Slashdot Mirror
Bartle to MMOG Players - Newbs!
Gamasutra (registration required) has begun running an excellent column called "Soapbox". The first article up on the site is penned by Richard Bartle, one of the gents who created MUD1. Why Virtual Worlds are Designed by Newbies [non-reg alternate] is a great look at the lessons of past games and the foibles of designing a new one. From the article: "Virtual worlds are being designed by know-nothing newbies, and there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it. I don't mean newbie designers, I mean newbie players - first timers. They're dictating design through a twisted "survival of the not-quite-fittest" form of natural selection that will lead to a long-term decay in quality, guaranteed."
Regisitration Required
How lame...Why on earth do "we" even bother reading slashdot anymore. The editors might as well be (un)trained monkeys.
Use:
Username: slashdot@mailinator.com
Password: slashdot
article linky
bugmenot login generator
Feel free to hijack this thread to complain about how slashdot is going to the dogs these days... I remember the good ol' days when they used to run real live interesting tech stories...not some
.sig
[Author's note: What I'm calling virtual worlds, you might call MMORPGs or MMOGs or (if you're a real old-timer) MUDs. Macro replace with your preference accordingly. Got that? Then I'll begin...]
Introduction
Virtual worlds are being designed by know-nothing newbies, and there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it. I don't mean newbie designers, I mean newbie players - first timers. They're dictating design through a twisted survival of the not-quite-fittest form of natural selection that will lead to a long-term decay in quality, guaranteed. If you think some of today's offerings are garbage, just you wait...
Yeah, yeah, you want some justification for this assertion. Even though I'm in Soapbox mode, I can see that, so I will explain - only not just yet. First, I'm going to make four general points that I can string together to build my case. Bear with me on this...
The Newbie Stream
Here's a quote from Victorian author Charles Dickens:
OK, so maybe he didn't actually write that last line.
What Dickens was actually saying is that, so long as you don't lose more than you gain, things are good. In our particular case, we're not talking olde English money, we're talking newbies, although ultimately, the two amount to one and the same thing.
Now I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news, people, but here goes anyway: even for the most compelling of virtual worlds, players will eventually leave. Don't blame me, I didn't invent reality.
If oldbies leave, newbies are needed to replace them. The newbies must arrive at the same rate (or better) that the oldbies leave; otherwise, the population of the virtual world will decline until eventually no-one will be left to play it.
Point #1: Virtual worlds live or die by their ability to attract newbies
Newbie Preconceptions
Another quote, this time from the 1989 movie Field of Dreams:
Well, maybe if you're an Iowa corn farmer who hears voices inside your head telling you to construct a baseball stadium, but otherwise...
A virtual world can be fully functioning and free of bugs, but still be pretty well devoid of players. There are plenty of non-gameplay reasons why this could happen, but I'm going to focus on the most basic: lack of appeal. Some virtual worlds just aren't attractive to newbies. There are some wonderfully original, joyous virtual worlds out there. They're exquisitely balanced, rich in depth, abundant in breadth, alive with subtleties, and full of wise, interesting, fun people who engender an atmosphere of mystique and marvel without compare. Newbies would love these virtual worlds, but they're not going to play them.
Why not? Because they're all text. Newbies don't do text.
Newbies come to virtual worlds with a set of preconceptions acquired from other virtual worlds; or, failing that, from other computer games; or, failing that, from gut instinct. They will not consider virtual worlds that confront these expectations if there are others around that don't.
Put another way, if a virtual world has a feature that offends newbies, the developers will have to remove that feature or they won't get any newbies. This is irrespective of what the oldbies think: they may adore a feature, but if newbies don't like it then (under point #1) eventually there won't be anyone left to adore it.
Point #2: Newbies won't play a virtual world that has a major feature they don
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Soapbox:
Why Virtual Worlds are Designed By Newbies - No, Really!
[Author's note: What I'm calling virtual worlds, you might call MMORPGs or MMOGs or (if you're a real old-timer) MUDs. Macro replace with your preference accordingly. Got that? Then I'll begin...]
Introduction
Virtual worlds are being designed by know-nothing newbies, and there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it. I don't mean newbie designers, I mean newbie players - first timers. They're dictating design through a twisted "survival of the not-quite-fittest" form of natural selection that will lead to a long-term decay in quality, guaranteed. If you think some of today's offerings are garbage, just you wait...
Yeah, yeah, you want some justification for this assertion. Even though I'm in Soapbox mode, I can see that, so I will explain - only not just yet. First, I'm going to make four general points that I can string together to build my case. Bear with me on this...
The Newbie Stream
Here's a quote from Victorian author Charles Dickens:
Annual income £20/-/-, annual expenditure £19/19/6, result happiness.
Annual income £20/-/-, annual expenditure £20/-/6, result misery.
Annual income £0, annual expenditure £20,000,000, result There.com.
OK, so maybe he didn't actually write that last line.
What Dickens was actually saying is that, so long as you don't lose more than you gain, things are good. In our particular case, we're not talking olde English money, we're talking newbies, although ultimately, the two amount to one and the same thing.
Now I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news, people, but here goes anyway: even for the most compelling of virtual worlds, players will eventually leave. Don't blame me, I didn't invent reality.
If oldbies leave, newbies are needed to replace them. The newbies must arrive at the same rate (or better) that the oldbies leave; otherwise, the population of the virtual world will decline until eventually no-one will be left to play it.
Point #1: Virtual worlds live or die by their ability to attract newbies
Newbie Preconceptions
Another quote, this time from the 1989 movie Field of Dreams:
If we build it, they will come.
Well, maybe if you're an Iowa corn farmer who hears voices inside your head telling you to construct a baseball stadium, but otherwise...
A virtual world can be fully functioning and free of bugs, but still be pretty well devoid of players. There are plenty of non-gameplay reasons why this could happen, but I'm going to focus on the most basic: lack of appeal. Some virtual worlds just aren't attractive to newbies. There are some wonderfully original, joyous virtual worlds out there. They're exquisitely balanced, rich in depth, abundant in breadth, alive with subtleties, and full of wise, interesting, fun people who engender an atmosphere of mystique and marvel without compare. Newbies would love these virtual worlds, but they're not going to play them.
Why not? Because they're all text. Newbies don't do text.
Newbies come to virtual worlds with a set of preconceptions acquired from other virtual worlds; or, failing that, from other computer games; or, failing that, from gut instinct. They will not consider virtual worlds that confront these expectations if there are others around that don't.
Put another way, if a virtual world has a feature that offends newbies, the developers will have to remove that feature or they won't get any newbies. This is irrespective of what the oldbies think: they may adore a feature, but if newbies don't like it then (under point #1) eventually there won't be anyone left to adore it.
Point #2: Newbies won't play a virtual world that has a major feature they don't like.
Not-So-Newbies
Here's another quote (kind of), from a private study of 1,100 players by the Themis Group. Themis's researchers asked veterans of 3 or more virtual worlds how many mon
That is perhaps the most draconian registration process ever. Feel free to use my info:
user: numlocked@gmail.com
pass: 78b9602a
The first multi-user online "Dungeon" wasn't bartle's MUD. It would have either been Empire on Plato, or the People's Computer Company's "Public Caves", both from the late '70s. The latter wasn't concurrent multi-user, but operated as a bullten board rather than a chat system (as did most online sustems at the time), but the interactions between people were very similar to the ones on MUDs.
For more about Prof. Bartle check his site. He knows what he's talking about and "Designing Virtual Worlds" was thoroughly informative.
It'll be interesting to see how Roma Victor turns out since he's apparently involved in that, among other things.
telnet://mud.arctic.org:2700
"Point #1: Virtual worlds live or die by their ability to attract newbies
Point #2: Newbies won't play a virtual world that has a major feature they don't like.
Point #3: Players judge all virtual worlds as a reflection of the one they first got into.
Point #4: Many players will think some poor design choices are good."
Substitute Linux for MMOG and the above also fits.
"But like the article stated, it's pretty hard to keep everyone happy because they all want something in the virtual world to suit their abilities to win.
Additionally, newbies are always lost in the first instance they arrive in the city, so it requires a lot of tutorials and guides to get them settle in in order to introduce the real depth of the game to them."
Ditto here too.
I've always been a big fan of Fantasy based MUDs such as those found at fire.pvv.org, port 4242 (Multi-User Middle Earth) and rots.us, port 3791 (Return of the Shadow)
... be prepared in case of addiction.
To play these effectively (as a new player) you will need a MUD client. These are just a modified telent terminal. Zmud is popular for windows users, Powwow, Tintin, and others are good on a Linux system.
Once you get in, start reading things. Most MUDs support intuitive commands like "west" to go west, or "Say" to say something, or "Chat" to say something to everyone in the game. Ask questions, take notes, and
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
.. that you get your kicks by ruining the fun of other people.
Boy, you're *so* krad!
What are some popular MUDs?
You can go to www.mudconnector.com and search for a MUD with features you might like. Personally, I'm partial to Discworld.
Guild Wars, which had it's free World Preview Event over this past weekend, is a great example of competitive balance in a manner similar to what you mentioned. There are 6 classes a person has to choose from, each with 75 available skills to be learned. Players are only able to 'equip' 8 skills for any mission/instance from their primary or secondary class. The level cap is 20. Once you reach 20 (which can be done in 2 days or so if you work hard enough), you are essentially on an equal playing field with everyone, regardless of how long they have been playing the game. You can continue to learn new skills beyond level 20, but you are still limited to only carrying 8 at any given moment. While older characters may be much more versatile (with planning) than new characters, they are never necessarily at an advantage due to their age.
The good (and bad) thing about most MUDS out there is that they are all based off the same worlds and engines, so a lot of the knowledge is transferable from one MUD to the next. But the good ones go out of their way to make theirs unique.
If you want top quality, there are pay to play MUDS like Gemstone III and Dragonrealms (both by Simutronics, and no I don't work for them). I've played those since they both came out and I can honestly say it is totally worth the money and they'd get my credit card number over Sony any day of the week.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
The biggest problem that I find with perma-death is the concept of 'doing it again.' Especially when even doing it the first time wasn't that much fun. Most MMORPGs are played for the destination, not the jouney. Perma-death compounds that by making you play this unwanted journey over and over. Before I'd fully recommend perma-death, I'd have to make sure the journey is fun.
I still think, when it becomes feasible that perma-death is a 'better way.' But there's no chance I'd want it in todays MMORPGs.
""The cause of instancing is, quite specifically, having too many players for a given amount of content.""
Exactly right...and the cause of that is not having enough content. So, what you need is content that dynamically expands as the number of players expands. The best way to do that is to have the players create the content.
The reason quests are bad isn't that they give you something to do. It's not that they don't 'add spice to the game.' They are bad for the sole reason that they are designed by the developer.
There is no way the developer can hand-tailor enough quests to satisfy an ever growing population. It takes longer to design a quest than to do it.
AO, CoH, and some others tried dynamic quests...a quest generator machine. Instead of dynamic, the result was random and repetative. (CoH is actually just repetative gameplay...they tried VERY hard on their stories.)
The real answer kills two birds. Player generated content. A way for players to generate their own quests.
Look at the quests in MMORPGs. "Kill 10 frogs and bring their skins." "Fetch me some yellow chalk." "Take this package to Fuzzle" They actually have names. 'Kill tasks', and "Fedex quests." Is that what you really want?
There there are occaisional 'epic quests,' which are basically combinations. "Get the magic stone from Listerine, (by killing him) and then get the magic scepter from Gargle (by killing him) and take them to the magic mountain guarded by Rinse, (by killing him) and make the "SuperWand" and bring it to me." That's the 'spice' you were talking about. (And I actually agree.)
But think of this...
Players need yellow chalk, and they can't always go get it, or don't always know where it is. Instead of an NPC sitting around asking for it, if there was a way for a player to make a 'quest' for someone to bring them some, two tasks would be fulfilled.
Players need frog skins, or they need a monster slain (guarding a resource node or something.) They could design a 'quest' for this.
And finally...players need something to do. There are a great number of 'wanna-be' game designers who would love to make content for a MMORPG, (just look at the mods for other games.) If you provided a simple mechanism, you'd have people churning out 'epic level' quests that rival the best the developers could do.
Quests aren't a bad thing soley because they exist, quests are a bad thing because the developer is filling a niche that really they should have designed tools and allowed the player to fill them.
Sure you'll get some lemon content that way....but there are stupid quests already that the developers put in as filler. However, you'd never run out of content that's for sure, and it would be dynamic and follow the needs of the server, and congestion would clear itself up simply by supply and demand.
That's not to say the developer does nothing. They have to train the players how to do this. They have to get them 'started.' The developers become simply the catalyst. The players will take care of the rest.
That's why I said Quests were a bad thing. I agree that instancing is 'not enough content for the players.' (You said too many players for the content.) It's the developer generated quests that are causing that lack.
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
http://www.iclod.com/info.aspx?section=help&subjec t=quickstart
Quickstart Tutorials are useful.
It says how to get a free room for the first night on the first page.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood