[MUD-Dev] On balance and reality

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

HRose <hrose at tiscali.it> writes:
> Ola wrote:

>> DESIGN PATTERN: INFLATION BASED DESIGN BY EXPANSION

> You seem to always summarize design concepts I hate and I believe
> are totally wrong. This is a comment from Loral, at Mobhunter. One

Well, but it works... I am not a big fan of treadmills obviously,
and I would favour a more adaptive dynamic design myself. Still, you
have more control with a static design and then inflation based
design seems to be a fairly effective approach. I'll see if I can
make a more well argued formal write up later on. Then we can
discuss it again.

> 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".

*shrugs*

You don't have to add more of the same old, you can introduce new
game play elements. One reason for adding more of the same is of
course that developing new game play elements often will require
technological changes which can be expensive. Not all expansions add
more of the same.

> 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.

Good, strengthens my design pattern. :-)

> 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.

You don't have to grow the geographical surface areas of the game,
although it is easier to avoid too disgruntled non-expansion owners
if the expansion is located in its own space. I would personally be
in favour of not charging existing players for an expansion, but I
guess that is not going to happen... That is however something
related to "capitalism" and not inflation based designs.

Reworking the existing systems are problematic. Players will see it
as a "nerf". They might even see inflation based designs as nerfs if
not all classes are treated equally...

> 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".

Hm... But you can rework the systems for new content, then deprecate
the obsolete after a few years.

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

Some will, most likely, but others will come back for a taste of the
new. Besides, one point of having an expansion is to introduce the
same kind of content that the competitors offer to stay
competitive. Another is marketing to get new players.

> 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?"

Define "better"... :-)

I am not saying that the expansions should be boring or badly
designed... They should take advantage of the strengths of the
underlying architecture and design; provide new content within the
economic limits.

> 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.

Why? One goal of having an expansion is to introduce new content
that is competitive and which helps your game attract new players.

> 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 do get evolution? You add new content based on what you have
learned from the existing + competitors.

>> - 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.

Uhm... no. You just slide the players over into another room where
you can go beyond what has already been done.

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

> Ask this to the players of EQ and DAoC.

That really depends on how you do it...

> 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.

Better than... what? Will you get game reviews without new content?

--
Ola - http://folk.uio.no/olag/
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev