[MUD-Dev] On balance and reality

[HRose]

Ola wrote:

> DESIGN PATTERN: INFLATION BASED DESIGN BY EXPANSION

> I don't really see any problems with a inflation based design per
> se. In many ways it is desirable as it solves the long term
> consequences of hoarding and content starvation without taking
> anything away from the players by force. If you have the resources
> to develop enough new "more valuable" content it can also shorten
> the gap between the old players and the newer ones, simply by
> gradually deprecating the old world. I am not sure if designers
> follow this strategy consciously though. Of course, they think
> that they need to add new content, but do they think about the
> various effects that has on the play experience?

> Basically, inflation based design is just another treadmill, but
> it can be a slightly less visible treadmill than the core RPG game
> play. Which is well, at least better, if not perfect...

You seem to always summarize design concepts I hate and I believe
are totally wrong. This is a comment from Loral, at Mobhunter. One
of the most compentent places discussing EverQuest (which I haven't
played from more than a few days):

  "Omens of War brings us over a dozen new zones, half of them
  instanced. It expands the physical worlds of Norrath even
  further. I wonder if SOE might best spend their time working on
  new expansions that take Everquest into directions other than new
  zones to explore. Everquest is certainly wide, it is the largest
  physical game I've ever played, but it isn't very deep. The vast
  majority of content builds around combat against bosses. The
  numbers increase but the gameplay is generally the same. New lines
  of progression need to be developed. "

I obviously share this point of view. These kind of expansions can
help to retain the players but they don't really add more content
nor offer more depth. And, as you explain, they have negative
effects like widening the gaps between new and experienced
players. Creating what I define an "accessibility problem".

In fact SOE is trying to "speed up" the levelling. Same is doing
DAoC. So they are "excused" to add higher content. But I find all
this silly.

My opinion is that this strategy is a waste of resources. Because
you could instead focus the development to really develop the
game. Reworking every system to be more interesting and fun to play,
to overhaul the graphic and so on. What I mean is that expansions
push the development to build around a center. The game grows more
and more like a stain. The result is that, after a few years, the
game is bigger but not better. And "bigger" is questionable since
it's filled with obsolete content that become simply useless in the
process of introducing "new shinies".

You can throw mist in the eyes of the players but after a bit
they'll recognize the mist and shrug it off.

This is obvious when you compare EverQuest to a better game like
World of Warcraft. The question is: "Couldn't EverQuest have used
its success and its resources to improve and become a better game
instead of aging desperately?"

> Advantages of offsetting inflasion by expansion:

>    - you can keep the game fresh and competitive

This is arguable. By making old content obsolete you hook only the
players you have. So you are straining for retention. I don't
consider the retention as a game maintained "fresh and
competitive". I simply consider this process a struggle for life
that is definitely aimed to a death.

Since there's no evolution you can only work hard to push away that
dead point. But you won't erase it. Your game won't feel fresh nor
competitive.

> - you get to take things away without really doing it

Yeah, that's actually why it happens I think. Unability to go beyond
what it has been already done.

> - you might be able to get a less visible treadmill

Ask this to the players of EQ and DAoC.

> Suggestion:

>      DEPRECATE content. Maintain 2-3 sets of content at all
>      levels, of which one set is meant to be less attractive. When
>      the popularity of this set is low, remove it.

This is actually a preferred solution, imho, if the game is doomed
to not evolve. At least the game-world won't feel like crumbling
over a mess of obsolete content and systems.

If you aren't able to let the game develop it's still better to hold
all you can and mantain the world cohesive and healthy within its
limits.

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