I am faced with a dilemma of sorts. One that I have been trying to assertain the answer to, that I can''t seem to come up with without letting my personal feelings on the subject cloud the entire thought process. Consider the following: Gamers are begging MMO*** makers to give them more freedom in the game they play. They want less rules that restrict the actions that can be taken and more actions to take. My question is the following. Are players in general, ready for the responsibility that comes along with freedom of action? Now for my personal opinion: I can''t see how MMO*** can ever become more than what they are today, if players aren''t willing to take responsibility for their actions. Recently I was asked a question about our upcoming game''s PvP rules. Players in our game get flagged as murderers when they grief-kill another player. This question along with others centered around what happens if my connection drops, or I accidently press a wrong key, or my phone rings... As a game architect, these are conditions that I can not control, yet I have seen players constantly hold companies hostage to the results of these circumstances as if they could wave a wand and make them go away. Is it me or am I being unrealistic when I ask the players that will play my game to pay attention to what they are doing? Have we all become so accustomed to blaming these things on the company, that we have pushed the responsibility fully on the company? Must every game that is released be designed so that you can eat your lunch, chat with your girlfriend/boyfriend, respond to your neighbor''s house fire, and save your aunt''s cat from the tree it climbed while playing? Your thoughts? Kressilac ps In any case, I am going to march forward with our design and believe that players will take responsibility for the circumstances that surround their gameplay and give the companies a break for things they can not control.

hey, do what you want to do! if people don''t like it, they can go play some other game!
just remember that if it is too big of a problem for too many players, they will go play some other game.
the key is the balance between how good your game is versus how annoyed the players get.

--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)

There are a number of imbalancing factors that the designer is not responsible for.

Differing dedication levels: Those that play for 4+ hours a day compared to those that play twice a week for an hour at a time.

Differing desired experiences: Those that play for a sense of power - that is to be "the best" even despite the rules vs. those who desire realism and role playing vs. those who expect to use your world as a safe 3D chat room.

Differing levels of play: Experienced RPGers compared to the "oh, this is a neat new thing" crowd.

The games I have played in the past have had the unfortunate attitude of catering to the equivilent of the LCD (Least common denomitator)... the MAW or "Most Annoying Whiners". The never ending quest to eviscerate the PvP crowd in order to placate those that expect to walk unmolested throughout the world gets to the point where the world immersion is lost. Mind you, I am NOT a fan of rampant PKing. It has its place... I can''t imagine a Quake CTF or Deathmatch session where people are walking around shaking hands and saying "can''t we all just get along?" Even in games such as UO, EQ, etc... there is a place for the "bad guy". To some extent, having a common foe is an exhilarating experience. However, when there appears an obvious division between the hoardes of PKers and the cowering masses of fearful sheep, then there is something wrong with the balance of the game.

How to fix it? Who knows. That is very game-specific. However, I do agree with the premise that while game companies should pay enough mind to keep rampant PKing from taking over their game, they should also more often take the stance of "if you can''t stand the heat...".

Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development

InnocuousFox: I disagree on 2 out of 3 of those "imbalancing factors that the designer is not responsible for".

Differing dedication levels: The designer had better be aware of how much of an imbalance will exist between "casual" and "dedicated" players. Whether the designer decides to support one or both of those is a very conscious decision. Some games don''t work well for non-dedicated players, and this has to be acknowledged. It isn''t necessary to change the game to fit one style or the other so long as the designer knows which one he is creating the game for.

Differing desired experiences: Again, the designer should be aware of how different players are going to approach the game.

You can''t design a game for everyone. But you should at least be aware of who you *aren''t* designing it for, as well as who you *are* designing it for.


DavidRM
Samu Games

That''s actually what I was getting at. The designer should be aware that these diffences exist, but he isn''t responsible for the fact that they do exist. The point being, if someone comes whinning about getting their ass kicked because they don''t spend the time to develop their character, the designer shouldn''t knee-jerk and cut the balls off the dedicated players.

Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development

DavidRM:

While I agree with you that designers need to be aware of expectations and play patterns, don''t you think that it is difficult to do this realistically in an MMO game supporting many thousands perhaps millions of players?

There has to be a point where your designing the rules of the game without consideration for those. If you always try to design with those considerations, you run a risk of winding up with an extremely targeted MMO game with a good chance of not being able to support itself on the subscription income it generates. (the problem of being too targeted) As you generalize these design points to reach a larger base of players, you inevitably have to force some of the play responsibility on the players themselves or you''ll never finish coding the game let alone balancing it.

My question is, are players willing to PARTICIPATE in a game rather than just simply play the game? Maybe it shows that playing current MMORPGs is nothing more than a mind numbing experience that a monkey could more than likely replicate. I just think there can be so much more, but I can''t see it happening without players becoming a bigger portion of that game and not just oblivious avatars.

Kressilac

umm, what does MMO stand for? ive been seeing all thease posts about MMORPG''s for the last few weeks and have no idea what it stands for...

Massively Multiplayer Online...

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Kressilac:

Wanting players of a game to be "responsible" for their actions in a simulated envirnoment seems...iffy.

The simulation determines the cause-and-effect relationship between actions. The anonymity of a player account, combined with the lack of face-to-face social pressures, means that normal social mores don''t apply...and that whatever the simulation *allows* is a valid action. That this may affect someone else''s enjoyment of the game is largely irrelevant because that player''s complaints can be either ignored with the built-in chat functions or even seen as part of the "reward" for the action.

Rather than fight this "law of nature", like 19th century "inventors" strapping on wings and leaping from cliffs, game designers should just accept it and plan accordingly.




DavidRM
Samu Games

My personal favorite PK solution: Raise the amount of XP the PKer needs to hit the nest level, and lower the amount of XP the victim needs to hit the next level (not neccesarily by the same amount). Then just add in some faction hits...