nu.kanga.list.mud-dev

30457: Re: [MUD-Dev] Better Combat

Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

> Not really sure what '"community building" measures' you refer to
> in AO that was damaging? I am not so sure about having a flexible
> chat system, as that removes communication from the local area,
> but... other than that?

The new chat system was only bad because it was buggy and not
user-friendly when it was first released (and it is still sometimes
very laggy--like a 5 minute delay laggy, which I suppose makes raids
more exciting... but in a bad way). For some players that was the
last straw (and there were more than the usual share of "why are
they fixing something that isn't broke when there's so much that is
broke" opinions). But after a few patches, the new chat system was
fine. There's less public chat because old hangouts (OA Hill, Rome
BB, Tir Grid, even Reets, etc) are no longer as popular. People
don't get groups from vicinity chat anymore--they get them through a
large guild or by going to Adonis/Inferno and using the Looking For
Team channels. People don't sit on the OA hill to sell stuff, they
run from zone to zone spamming or use the forums. People don't hang
out at events as much anymore because it's a pain to get to Reets et
al. and back to high-level Shadowlands camps. Ironically, the game
design in Shadowlands does not encourage as much public chat, but
that has nothing to do with the new chat system (which was
implemented after the problems of Shadowlands became apparent).

The Shadowlands expansion added many EQ-like inconveniences. From
various Funcom employee comments both public and private, I believe
they added downtime (coils instead of kits, no flying/vehicles/grid,
etc) and forced grouping (mob balance and zone design which makes
soloing unattractive or impossible) because they felt that the speed
and "soloability" of their game did not encourage community
ties. Based on developer comments, they seem to have been trying to
copy EQ's success or at least attract EQ players (and this was
somewhat successful--alot of post-Shadowlands players came from EQ,
but according to the ex-EQ players I spoke with, they left because
of Gates of Discord and bugs in the new EQ client, not because of
any particular feature in Shadowlands, nor were they planning on
staying long--"until WoW comes out" was not atypical).

I do not know Funcom's numbers... how long people kept accounts, how
many subscriptions they had, etc. From the perspective of a mere
player, Shadowlands was disastrous. The timesinks did not build the
community, they pissed players off and made them short-tempered (and
then forced them to team up with other players who were equally
short-tempered...). The camp/loot/zone design encourages poor
behaviors such as kill stealing. Forced grouping, limited camps, and
"geogameplay" segregated players and caused class envy (the casual
vs. hardcore debate is always present, but, for the most part,
old-school AO allowed casual players to do everything the hardcore
did, just not as quickly).

Most importantly, many key players (the real community
builders--players who form guilds, organize events, run websites,
etc) left or aren't playing often. This has had the greatest impact
on the community, but it is the one part that is least attributable
to Shadowlands. Those former players who left comments on the forums
about their departure almost always claimed changes in Shadowlands
as the reason, but that proves nothing. They may have been generally
bored with the game or upset for personal reasons and Shadowlands
was just the last straw.

> I don't have experience with CoH, but new games tends to be more
> fun as everybody are at the same level. Games change over
> time. After a few years the players have too much expertise and
> simply don't need new people to chat with or to chat about game
> mechanics or even game play. You get a less socializable
> environment. If you want to compare CoH's first period to other
> games, then you have to compare it to the other games' first
> period as well. If you did for SWG, then that's something to
> ponder on. Still, I think CoH could get a backlash based on what I
> hear about the game, unless they make changes.

I played SWG at release. I played CoH in beta and release. I tried
to play AO at release, but it was difficult...

What you said above was basically my first impression of CoH... that
the gameplay was too limited to hold my interest. I was wrong. At
least so far.

I do think CoH could run into trouble, but not necessarily for the
same reasons. The gameplay is currently very limited, but it is (at
least when compared to other on-line games) very entertaining. If
they do not expand the gameplay and content, players will get bored
and eventually leave (but how is this different from any game? CoH
may simply reach this point a little faster, but still with plenty
of profit margin). However, if they add the generic timesink content
so prevalent in other on-line games, I believe players will get
frustrated and leave, possibly faster than via boredom. Time will
tell. Cryptic seems to be doing well so far, except for the
inevitable class balance problems.

There is a difference between encouraging socialization and
interaction.

SWG encourages interaction, but not socialization. It was not
uncommon to be forced to interact (to heal wounds, train skills, get
buffs, etc), but not encouraged to actually talk or be friendly. CoH
(and, formerly, AO) only mildly encourages interaction, but for some
reason this seems to help socialization flourish. The only thing I'd
do (immediately...) to increase socialization in CoH is to include
"hang outs" of some kind. Dance clubs, supergroup headquarters,
something like that. Obvious, convenient event spaces were very
helpful in getting AO's roleplaying community started.

There is a difference between a high quantity of interaction and a
high quality.

There is alot of interaction in SWG. You are forced to interact with
other players so often it becomes an annoyance... But you are not
forced to chat or make friends. Games that do not force interaction
seem friendlier to me. People interact because they want to, and are
"in the mood" for socialization, not because the game design
requires it of them. Many game designers seem to think that social
bonds will form merely by making people interact. I believe that
mere interaction is no guarantee of community. The community would
be better served by encouraging people to make long-term friendships
rather than short-term contracts for personal gain. How to do this
is a matter of some debate... I think a variant of ATitD's design
(the interaction between high and low tech, some of the tests) may
be worthy of more attention.

If you wanted to encourage socialization in an artificial (but more
honest) way, take a page from The Sims: give players a "loneliness"
bar that gives some numerical advantage (XP, loot drops, skill
buffs, etc) when it's empty. Fill it over time and empty it during
time spent in a social space or team. Just don't force me to team
when I don't have the time or force me to be social when I'm not in
the mood.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev