[MUD-Dev2] Meaningful Conseqences

[John Buehler]

Christopher Lloyd writes:

> > 4. As exploits are discovered, they can be transparently patched in the
> > newest content.  Players are already obligated to be on
> > their toes, so having exploits patched isn't going to ruin anyone's
> > experience grind.
> 
> I would think that patching exploits and bugs would be standard for most
> MMORPGs? As longer as it doesn't affect the client program (if you even use
> one), what's the point in not patching the code directly?

With repeated content, a patch produces a change in behavior, a change in contract.  Players get upset when loopholes are closed
because of the problem of unintended consequences; players who aren't using exploits can be impacted when those exploits are
blocked.

With a stream of content, a patch primarily affects new content.  Players are already being exposed to new content, so an exploit
being taken away is just another alteration in the content.

There will still be systems that should remain unchanged for the lifetime of the game that, when patched, players will see a change
in contract with the game.  That remains an unfortunate attribute of game operation.

The transitions can be masked to a degree.  For example, if the speed of arrows gets reduced, it can be explained by the use of
newer, inferior arrows.  The feathers are larger, the shafts coarser, whatever.  Trying to do that with repeated content is more
jarring.  Why did that change, when nothing else about the world has?  Did the trees suddenly start growing crooked?  In a stream of
content, the answer is "Yes, the trees here don't grow as straight".

> Bad point of the nomadic model include:
> 
> 1. Players need a "base". They also definitely like houses and guild
> headquarters. They want places to store their stuff, meet with other players
> to chat, practice fighting, have cybersex, etc. The nomadic model might have
> difficulties maintaining a community.

Think like a nomad.  The players will still have an encampment that travels with them.  It would be periodically packed up and
relocated as the nomadic player population moves forward.  The players still have an area of operation.  The difference is that that
area moves forward on a regular basis.  There is stability for a couple weeks, then a period of instability as the population moves
on, then stability again.

> 2. Good memories are likely to stick around longer. I.e. "Remember last year
> when we passed that dragon lair and all went and killed it? That was
> awesome... and we got great loot too!" New players are likely to feel
> isolated or even somehow cheated that they can't go back and explore that
> area, have similar experiences to those that the others had and get the loot
> they did. Of course, there's bigger and meaner monsters with even better
> loot down the road, but players have a habit of wanting things NOW, dammit!

If the point is that players will be yearning for past experiences, I don't agree.  I think the fact that experiences are always new
means that new players will be able to fit right in and start enjoying the experiences that everyone is facing together.  It
strengthens community and makes memories of past experiences that much more valuable because they are unique.

> 3. It could be hard to explain to players what their goal is. I can see this
> environment definitely appealing to roleplayers, but not to the more
> achievement-driven participants. There's no maximum level to achieve, no
> uber-boss to defeat, no ultimate artifact to loot and there isn't even a
> mountaintop that only advanced players can get to for the sake of getting
> there (at least, not a consistent one).

I think that the goals will be obvious.  Some number of global "quests" or "tasks" will be active at all times, directing players to
do certain things in the game world.  The structure and flow of those tasks will be determined by the operators of the game world
according to the storyline they're trying to follow.  The purpose of the storyline is not to give the roleplayers something to do,
but to let all players understand that there is a logical flow of operation to the game world.  So logical that players should begin
to anticipate upcoming events.  Or at least to speculate about the possibilities.

The general idea is that the tasks will be large enough in scale that secondary behaviors will emerge within the player population
as they move to tackle the tasks.  EVE Online's game of galactic domination is an example of this.  Players have the opportunity to
form organizations that must perform certain tasks.  The game doesn't say exactly how the players should be organized, so the
players not only have the overarching goal of galactic domination, but the various spin off goals of getting Titans, forming
alliances, attracting recruits, establishing secure zones, obtaining raw materials, etc.

The desire for individual achievement is sated by the pursuit of those spin-off goals.  You may not be a higher level than me, but
we've pretty much agreed that when you're online, you're a team leader and are very good in the hunt.  That's an achievement.

> > For example, coming out of the mountains and finding a set of villages
> > that will make horses available.  Now everyone has access to
> > horses and starts playing the mounted game.  New skills can be
> > introduced, as can things like new consumables, etc.
> 
> SO what happens when the horse village is passed by? Do horses stay, or are
> the designers obliged to conveniently write in a similar horse village just
> over the next horizon.

Remember that this is about entertaining a couple thousand players simultaneously.  There are multiple horse villages, and they all
provide horses.  It only takes one player curious enough to enter a village to find out that horses are available.  Word will spread
quickly.

If the game operators discover that the players are impossibly lazy and don't go exploring at all (unlikely, given the fundamental
structure of the game), then the horse villages will be set squarely in the path of the players.  The several thousand players.
Perhaps with huge "Free Horses" signs outside.

If the game operators discover that the players are so prone to challenging exploration that they have to stuff villages deep in
dense forests with nasty monsters all around, then that's what they'll do.  And different shard operators may find the desires of
their particular player population are different.

> I feel that this concept avoids the idea that players have to take
> responsibility for their actions much.
> 
> For example, one solution to a player killing the local shopkeeper/trainer
> is that something in the game witnesses him doing it, and the players is
> then outlawed for murder. As a result, all soldiers and militia
> automatically attack him and "lawful" NPCs won't deal with him until he pays
> a fine or similar. Another solution is to have the shopkeeper respawn after
> 20 minutes feeling fine but a bit ticked off. A third might be to simply not
> allow players to draw their weapons within the confines of the town.
> 
> All are valid, but mean a lot less in the nomadic model. How would you
> handle "law breaking" by trouble players? Purely in an out-of-character way,
> or does the model only support a PK environment?

The nomadic design changes nothing in that area.  I'm not a devotee of "meaningful consequences", but if you want to use that
approach, the nomadic design supports it just fine.  In a typical MMO, the players have a set of cities that they rely on for NPC
support, and "meaningful consequences" tend to restrict access to that support.  The nomadic design still has that support structure
in the form of the nomadic camp that follows them around.  Break a law and the character will be denied something.  Security, goods,
services, etc.  That can be extended to cover the permanent settlements that the players discover.