[MUD-Dev2] [REPOST] Value

[Sean Howard]

"John MacQueen" <jmacqueen at playnet.com> wrote:
> Traditionally content has been gated by level in one way or another,
> providing both a sense of achievement at reaching that level and
> setting a rate at which content can be consumed or a limit on how
> fast it can be consumed by players.

I don't know that I would say traditionally. Some subgenres of RPGs are
like that, but I can think of probably a hundred different ways of
metering out content. For instance, though Guild Wars has levels, it is
largely through linear mission progression that you move forward. Nearly
all MMORPGs that I can think of have actual separate newbie "islands" that
you graduate from based on criteria other than level. SWG originally
allowed players to step off the newbie station into almost anywhere in the
galaxy (though now the planets have level ranges). Anarchy Online
originally consisted primarily of dynamically generated dungeons built to
your level.

I would say that the level system has primarily been a technique of
metering out player abilities. Ryzom, for example, gives you skill points
as you go up levels to purchase stanza to build skills. However, only in
the most strict Diku-derivatives have levels been used to actually mete
content and restrict access to content - but levels aren't the only way
this is done. Instance dungeons require groups, soloers need not apply.
Crafting while in a crafting guild is usually a thousand times easier than
relying on strangers for arbitrary components. These games actively punish
the player who doesn't play like they are told while giving them the
freedom to do it any way they want, and I think that's pretty rare in
gamedom, single or multiplayer.

> There have been tendencies though to tune the difficulty level to the
> power gamer who excells in the game and spends the most time playing
> and has the most friends to help, basically setting the rate at which
> content can be consumed (seen and experienced) via difficulty to that
> of the fastest and hungriest power consumer. We've seen it in games
> requiring power guilds and such just to survive large portions of the
> content in games.

I think World of Warcraft and that sharp divide between levels 1-60 and
end game is a perfect example of this. It's like Blizzard just creates
content to make the power gamers happy, and they do this by feeding their
ego - making them better than non-power gamers. Apparently, power gamers
are really insecure folks who constantly need to be reminded of their own
perceived superiority.

> Some believe a game should be able to be played solo, others believe
> that an MMOG you can play through solo might as well be an offline
> game. I believe there's a balance, and games like WOW are trying to
> find it.

I disagree. You can't ignore the needs of any time of gamer. Some are
beyond compromise, but that doesn't make them wrong. You build to the
lowest common denominator. If you have a group and a soloer, you build for
the soloer since then both parties can enjoy the content. But if you
target only the group, then the soloer is SOL. There are a thousand ways
to make group an ALTERNATIVE to soloing rather than a replacement, but
most Diku-derivatives think that the solution is to make soloing too hard
and grouping too easy.

And WoW has completely screwed the pooch in the balance department, and if
you look at how each and every server has more level 60s than all the
other levels COMBINED, you see where the balance truly is.

> Then again I also believe that some time in the not too distant future
> someone will come up with tools good enough that episodic content can
> be added at will and the games become more of a weekly fantasy TV series
> players get to be involved in and interact with. The systems are just
> too primitive for that type of thing today.

I completely agree, which is why I will continue to throw my hat into the
procedural content generation ring. The only way that any team will be
able to create decent content at that kind of speed is if they are aided
by a computer doing most of the grunt work for them.

> MMOG's are designed for long term play though, as in months or years to
> see all the content.  They are definately not going to ever be designed
> with the player seeing and doing all the content in their free month
> period as a goal. Not ever gonna happen.

I disagree. I think that statement comes from the idea that we need to
generate constant subscription numbers. But MMORPGs are moving away from
this model, and especially MUDs which are almost all free in the first
place. Guild Wars is one example, and SOE has some free game in the works
which players pay for credits or something. Then the solution isn't to
create content for six months, but to create reasons for the players to
return and keep caring - not even every month, but possibly every six
months like with Guild Wars.

It all depends on the money making schemes. If you want people to pay a
lot of money in smaller intervals, go the Guild Wars approach where you
sell large chunks of content every six months. If you want medium amounts,
go subscription with frequent live updates every three months. If you want
very frequent micropayments, give them a reason to come back every day. We
are by no means limited to the subscription model, and I think that some
very successful MMORPGs will initially have about one month's worth of
content for the power gamer.

-- 
Sean Howard