[MUD-Dev] Homogeneity and choice (Was DESIGN: Why do people like weather in MMORPGs?)

[John Buehler]

Mike Rozak writes (in response to a post accidentally not sent to
the list):
> John Buehler wrote:

>> I'm gonna need better armor against those bigger orcs. I'm gonna
>> need lighter armor in the desert.

> You mentioned wanting to make combat more interesting... if the
> orcs primarily use clubs, then chainmail armor ends up being
> ineffective.  Boiled leather or plate would work better. If the
> orcs use swords, then chain or plate armors are best. If the orcs
> are tall, they're more likely to take swipes at your PC's head, so
> a helmet and shield are more important.

If equipment selection is a way of making combat more entertaining,
so be it.

> However, allowing players to carry 50 tons of equipment defeats
> this distinction. If a player can carry around a suit of leather,
> a suit of chain, and a suit of plate, then it's very easy to
> switch suits when the PC approaches an orc camp. Every player will
> end up carrying 3 suits of armor, and equip the most appropriate
> one right before combat begins. If they can only carry one, or two
> with much effort, then the player has to make a choice when they
> leave their base camp. That choice has ramifications.

And the question to ask is whether or not choosing one type of armor
and living with the implications of that choice is entertaining to
players.  Or does it serve as an impediment to the experience that
you're really trying to give to your players: that of getting into
combat.  Is getting the equipment matched to the challenge all that
entertaining?  Or would you rather use one set of equipment and try
to creatively come up with a solution to various problems?

>> A game that is predicated on denial of service just doesn't
>> entertain me.  I'm all for challenge as a means of entertaining
>> people.  It's a very popular means.  But to impede the player's
>> ability to gain access to the entertainment - even if it is
>> challenge - is not a good move in my book.

> Realm-vs-realm systems, such as DAOC or WOW, have content denial
> at their heart. If your character joins side A, the content than
> what you would have experienced on side B. Of course, players can
> create more than one character, and I have no problem with this.

The opposite of 'denial of service' isn't 'unlimited access to
everything'.  If the service is drinking water, then denial of
service is the inability to drink water.  And when the service is
operating correctly, there are still limits - the water can only be
drunk so quickly, etc.

In realm versus realm there is no denial of service per se.  It is
the basic game structure that there are multiple realms, and each
character operates within its one, clearly demarked, realm.  It is a
structure that is self-consistent, and which permits the
higher-order entertainment of realm versus realm combat.  Players
welcome the limits because of the implications.  So the content
denial is entertaining.  I'd guess that a lot of the acceptance of
the situation is that the content that can't be accessed also can't
be seen by those who can't access it.

> Classes (if orthogonal enough) are content denial. Magic users in
> D&D are a very different experience than fighters, who are very
> different from thieves. (Clerics are a bit too close to both
> fighters and magic users.) However, magic users in many MMORPGs
> are just archerers that shoot fireballs instead of arrows.

The denial of service that this brings to mind is mana.  When a mana
class has consumed its mana pool, that class is out of action.
That's denial of service.  It's taking away the very entertainment
that the players are paying for.  It's a flaw in the way that magic
has been introduced into the game.  Far better, in my opinion, is to
have characters that can continue to engage in their entertainment
without a time limit.  The real limit should be that the players
want to take a break.

Saying that a blacksmith can't cast a fireball is not denial of
service.  It's denial of content, but there is value to everyone in
that denial.

A blocked mountain pass is denial of service for those players whose
entertainment is predicated on having an open mountain pass.  If the
player's entertainment continues with a new wrinkle, then it's a
good game design.  Those who find entertainment according to the
challenge of crossing the mountain, whether the pass is blocked or
not, are still entertained.  They look forward to the blockage.
Those whose form of entertainment is no longer accessible because
the pass is blocked are experiencing a denial of service.

It doesn't matter that those players can find other things to do in
the town that they're stuck in as a result of the blocked pass.
That's the designer-eye view of the game experience.  The point is
that if the game offers a particular entertainment experience, it
should honor that offer and provide a certain consistency of
experience.

Ultimately, weather - just like any other potential change - should
be examined according to how it can vary the entertainment
experience that a certain group of players are encouraged to follow.
If stamp collecting is part of your game's experience, let them
collect stamps.  Don't have rain soak their collection, destroying
it.  Don't have wind blow it all down the street.  You said they
could collect stamps, so let them collect stamps.  If there's a
challenge, let it be consistent with stamp collecting.  They have to
find and obtain a certain rare stamp.  And the experiences of
finding and obtaining are consistent with the type ofentertainment
that stamp collectors would enjoy.

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