The Laws of Online Gaming Revisited...

[schild]

Take it or leave it. There are plenty of other people who making simple fun games, but Raph is about the bleeding edge.

Everquest in space?

[Raph]

See? It is about me. :P

Believe me, I know full well you gotta put in the crowd-pleasers. If we're gonna make it about me, I take some comfort in the fact that a fair amount of crowd appears to have been pleased.

Of course this is about being an entertainer. I consider the entertainment part mandatory. The art comes after that basic step. It's not in my nature to consider the art optional, though. There can be art in the three minute pop song, there can be art in the daily comic strip. Not going for it seems... sad, somehow. And I mean sad in the original sense.

I also know what Zaphkiel is saying with his bicycles. That said, the next step isn't going to be made by people working part time out of a spare bedroom, I don't think.

Anyway, can we get back to dissecting the laws? We need one more page before I can tell schild and Snowspinner how they're all wrong.

[AOFanboi]

I submit that it's far easier to build from the ground up, rather than from the top down. First, come up with a small, fun mini-game. Iterate on it until it is a polished gem. Then build new systems and game mechanics on top of that. If you build and polish combat, you know that at least will always be fun. Don't bother thinking too much about crafting or player cities or whatever until combat is fun. Once it's fun, don't mess with it - higher level systems should be designed within the constraints of lower level systems. I'm glossing over a lot here of course, much easier said than done.

The only MMP I know of that was built like this is Puzzle Pirates.

I'd wager City of Heroes here, too. It has three things: Exploring (not really a "system" but it's something to do), combat and missions. That's it, but it works. The only imbalance I know of they have fixed after release is the auto-hit of Provoke (when all other PBAoE powers roll to hit).

However, I have no idea how they are going to add crafting et al, but noticing how features (like fishing) have been added to its spiritual predecessor - Disney's ToonTown - I am sure they will find a way.

[Alkiera]

   When I lose at chess, or sports, I feel, with a good deal of certainty, that the other player played better than I did that day.  I might even learn something about the game in the process.  With MMOGs, when I lose, I feel, with a great deal of certainty, that the other person was a better exploiter/cheater/macroer/bigger catass than I am.  The only thing I've learned is that in order to "compete", I need to exploit, cheat, macro and quit my job to get better.  Big difference.

This is precisely why I don't enjoy PvP. It's not skill. It's all the things you mentioned essentially. Frag me in a FPS, you're better than I am. Beat me in a PvP battle, well, see above.

This is because most games 'skill' is a function of time input.  We need player skill, or at the least a less playtime-controlled advancement function, before PvP will really work outside of carefully controlled circumstances.

--
Alkiera

[Riggswolfe]

This is because most games 'skill' is a function of time input.  We need player skill, or at the least a less playtime-controlled advancement function, before PvP will really work outside of carefully controlled circumstances.

Alkiera

I totally agree. Other than to say I don't think it works period, even in controlled circumstances, until skill becomes a factor.

[dogles]

Heh, well if we have your attention, I'm certainly going to take advantage of it. :)

I'm not going to respond to the schlid's post, because I could fill up several pages disagreeing with him. Snowspinner's post I mostly agree with, but I don't think he's really disagreeing with the laws, just Raph's recent games. Instead, I'll talk about the original laws.

From the laws:

ideally, make your game not have a sense of running out of significant milestones (try to make your ladder not feel finite)

Yes, ideally there should be an advancement ladder in the game that feels infinite, so that a player could continue playing indefinitely and still feel like they're reaching milestones. However, without finite ladders in the mix, milestones become meaningless. If you reach level X+1, you're no closer to "winning" if the number of levels are infinite.

It is always more rewarding to kill other players than to kill whatever the game sets up as a target.
A given player of level x can slay multiple creatures of level y. Therefore, killing a player of level x yields ny reward in purely in-game reward terms. Players will therefore always be more rewarding in game terms than monsters of comparable difficulty. However, there's also the fact that players will be more challenging and exciting to fight than monsters no matter what you do.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, why does the reward for killing a player have to be "ny"? Couldn't you slap on some arbitrary reward instead, which may not be as high as killing a monster? I'm not saying you would want to do such a thing necessarily, but I don't see any reason you couldn't.

As far as monsters being less exciting to fight then players, I think that is assuming that the same mechanics are used for fighting players as for fighting monsters. Perhaps that can be safely assumed in this context.

Baron's Design Dichotomy
According to Jonathan Baron, there are two kinds of online games: Achievement Oriented, and Cumulative Character. In the former, the players who "win" do so because they they are the best at whatever the game offers. Their glory is achieved by shaming other players. In the latter, anyone can reach the pinnacle of achievement by mere persistence; the game is driven by sheer unadulterated capitalism.

One could argue that the latter isn't really a game at all, or at least it's not a very interesting or fun game. If there is only one optimization path in a game - time - players will see that very easily and optimize that. You lock out anybody who doesn't see the game as a full-time job from the advancement ladder. Saying that anyone can reach the pinnacle by mere persistence means that any game involved doesn't even enter the equation. Play the game well, or play it badly, it doesn't matter - just spend enough time playing it and you'll advance.

Dr Cat's Stamp Collecting Dilemma
"Lots of people might like stamp collecting in your virtual world. But those who do will never play with those who like other features. Should you have stamp collecting in your world?" We know that there are a wide range of features that people find enjoyable in online worlds. We also know that some of these features are in conflict with one another. Given the above, we don't yet know if it is possible to have a successful world that incorporates all the features, or whether the design must choose to exclude some of them in order to keep the players happy.

I discussed this briefly in one of my previous posts, but it seems to be proven that you must exclude some features for the benefit of others. PvP and PvE are at odds with each other - putting both styles of play in the game is detrimental to both of them.

This law seems out of place - first of all, it's not a law, it's a question. :) Secondly, it's a question that can't be answered, because it asks if "players will be happy". The answer is yes and no (or sometimes just no). :P

Thanks,
dan

[Snowspinner]

Those interested in this debate will probably also like http://www.electronicbookreview.com/v3/servlet/ebr?essay_id=aarseth&command=view_essay">this debate from a collection that MIT Press put out in March. Academic take on many of the same issues. Our good friend Raph had http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112545&cid=9545537">this to say when it was posted on /.

[Riggswolfe]

Well I guess I can post my views on some of the laws for Raph and others to tear apart. I won't post on all of them, just the ones that I have strong feelings about pro or con. For the record I'll probably refer to SWG during this, not to pick on Raph or that game, but simply because I view it as a common ground that can be used for example purposes. Here goes:

The secrets to a really long-lived, goal-oriented, online game of wide appeal


have multiple paths of advancement (individual features are nice, but making them ladders is better)
make it easy to switch between paths of advancementt (ideally, without having to start over)
make sure the milestones in the path of advancement are clear and visible and significant (having 600 meaningless milestones doesn't help)
ideally, make your game not have a sense of running out of significant milestones (try to make your ladder not feel finite)

For the most part I agree with this wholeheartedly. The only one I have any issue with is the one about not making the ladder feel finite. I disagree here. I think people as a group like to have a goal. They like to know that if they climb the mountain they can reach the top. Now, if you want to raise the bar later, and make that summit a false peak that is fine and probably should be encouraged.

To relate it to SWG I feel it did the first two parts of this rule very well. However, it was lacking in the milestone department. That is something I used to remember. You never felt like you were advancing. There were no "dings" so to speak.

Corollary:
Looking at what parts of your game players tend to automate is a good way to determine which parts of the game are tedious and/or not fun.

Brilliant. I remember harvesting and dancing in SWG were heavily automated. (in the case of harvesting I mean in the early days when an artisan is trying to work his way through those sets of skills.) I wonder if you guys have an excel spreadsheet somewhere keeping track of this stuff. I'd bet so.

It is always more rewarding to kill other players than to kill whatever the game sets up as a target.
A given player of level x can slay multiple creatures of level y. Therefore, killing a player of level x yields ny reward in purely in-game reward terms. Players will therefore always be more rewarding in game terms than monsters of comparable difficulty. However, there's also the fact that players will be more challenging and exciting to fight than monsters no matter what you do.

I not only disagree with this law, but I find the results of it to be a large cause of problems in today's MMOs. It is a naive law that fails to take two things into account:

1) Player preference, some will prefer to PvP, some will find it boring, distasteful, etc
2) Realities of player maturity. Some players are fine with PvP and just take it as part of the game. Others, both on the winning and losing ends of it react badly. From losers who get pissed and it ruins their entire day to winners who use PvP to get their revenge on the world, frequently taunting the ones they kill like schoolyard bullies.

I make no secret of being a person who doesn't like PvP. However, even if I did I wouldn't like what it does to games to try and mix the two playstyles. Personally I think you should have two MMO breeds. PvP. PvE. Don't mix the two. We've seen the problems again and again. From abilities that are balanced in PvE causing havoc in PvP, to player anger over some compromise that has to be made, to any of a myriad of other problems. (TEF in Star Wars being a favorite topic for both camps).

J. C. Lawrence's "do it everywhere" law
If you do it one place, you have to do it everywhere. Players like clever things and will search them out. Once they find a clever thing they will search for other similar or related clever things that seem to be implied by what they found and will get pissed off if they don't find them.

Hyrup's "do it everywhere" Corollary
The more detailed you make the world, the more players will want to break away from the classical molds.

For the most part I agree with this, but the trick is, in addition to the world being detailed, interesting, the way in which players interact with said world must also be well done. If the world is beautiful and fascinating but I find the "game" part of it to be frustrating, I'm still leaving.

Dr Cat's Stamp Collecting Dilemma
"Lots of people might like stamp collecting in your virtual world. But those who do will never play with those who like other features. Should you have stamp collecting in your world?" We know that there are a wide range of features that people find enjoyable in online worlds. We also know that some of these features are in conflict with one another. Given the above, we don't yet know if it is possible to have a successful world that incorporates all the features, or whether the design must choose to exclude some of them in order to keep the players happy.

I'm in the exclude camp. I think alot of the current problems come from trying to mix to many playstyles together. ESPECIALLY PvP and PvE. Shadowbane should have been nothing but PvP just like CoH is nothing like PvE. (For the moment at least). Keep in mind the very first sentence of that law. It's about the most true thing I've seen yet in these rules.

Koster's Law (Mike Sellers was actually the one to dub it thus)
The quality of roleplaying is inversely proportional to the number of people playing.

No shit. In addition I'd add that it seems that roleplaying is a lost art in these games altogether. These games also don't reward roleplaying. In a tabletop game if I do something that's "in character" even if it is disadvantageous, like giving up the Uber Sword of Bad Guy Whacking to the Holy Church of Good Guys, I may get rewarded in some other manner like extra experience points from the Dungeon Master. If I do the same in an MMO I just lost my sword and that's it.

you know RP in these games is in trouble, when you see forum posts deriding those who even make an attempt.

I'm going to stop for now because this post is getting quite long and to be honest I don't want to take up a whole forum page by myself.

[ajax34i]

But how is the server going to recognize "in character behavior"?

In-game actions are easily traceable, but the computer cannot classify them as "in-character" because it doesn't really know what the character of the character is like.

Unless, instead of letting the player create a custom background and personality, you force them to pick traits from a list of options, to define their "character".  Or answer 10 hypothetical questions.  Then the AI can judge whether giving away the sword corresponds to the traits chosen.

Or, maybe a better method would be to keep track of in-game actions (requires large database), including "gifts", the quests chosen, the way the quest was completed (killing vs diplomacy), and build a psych profile.  Then reward the player for actions that further conform to the character's psych profile.

Could be an extension of the faction system into new territory.

Of course, building a psych profile database of (ultimately) your customers could lead to all sorts of trouble.  

But, if you quantify the profile (to a number, or the good ol lawful-evil chaotic-good scale), you can delete the history of actions that led to it, saving database space AND avoiding potential legal headache.

But then, you need to code all your in-game actions and quests to support the different choices different personalities might make.  Instead of "just kill everything."  Quests with multiple solutions, oh! the bane of spoiler sites everywhere.

Hmm, single player games (Kotor?) have done this already.

[Soukyan]

Just a little note: The forum pages will display the default number of posts (or your preference if you changed it) per page no matter how long those posts are. Feel free to write novels if you've got it in your head and you have the time to type it. Some very good stuff so far. Please carry on...

[Zaphkiel]

It is always more rewarding to kill other players than to kill whatever the game sets up as a target.
A given player of level x can slay multiple creatures of level y. Therefore, killing a player of level x yields ny reward in purely in-game reward terms. Players will therefore always be more rewarding in game terms than monsters of comparable difficulty. However, there's also the fact that players will be more challenging and exciting to fight than monsters no matter what you do.

I not only disagree with this law, but I find the results of it to be a large cause of problems in today's MMOs.

    I'd go farther.  This is not a law.  This is a design descision.  It assumes open PvP and full looting in order to be true.  If you don't allow looting of victims, and apply negative experience for PKing, then it isn't true.

[HaemishM]

Dan, as someone who has trained quite a lot in writing and in music (and art, and other areas) I can tell you that there most definitely is far more science and craft to them that is established and accepted, than there is for games. Tons and tons, seriously.

As someone with a BS (full of BS actually) in Fine Art, I can tell you that while there may be a "science" to the craft of artwork and music, the science ISN'T what makes good art/music. Creative ventures truly are all about something my art professor told me about going to art school.

"You spend 4 years learning the rules, and the rest of your life trying to figure out how to break them."

Creation by the "rules," by "Science" is iminently less interesting and most people can spot that, even if they can't dissect it rationally and critically. They just know what they like. David was an incredible realist, matching exacting proportions with photo-realistic colors, but he doesn't hold a candle to Monet, or Cezzane, who break all the rules of the science of art. Picasso and Dali burned the rulebook, and desecrated its body. The science of creative enterprises produces boring creative enterprises. Britney Spears music is all about the science of attracting a certain demographic, as is the BackStreet Boys. And while it makes assloads of money at first, such money and such careers don't last without some serious rule-breaking.

Will comment on other stuff as I get through this thread.

EDIT: Obviously Raph, you are trying to "artify" the MMOG genre. The MMOG genre in my opinion lacks the science you are speaking of, it lacks the codified, standard practices. MMOG development is still trying to find all the standard instruments, whereas a band just needs to pick up some mics, a guitar, bass and drums and go at it. This is one of the reasons I'm actually in favor of using off-the-shelf packages like NetImmerse, Butterfly.net and such for MMOG development because some things need to be standard. There's way too much NIH (Not Invented Here) = Bad thought in MMOG development.

[Raph]

Haemish, I don't think we can break the rules until we know what they are. There's some classic patterns in folk arts which demonstrate that by and large they tend to be very non-innovative and conservative. The radical shifts in art style of the various artists you list all came in reaction to established formal styles. With no "rules" so to speak, you don't have a way to react. Picasso was an incredible draftsman, he knew precisely what he was doing when he decided to do something different.

Your prof said you have to break the rules, but he also taught them all to you, did he not? I agree creating solely by the rules leads to dull and uninteresting work. But in fact, many of the artists you cite were notable for exploring the rules, not ignoring them.

As to your other point, it'd be great to have a standard platform. I don't think we're at the point yet where those platforms are mature enough--they contain a ton of assumptions about what you are making.

[HaemishM]

I thought we do have rules.

"Thou shalt sucketh all the time a player will give out of him, and require 50% more to boot."

"Thou shalt not mixeth the PVP and the PVE. Two great tastes do not taste great together."

I actually have an article cooking in the old bean that establishes the rules of MMOG development as they've been observed.

[Rasix]

So, did we just come full circle here in 3 posts?

Edit: Finally read the entire article.  (What, me respond just on a few posts instead of knowing what I'm talking about...)

Overall, I like what schild is trying to do with the article: challenge some of the assumptions that have been gathered through the years of MUD and MMORPG development.  I disagree with some he's said, mostly due to direct contradictory experiences or just a feeling that he's disagreeing to disagree instead of actually finding some humbrage with what's being said.

The laws themselves are a good starting point to build a online world, whether it be a MUD or MMO (same thing basically).  You can argue the points of each law, but it's hard not to see how they should be present and on the table during any initial development of any MMO.  There's just too many lessons learns coalesced into juicy, digestable tidbits to ignore.  

What will make this genre interesting is where people deviate and where they succeed in their deviation.    I think it will be quite something to behold when a game actually pulls of a tight-knit roleplaying community on a 3000 person server or when a game without character class, prestigious titles for players, and a monotonous level grind ends up having a solid customer retention (didn't UO kind of do this for a while?).

But breaking rules just to break rules accomplishes nothing, there needs to be a reason to make these leaps other than just seeing how far you can jump (*cough* HAM *cough*).  Unless it can introduce a tanglibly improved experience for the player first of all, it has no business being thrust upon them (early rifle firing in WW2OL comes to mind).

Overall, good stuff. Perhaps I should read the front page a bit more.

PS. The irony in Dundee's law makes me chuckle.  I wonder if he wrote it before or after "pokemon".

[Wukong]

The "infinite milestones" law reminds me of one of the things that troubles me about the genre. Nobody ever leaves a MMOG happy. Like all games, some people will try an MMOG and hate it right off the bat, or soon find something in it they hate (nerfs in MMOGs or jumping puzzles in FPSs). Those are the lucky ones, because unlike other games, even those that love a MMOG, will eventually learn to despise it. Since a MMOG never ends, when a player stops playing it is because they are sick of it. Despite years of pleasure the game has given them, they leave dissatisfied.

This is the darkside of retention efforts like "infinite milestones". It's not just a bad thing for any individual game, but it is a bad thing for the genre in general. It makes players less likely to want to try a new MMOG, or more likely to leave it sooner, as soon as it reminds them of the old game.

I think MMOGs should end. Or more precisely, they should climax. They should provide points along the character's advancement path that allows the player to walk away satisfied. And then give them a reason a come back.

For example, since most MMOGs now launch with expansions already in mind, the end-game of the launch version should provide a climax, like a boss mob that once defeated a character can never fight again. Then when the expansion is released, give those characters some benefit and a new boss to shoot for.

Generally, I think the focus should be less on retention rates and more on positive churn rates. To paraphase: if you love your walking credit cards, set them free; if they return, cha-ching; if they don't, your game sucked to begin with.

[Slayerik]

"Baron's Theorem
Hate is good. This is because conflict drives the formation of social bonds and thus of communities. It is an engine that brings players closer together.."


I have been trying to figure out what it was about 'Old School UO' that was so above and beyond all MMOG experiences I have had since. There was something about the chest opening, and the music at the log in screen I can still hear today. When I fired up UO, I was literally engrossed in a new world, an immersion into a game that provided me emotion and enjoyment. Everything since then I can only describe as experiences and only remember them as such:

Anarchy Online: Flying for the first time as my Meta-physicist; getting a good laugh out of killing leets and eleets as they spouted out insults like "i roXXoR j00 newb!". The rest of the game was a pretty grind, fun at times.

Neocron: The coolest game that noone played. Favorite experience, my first outpost battle - my first adrenalinized experience in an MMOG since UO. Fun, 90% open PvP...neat faction system. Buggy. Underpopulated.

Shadowbane: My first siege was awesome, though the game's bugs were above and beyond the worst I have seen in my time. RPed in a Minotaur Horde, was cool but the city was so hard to maintain and farming sucked. Decent PvP, but the bugs drove me away.

Planetside: Action packed fun, my first 100+ person battle dropped my jaw. Cool game, the only MMOG im playing at the moment.

SWG: Ok game, very pretty. Neat crafting system (not that I'm too into that). The Naboo palace as the sun came up was breath-taking, though it is not good when thats the best thing you can say about a Star Wars game.



     So what was it about UO that made it so much more immersive than what I have listed above? Why do I still get a flood of emotion and am able to picture the towns and feeling I had in game when I hear a MIDI song from the game?

I say the difference is fear. Fear of the unknown. Beyond those 10 tiles each way, you never knew what was coming. Or waiting. Knowing you had better bank often or you could actually lose something. Don't take that precious Vanq out unless you're ready to get to business.

The fear of the red. I, to this day, remember the first guy to ever PK me. David Killmore, I vowed to become strong enough to return the favor one day - though I never saw him again. Maybe the fact was I had freedom in this game, where others only have rules and switches. UO had this neat thing where if you saw a red approaching and you didn't want to fight, you could RECALL. I know its crazy, but it worked. I think some people never figured this out (at least from their incessant whining you wouldn't think so).

Anyways, hate is good. It helped form my guild, where we helped train others to fight the reds. Through the conflict gave our guild meaning. Sure the reds had an edge, but when we were hanging out at Serpents Hold and somebody came up saying they were PKed at deceit, we mounted up and gated to try to exact revenge. Without these types on conflicts everyone would just spend their time trying to get teh shinest of teh shiny. Race to level 65. Or whatever else. Oh wait...thats every damn MMOG out today. Grind away boys![/i]

[Sky]

UO had this neat thing where if you saw a red approaching and you didn't want to fight, you could RECALL. I know its crazy, but it worked.

Hell, hiding worked against most of the amateurs that tried to pk in UO :) The worst thing about UO pvp was exploiters, imo (well, and cable vs dialup).

I found that the worst people in UO were those who used loopholes in the system built to stop them from griefing, part of why I feel any anti-griefing measures will only be subverted for griefing purposes. Whether it was the death-robed purple potioner or the Great Lords and Ladies who would noto-kill you in a heartbeat, the folks I had the least problems with in UO for the entire run of the game were red-named.

I still remember the first time I was pk'd. I was killing hinds to make some armor so I could afford reagents, and he got me outside the moonglow zoo with a couple lightning bolts (in beta). Instead of whining about it, I learned the hiding skill and was rarely pk'd afterwards, in several years of playing the game, and then it was almost always a notokiller or an exploiter/lamer (miner killer types).

Through the conflict gave our guild meaning. Sure the reds had an edge, but when we were hanging out at Serpents Hold and somebody came up saying they were PKed at deceit, we mounted up and gated to try to exact revenge

It also defined my part in our roleplaying community as part of the Yew Militia. As annoying as the incessant griefers could be, it did make for an omnipresent foe for roleplaying pvp companies. And the attack and counterattack between the pks and the original antipks (before antipk became synonymous with notopk) could go on for hours as we waited for news of the newest attacks, tried to follow them back to their headquarters, etc.

I still remember the day AOD was dumb enough to have their blue shill show up at Buc's Den, where I had been fleecing their reds all day with my thief. I snooped her (the blue's) pack and lo, a fat keyring. One snatch, run, and hide later and it was just a matter of hijacking a boat and heading to their little town to mete out a bit of player justice.

It was also a lot more fun when boats were basically community property, mostly used for transportation and then left behind like a bike on the side of the road. If it were there when you returned, cool, if not, find another.

I think the thing about UO was that you had so many tools to allow you to play the game you wanted to. But because of the outlash against pks, not understanding that the problem was not the pks, but the griefing, a lack of accountability, well, here we are in treadmill land, hunting foozles.

[Rasix]

The interesting thing about early UO is the completely polarized viewpoints of people looking back at the game.  Either it was the Jesus of player justice, player conflict and pvp or it was a gank ridden nightmare to be fled from with great haste.    

I think this pretty much happened because the game was developed without any sort of niche in mind beyond just taking the graphical MUD farther.  When you have no target audience, and no basic system in place to regulate player behavior beyond a very rudimentary set of restrictions, you have a salad instead of a soup.  You get completely different player bases attempting to coexist within the same world.  Quake-heads, MUD fans, and Ultima fanbois attempting to cohabbitate is something out of a nerd reality tv show, only bad things can happen.

I say the difference is fear. Fear of the unknown. Beyond those 10 tiles each way, you never knew what was coming. Or waiting. Knowing you had better bank often or you could actually lose something.

This worked for some people. Hell, it worked for me in that game.  But god knows a great deal of people just wanted to enjoy their leisure activity without that fear.  To this day, I still sweat more than normal, start to quiver a bit, and get a queasy stomach partaking in PVP like I did during early UO.  I just get wrecked with fear and anxiety, but it was really fun to feel like that in a game. I like games that produce strong emotional reations from me and UO produced some of the strongest.  Nothing could beat the sheer tension of facing off against a group of similar skill for control of a dungeon or popular player area.  

But I can assume that just not a lot of players wanted that. I'm sure the miner didn't (beyond a few masochistic ones), I can assume the guy trying to tame deer in the wilderness didn't like worrying about being rolled by some bored FPS exile.  I know I enjoy ATITD in its relaxed setting and wouldn't exactly want to be sevenbladed to death while I'm tending bonfires and making lime.

I think UO showed that fear can be a great boon to any virtual world.  But it's going to be a niche of a niche if PVP is going to be involved.  It has to be marketed and targetted well towards it's audience, otherwise I believe it'd suffer some atrocious retention rates.  There isn't just one show to contend with anymore and people will just likely move on than live through another early UO which rubs them the wrong way.

[Sky]

One of my main complaints about UO's world was the lack of relatively safe places to mine. I know when I started up on Siege for my second round of UO, I spent my youth in Cove, where one could safely do some mining.

If resource gatherers had enough options for safe harvesting, only needing to risk death for mining or lumberjacking when the safe places were all taken, awarding the risk taken. Hell, if that had happened, the only people who would have been bitching would have been griefees (that lovely deathrobed bastard with purple potions added nothing but annoyance to the gaming experience imo) and whiny bitches due for a firm choking by wayne brady.

I, too, used to break out in sweat and get very tense in UO pvp. There was so much more to it than just fighting, lots of subterfuge and ways to act without being a direct combatant.

But the things I loved about early UO are exactly the kind of things the mainstream EQ clone lover hated, mostly because people are broken. Some of my most tense and favorite moments came playing my thief in UO. I had a moral code and basically only stole from pks and griefer types (d00ds, in the parlance of the day), unless there were a driving rp reason. I did break into a few houses by doing a lot of scouting and some really good thieving of keys (not abusing bugs or being lame by bank stealing with a partner). It's all the lame bank thieves and 'flag' thieves (pks who invite attack by flagging themselves) that destroyed the fun of that class, same as the idiots who thought killing miners was fun ruined pvp with the introduction of Trammel.

That's why I'm such a dick about griefers and exploiters, and about needing accountabilty in mmogs. Because the one mmog that was actually good was ruined and nobody is going to revisit that open playstyle again, imo. All because of a lack of accountability and people who can't maturely interact with others.

[Xilren's Twin]

I think UO showed that fear can be a great boon to any virtual world.  But it's going to be a niche of a niche if PVP is going to be involved.  It has to be marketed and targetted well towards it's audience, otherwise I believe it'd suffer some atrocious retention rates.  There isn't just one show to contend with anymore and people will just likely move on than live through another early UO which rubs them the wrong way.

BUt what does this have to do with Shadowbane?  Oh, wait...

Xilren

[Raph]

Early in on UO, we had a philosophy of trying to fix issues in context. Rogue carpenters laying siege to the city of Trinsic by building up giant walls of furniture at the entrances? Ok, put in axes so that people within can chop their way out. From the dev point of view, it was a game of adding enough "physics" to the game to balance out the exploits.

But you only go that route if you are passionate about fighting that battle. If you are doing it for the art of it. If you are not, you instead take out the ability to drop things from your designs.

If we had made it so that six miners in a group mining were automatically two hundred times stronger, or were automatically a guard zone, or could strip PK ability from people attacking them, or some such, then we would have been encouraging the right sort of behavior, and probably it would have worked better. None of those occured to us back in 1998, though.

There ARE contextual means to resolve these things. The problem is that to find them you'll have to actually run the experiment again and make players miserable while you figure out the solutions.

[Azaroth]

*takes Raph by the hand*

Come with me, little boy...

[Rasix]

*takes Raph by the hand*

Come with me, little boy...

So, how did you solve miner ganking?

Edit: Ohh boy, another long article.

Edit Dos:

I think you're on the right track but wildly optimistic.  Certain griefers tend to transcend rules and method for keeping them in check.  Certain playstyles, while not technically grief, tend to drive certain types away from a more aggressive, risk filled game.  Now, this isn't a problem if you're shooting for a niche, but becomes really really problematic if you're trying to shoot for the moon like SWG or UO.

Sometimes you just have to "code it out". I'm curious to see how you're going to "code it out" without "coding it out".   I'd like to think it's in the players hand to make their experience better, certain games have shown you can do that (ATITD) but even successes in player policing have involved intracate involvement from the powers that be.

Anyhow, keep us informed. I'd like to see your stab at this on a design standpoint even though you couldn't get me to play a UO player shard if you jabbed me with a pointed bamboo stick.

[Raph]

Azaroth, if you'd posted that here, we'd be on page 5 already! Darnit.

[Sky]

Why is it so hard for me to write any sort of decent response to Raph? Heh. I vaccillate between fanboi and ranter.

Let me just respond to a question you asked me (and went poorly answered) elsewhere: Why do I play mmogs?

The answer is you (and the folks I don't know who make you look good :)). Because you strive for art, to make a compelling and interesting creation.

I have a hard time evaluating SWG because I just don't find it very fun, I wish I could be more constructive (but that's when I get to ranting). I'm also sad because it seems to me the low road has consistently been taken, and honestly, I can't see how any other road could have been taken when you involve Lucasarts (I was totally shocked by KotOR, I expected Lucas to drag even mighty Bioware into the sewer).

So my question in return is: Is art wasted on a playerbase that doesn't give a damn?

Because I certainly seem to be in the vast minority on most topics (gamerelated) that are discussed in the various communities I participate in. I mean, my favorite mmogs are CoH and Planetside, despite the relative shallowness and 'game'ness of both. Mostly due to the southern turn I feel the genre took after the huge promise of UO, for the reasons you hint at.

[Soukyan]

Azaroth, if you'd posted that here, we'd be on page 5 already! Darnit.

Does nobody comprehend that post length has no bearing on the page numbering? If you set your preferences to display one reply per page, we'd be on page 131 right now. ;)

[Azaroth]

So, how did you solve miner ganking?

Well, as much as it was meant to be an unfair question, I do have an answer that doesn't involve skirting it :)

We intend to put in a PK system whereby you are penalized a different amount of points for different actions. PKing people with less than x total skill points. PKing people in certain regions like the Britain GY or Despise. And the like.

Depending on your amount of points, you'll suffer a certain subset on a compounding list of penalties designed to be general nuisances and hamperings, but nothing so strong and intrusive as statloss. Something like our current penalties.

In such a system, killing miners for relatively little gain wouldn't be generally be a wise course of action. Thusly we're not coding out the freedom to do whatever you like, we're just providing a set of penalties designed to punish your actions, not just your colour.

As far as "coding out griefing without coding it out", we're not coding anything out. We're coding tools in. In general if you want a very vague idea, we're coding in a system for players to deal with griefers themselves within the game. Might work and it might not, but I'm excited about it, and it's a worthwhile test if nothing else.

[Alkiera]

As far as "coding out griefing without coding it out", we're not coding anything out. We're coding tools in. In general if you want a very vague idea, we're coding in a system for players to deal with griefers themselves within the game. Might work and it might not, but I'm excited about it, and it's a worthwhile test if nothing else.

While I've never been a big fan of PvP as it is implemented in MMO's to date, I think this is important.  Part of the issue of griefers and pks in 'player freedom' games like UO, is that the hope i for 'player justice' to save the day.  And player justice has a nigh impossible job when it comes down to stopping unwanted activities.  IMHO, there needs to be good support for people who want to play police/guards/investigators, who can track down and punish griefers and those who Pk the 'innocent'.  Make it a class, or a skillset, that helps you figure out who stole the miner's money, where they went afterword, and where they might be now.  Let them capture the theif, bring them before some kind of in-game device that can look at logs and say 'yes, this guy stole that stuff', and let them punish him, throw him in jail for some period, etc.  The 'OMG I'm paying for this game, you can't throw me in jail' crowd may leave your game, but that's where you win, as the developer.

You also need some method of cross-account accountability, so the theif can't just log on a mule(on the same acct) and thus still have access to things denied those who commit crimes.  Multi-account muling is still an issue, but one which I think is unavoidable with current technology.

As a side note, I never played actual UO, and only spent a few hours attempting to play on IPY.  I seriously wanted to know what UO was like...  I was mostly frustrated by the complete and utter lack of anything like useful documentation on how the game interface worked.  The in-game help all described how present-day UO worked, which, aside from movement, and a few UI elements, were completely unlike how IPY works.  I understand it was written for old UO vets, who probably remember alot of how it used to work, but you won't ever get any sheep to play that way.

--
Alkiera

[Azaroth]

Rewriting basic documentation for UO is a pretty time consuming task. With the new website coming up, we'll look for some alternatives like maybe even adding a section that is completely or partially ripped from old logs of Stratics in 99 or so. With our unique info added in, of course. That's really the easy part, sort of.

We've also been looking to get a newbie-friendly companionish program going with (volunteer) volunteer counselors.

I fully realize the need to be more newbie friendly in the information and startup department, but there are honestly so many things that need doing you can really get sidetracked. Especially coding wise. My one (exceptional, however) coder has literally be up to his neck for months. The little coding I'm capable of (which, come on, we really shouldn't even be calling coding) is just of no help unless I'm off on a minor cooky side project or you want something done in five hours that he could accomplish in five minutes.

Cross-account accountability isn't so much of a problem as accountability skirting via proxies and such. When you have a limit per IP on account creation instead of a limit per $$$$, you'd be surprised at the amount of hell you can raise on proxies. However, we're going to be dropping proxy connects here really soon with the help of Resident Security Dude and one of our biggest scourges will be.. curtailed, if nothing else.

Cross account accountability for general, legal, in game actions may be slightly tricky, but it probably achievable - if it's something you'd want to do. I'd be a bit cautious of even going to an account-wide system, but I guess it depends on the final workings of any system that's put in place. A lot of griefing can be done with a 50/50 newbie, so it's definitely something you have to look at.

And by the way - encouraging people to play "cops" - always something I've been interested in. Might just work right in with our upcoming town system, if I can ever figure out something really decent. In fact, the griefing system, the new PKing system, all that, will likely tie into a town system I've been putting some thought into.

We'll see.

Edit: Stop writing off the top of your head and not going back to check for typos, dipshit.

[Rasix]

Rewriting basic documentation for UO is a pretty time consuming task. With the new website coming up, we'll look for some alternatives like maybe even adding a section that is completely or partially ripped from old logs of Stratics in 99 or so. With our unique info added in, of course. That's really the easy part, sort of.

You might want to look into setting up a Wiki.  They work remarkably well in practice as a player created playguide (ATITD has a pretty decent one).  May help for some of the more intricate systems in early UO. At least it would remove some of the burden from your shoulders and put in a possibly long term beneficial bandaid.

As someone that works in the information development field, having your audience contribute their expertise to your documentation often produces great results.

[Azaroth]

PS - Where the hell is Joe and why the fuck hasn't he given me a spiffy little title yet?

"Jackass who thinks he's a developer or something and likes spiffy titles because it elevates him above the rest of the dirty cattle, even if unfairly" has a nice ring to it.

[Azaroth]

As someone that works in the information development field, having your audience contribute their expertise to your documentation often produces great results.

Big fan of that, big fan of that. However, I've been surprised by how little it tends to go on with our playerbase. Because it's an old game and people figure everyone already has it figured out, or because we're only one server with 20k accounts instead of 200k, I don't know. Either way, I think if we can highlight the amount of it that HAS gone on with the new website, it could possibly spur some more activity in that particular area. And I agree, it's a very good thing.

Hell, we picked up another server recently for our webhosting needs and our IRC. Maybe we can offer space for people who are particularly ambitious, who knows. A little mini Stratics for IPY would be sensational.

[Rasix]

While I've never been a big fan of PvP as it is implemented in MMO's to date, I think this is important.  Part of the issue of griefers and pks in 'player freedom' games like UO, is that the hope i for 'player justice' to save the day.  And player justice has a nigh impossible job when it comes down to stopping unwanted activities.  IMHO, there needs to be good support for people who want to play police/guards/investigators, who can track down and punish griefers and those who Pk the 'innocent'.  Make it a class, or a skillset, that helps you figure out who stole the miner's money, where they went afterword, and where they might be now.  Let them capture the theif, bring them before some kind of in-game device that can look at logs and say 'yes, this guy stole that stuff', and let them punish him, throw him in jail for some period, etc.  The 'OMG I'm paying for this game, you can't throw me in jail' crowd may leave your game, but that's where you win, as the developer.

It's great fun for the pks, great fun for the junior Nancy Drews and Hardy Boys, and a big ball of shit in the hand for the miners.  

Just something I've noticed about crafters (having played one and knowing many), they generally don't like being fucked with while resource gathering.  Look, it's boring, so they just want to get the damn thing over with as soon as possible.  Sure they don't want Sir Miner Ganker killing and not being penalized, but they just as soon never even be bothered by the bastard in the first place.

I look forward to seeing how your system works, but player justice is still pretty much a mirage. It doesn't matter how exciting for others you make someone's shitty experience, it's still a shitty experience.

[Azaroth]

The good goes with the bad to fuel the rollercoaster of emotions a good online world should be.

The key is to balance things as best you can. You don't want to get PKed, but we can't remove the option to PK. We can, however, punish those PKers suitably and based on their actions instead of their killcount.

Should a guy who kills miners and newbies at the Britain GY all day have the same penalties as a guy who kills the odd 7x mage in non guilded combat for whatever reason? I don't think so.