[MUD-Dev2] Meaningful Conseqences

[Damion Schubert]

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Christopher Lloyd <llocr at btinternet.com>wrote:

>
> I was thinking about how Richard Bartle's stereotypical games would react
> to
> this cyclic rebirth system. "Achievers" may be torn between losing all the
> achievements they've gathered in version 1 and being able to do them all
> again (only this time faster, better, and before anyone else because they
> already know how to do them) in version 2.
>
> "Explorers" are going to have difficulty if the world is exactly the same,
> so significant changes would have to be made so that the new world didn't
> feel like a carbon copy of the old one, both geographically and perhaps in
> the way the game works. This means different quests, improved AI (and
> different AI counters by players), maybe better graphics where appropriate.
>
> "Socialisers" and "Killers" might not care either way. Socialisers will
> probably want to maintain the same friendships they did before. They'll
> probably want to keep the same name as before, so maybe that should be an
> option. But such reboots will inevitably break up old friendships and there
> are likely to be plenty of cries of "it's not the same as when we all knew
> each other back then..."
>

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking too much about classic MMO
designs
when considering how to apply Bartle.  As a way of example, Bartle also
applies, for example, to Quake:

- Achievers play to win.
- Explorers play to see new levels and player created content, learn new
strats
- Socializers play to clan
- Killers play to spawn-camp and make your life miserable.

The percentages are different, and there's a clear weak leg here (the
explorers),
but the mapping is pretty clear.  Which is to say, the necessity of perfect
persistence is vastly overstated.  Designers should design what makes the
game the most fun - light persistence can do that.

As a way of example, World War II Online currently has a 'reset button'
mechanic. at which point it declares one side the winner and starts the
whole
thing over.  Classic MMO design theory would call this crazy, as you lose
some of the progress your character made over the time.  But the designers
I've talked to about the design say that it saved the game.  It turns out
one of
the best experiences you can provide in a wargame is a clean Risk board.

Anyway, The most important thing, usually in my opinion, is being sure the
Achiever game is -fun-, because the achievers frequently are the backbone
of the experience (most players, in my experience, enter the game achievers,
 and then branch out in other directions as they discover avenues of the
game
 they find more interesting).

--d