[MUD-Dev] Playing catch-up with levels

[John Buehler]

Chris Duesing writes:
> John Buehler wrote:

>> The goal of a game is to entertain.  It's the reason that when a
>> character is killed, it is recovered in some way so that it can be
>> used again.  That doesn't match expectations, but it sure is
>> entertaining.

> I would argue that typical MUD insta reincarnation does not exist
> for entertainment purposes, but for psychological ones. If a
> player has invested time and energy into a character they do not
> want to just 'lose' them.

I don't see disagreement here.  What I'm reading is that the loss of
a character goes beyond the fact that it's not entertaining.  It's
downright shocking to the player.  I figure that's a fair
characterization.  But it's also not very entertaining :)

>> By the same metric, I don't believe that it's going to match
>> players' desires to atrophy all accumulated skills while only one
>> or two are employed.  Because it doesn't match their desires, and
>> because there is nothing inherently entertaining about losing
>> skills.  A conscious tradeoff?  Sure. But a lack of control over
>> which skills are sacrificed? No.

> Many of the arguments against skill decay in this thread have made
> the assumption that they will be implemented like past systems,
> even when the original author gave evidence his system would be
> more complex. In my opinion skill decay at a slow rate is fine as
> long as there is no overall cap and no tradeoffs of gain a skill
> here, lose one there.

Then we agree to disagree.  I see no value in it.

>> I'm perfectly content in letting a player create the toughest,
>> meanest swordsman in the game with the touch of a button (and a
>> 7-day waiting period).  After all, he paid his money. He should
>> be able to experience all that the game has to offer.  If he
>> wants to go up against another perfect warrior, then it'll be a
>> case of their skills as players instead of who plays more or who
>> spend more money on equipment.

> I think the kind of system you envision is more reminiscent of
> classic video games rather than the typical MUD/MMO genre. Not
> that there is anything wrong with that, but I am guessing most of
> the posters here are making some basic assumptions about the kind
> of games they are hypothesizing.

No argument there.  No doubt that's why so many exchanges here
devolve into definitions of the word "the" :)

> Skills, classes and levels are all just dressings on a system that
> is more of a reality replacement than it is an entertaining
> escape. It is a somewhat subtle distinction, but think long term
> interactive experience where you develop a bond with an avatar you
> create in a virtual world, rather than something you do to kill
> some time and have fun.

Certainly long term exposure to an avatar invites the development of
a bond.  That same bond develops between a football player and his
favorite shoes too.  It's just a matter of exposure.

It could be argued that the player is invited to develop an even
strong bond with a flexible character because it is the player's
only character, and everything that the player does, he does with
that one character.  That, instead of having five or eight
characters that are switched between according to practical need.
The switches take place because of the inherent limitations in the
characters.

> By exposing a player to all of your content right off the bat you
> are robbing them of the long term character building experience.

The entirety of the world is available to you today.  Yet you are
not robbed of a development experience that will last forever.  In
the same way, a large content set can be access limited --
geographically, socially, politically, militarily, etc.

> I am not saying someone would not get attached to their character
> in your system, simply that in most MUDs it is all about working
> to perfect your creation.

Exactly so.  And for those who enjoy crafting a character, they have
plenty of games to choose from.  For those who would rather focus on
what they do with their character, I would like to see them have the
game that I'm describing.

> Hence there being no way to 'win' in a MUD, it is about the
> journey rather than the destination.

Journeys are good.

> I think the heart of this whole thread is how to make that
> experience feel even more like real life, where we do not have
> little messages pop up in our field of vision when we learn
> something new and we do not have hard limits on how much we can
> learn.

This is one that I've never quite understood - the pursuit of
reality.  I always assumed that games were about distilling out an
entertaining experience unfettered by the annoyances of reality.
That's why chess doesn't involve hacking away at each other.  It
distills out the strategy and tactics of politics and warfare.

>> The compulsion aspect might be natural for a lot of gamers today.
>> I choose to try to eliminate it.  I want players to come back and
>> play my game because they enjoy it, not because they're afraid
>> they'll lose the race to get their skills up.

> This is an unfortunate, but probably somewhat unavoidable side
> effect of any system with advancement. People will naturally
> compete to advance more quickly than others. It is yet another
> means to judge their progress. This happens in real life all of
> the time. I would love to see a game where people could advance
> simply for the pleasure of doing so, but I suspect they would have
> to be reprogrammed in real life rather than in the game.

I'm not averse to having competition based on advancement.  I'm
averse to making that the *cornerstone* of a game experience.
Advancement as a form of entertainment is perfectly legitimate.  I'd
want it in any game that I design that has the complexity of
interaction that an MMORPG has.

>> How would you tackle magical spells?  Or are you relying on the
>> fact that players already expect to have to learn the "magic
>> system" as they do in other games?

> I agree that any system that is complicated to learn can be a
> barrier, but if the UI is good enough and the system intuitive
> enough then the learning process can be part of the fun.

True enough.

>> Well, kinda sorta.  The atrophy process isn't how stuff works in
>> real life.  Once we learn something and then stop using it, we
>> get rusty, but the ability doesn't fade.  The next time we
>> approach the skill, we recover the expertise very rapidly.

> I agree, but you are assuiming the original poster wont implement
> it this way. Nothing to say we cant make 'relearning' a skill much
> easier.

Yup.  I went through that stage as well.  "Grease the tracks so they
can recover the skill again."  I didn't see the point.  In the end,
players want to have their character configured a certain way.  I
figured that I'd just cut to the chase and let them get the
character that they want, where the pace of transition from one set
of skills to another is uniform for all players.

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