations for
> MMORPG's needs to change.

Someone's expectations certainly do....

> It can't be the same as single player games.

You are right about that, but not for the reasons you think. You are
approaching the subject from absolutely the worst possible perspective. A
MMORPG isn't just a game, but also a community of people - a group of
different people with different tastes, talents, and abilities. You want
an online counter-strike, where only one taste, talent, and abilities is
required and rewarded.

> The second expectation that must change is that not
> everyone can 'win'

I don't think the people complaining are trying to "win". I think they
just want to be treated with the same emphasis and respect as the
"skilled" gamers. I don't consider this to be an absurd request at all,
and the fact that you do bothers me considerably.

-- 
Sean Howard