17 Dec, 2009, Idealiad wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
A smaller world forces interraction. I'm a fan of this.


Not saying you mean this specifically, but one thing I hear a lot is that to promote interaction, you need a smaller world. I think people sometimes ignore gameplay techniques for promoting interaction in a larger (potentially more interesting from an exploration standpoint) world, because 'a large world equals less interaction' is ingrained in the mud developer mindset.
17 Dec, 2009, Runter wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
More people enjoying the fruit of your labor = fail.

Every mud should aspire for a small pbase of 5-7 and then 12 years of relative inactivity while the admin remembers the glory days that once were.
17 Dec, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Idealiad said:
Not saying you mean this specifically, but one thing I hear a lot is that to promote interaction, you need a smaller world. I think people sometimes ignore gameplay techniques for promoting interaction in a larger (potentially more interesting from an exploration standpoint) world, because 'a large world equals less interaction' is ingrained in the mud developer mindset.

I wouldn't call it "ingrained", but I do agree that it seems to be a common misconception. I also think there's such a thing as too much player interaction - a mud is a game, after all, and not a chatroom. The trick is to get the right balance for your target audience and playerbase size, and there are various ways to both increase and decrease the amount of interaction.

Even a really small world is unlikely to have much player interaction if players are encouraged to spend most of their time in their private homes (training, crafting, etc) and the majority of gameplay takes place in instanced areas.

Conversely, a really large world could still have a lot of player interaction if there's a central hub where people are encouraged to hang out (eg a 'recall' spot with all the shops, etc), and if there are ways to locate (scry, track, etc) and quickly travel to (teleport, portal, run, etc) other players.

Runter said:
Every mud should aspire for a small pbase of 5-7 and then 12 years of relative inactivity while the admin remembers the glory days that once were.

And then after the 12 years they can rant about how muds are dead, and blame WoW for their lack of players?
17 Dec, 2009, Runter wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
KV said:
Conversely, a really large world could still have a lot of player interaction if there's a central hub where people are encouraged to hang out (eg a 'recall' spot with all the shops, etc), and if there are ways to locate (scry, track, etc) and quickly travel to (teleport, portal, run, etc) other players.


In my game I've decided to break down my world into continents. Each continent will have its own hub. Traveling around continents will be fairly pain free with abilities, spells, mounts, etc etc. But to get from continent to continent it may be relatively more difficult. For example you may need to spend a few minutes on an automated ship ride after buying a ticket. Logically this will allow me to separate rules that may only apply in one place. In general I intend to have most of the game (especially if there's any type of grind for leveling involved) on a single social continent.
KV said:
And then after the 12 years they can rant about how muds are dead, and blame WoW for their lack of players?


Yes. Or those evil GUIs.
17 Dec, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
quixadhal said:
or when you're trying to get 12 million paying subscribers

Yeah, I can't possibly see why anybody would want that… :tongue:

and
Runter said:
More people enjoying the fruit of your labor = fail.


The question is, is that your primary goal? In the case of most commercial games, yes, whatever increases the subscriber base is THE primary goal, because that's the best way to increase ROI.

So, given a choice between telling your story, and tossing the players in your medieval village light sabers so they can "vroom voop" the mobs down and tell their friends how cool it was to slaughter 500 mobs and gain 3 levels in 10 minutes, which choice will you make? I know MY choice isn't going to get 12 million kids beating up my server, but my villagers won't have to try to explain to the cleric how their missing limbs are already cauterized either.
17 Dec, 2009, Runter wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
I think that's making the assumption that to be widely appealing you have to sell out or deviate from your plans or goals.

Ever stopped and think that maybe it's not everyone else with the bad taste? :)
17 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
I also think there's such a thing as too much player interaction - a mud is a game, after all, and not a chatroom.

Sounds like you're assuming that player interaction is measured on a one-dimensional scale from "no talking" to "only talking". Surely, there are ways for people to interact a lot without it degenerating into a chat room.
17 Dec, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
I think that's making the assumption that to be widely appealing you have to sell out or deviate from your plans or goals.

Ever stopped and think that maybe it's not everyone else with the bad taste? :)


No, it's making the assumption that if you are making the game that you WANT to make, you don't really have to CARE how many people will be playing it. Now, most people assume that if they make a really good game, there will be a reasonable number of people who find it and enjoy playing it, but if you're really making the game because you want to make it, the numbers shouldn't matter much.
17 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
No, it's making the assumption that if you are making the game that you WANT to make, you don't really have to CARE how many people will be playing it. Now, most people assume that if they make a really good game, there will be a reasonable number of people who find it and enjoy playing it, but if you're really making the game because you want to make it, the numbers shouldn't matter much.

At the risk of eliciting a few groans, if a game alone in the forest has no players, is it still a game? Serious question though; although I fully agree with you that people can be entirely happy making their world, it sounds like the task is no longer really making a multiplayer game. If players are really incidental to the success of the project, then I don't think the person is working on a "game" anymore, but something else. I don't know many MUD developers who are making the game without caring much about whether or not people will actually enjoy it.
17 Dec, 2009, donky wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
quixadhal said:
No, it's making the assumption that if you are making the game that you WANT to make, you don't really have to CARE how many people will be playing it. Now, most people assume that if they make a really good game, there will be a reasonable number of people who find it and enjoy playing it, but if you're really making the game because you want to make it, the numbers shouldn't matter much.

At the risk of eliciting a few groans, if a game alone in the forest has no players, is it still a game? Serious question though; although I fully agree with you that people can be entirely happy making their world, it sounds like the task is no longer really making a multiplayer game. If players are really incidental to the success of the project, then I don't think the person is working on a "game" anymore, but something else. I don't know many MUD developers who are making the game without caring much about whether or not people will actually enjoy it.


I happen to think that MUD developers who actually happen to be making games without caring whether people will actually enjoy it or not, are par for the course. More often than not, when I log onto a MUD, I wonder who on earth would enjoy it and it doesn't surprise me that it has very few players. And sometimes, it surprises me that they have more than that.

I would instead argue that it is one thing to think you care about whether or not people will actually enjoy it, but another to actually be taking that concept seriously. My belief, is that most people making MUDs have their own beliefs and interests and simply make something along those lines. The only resemblence to caring whether people will actually enjoy it, is the accompanying belief that their beliefs and interests are good and worthwhile ones.
17 Dec, 2009, Runter wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Runter said:
I think that's making the assumption that to be widely appealing you have to sell out or deviate from your plans or goals.

Ever stopped and think that maybe it's not everyone else with the bad taste? :)


No, it's making the assumption that if you are making the game that you WANT to make, you don't really have to CARE how many people will be playing it. Now, most people assume that if they make a really good game, there will be a reasonable number of people who find it and enjoy playing it, but if you're really making the game because you want to make it, the numbers shouldn't matter much.


Yes. Making a game can be fun, but every designer I know cares about the quality of their work. I think if people want to make toy projects then they should do that. But the truth is that I hear a lot of sour grapes on these forums from people either complaining about the success of WoW, certain MUDs, etc etc. Then effectively blame the players for their choice. People play what they feel is fun. They vote with their presence. And sometimes their wallet. Yes, you can design a MUD that meets some niche. More times than not said MUDs aren't really something new, interesting, or that different from existing projects. And this is where it really comes full circle fo the toy project point. That's effectively what these idle MUDs are.
18 Dec, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Sounds like you're assuming that player interaction is measured on a one-dimensional scale from "no talking" to "only talking".

A refreshingly nave idea, but no, it's far more complex than that.

donky said:
I happen to think that MUD developers who actually happen to be making games without caring whether people will actually enjoy it or not, are par for the course.

I think every mud is created with a target audience in mind. It's just that many mud developers consider themselves (and by extension those who share their preferences) to be their target audience. Unless I misread your post, this seems to be pretty much what you go on to suggest in your second paragraph.

I don't think this is a bad idea - after all, if you're working on something as a hobby that you don't actually like, the chances are you'll soon lose interest.
18 Dec, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
David Haley said:
Sounds like you're assuming that player interaction is measured on a one-dimensional scale from "no talking" to "only talking".

A refreshingly nave idea, but no, it's far more complex than that.

I don't understand how this is a response to my post, but ok. You were the one who seemed to be making the assumption… Perhaps you can explain yourself, then? You stated quite clearly that there can be "too much" interaction, turning things into a chat room; this holds if there is only one kind of interaction there can be "too much" of. (Well, by definition, "too much" of anything is bad, but the specific claim here was that it became "too much" only when things turn into a chat room.)

donky said:
I happen to think that MUD developers who actually happen to be making games without caring whether people will actually enjoy it or not, are par for the course.

Sure, I agree with this. I think it's an interesting feature of the genre/community/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, explaining partly why there are so many MUDs out there that seem to exist without ever really wanting to bring in players.
18 Dec, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
It's because we all grew up with the "If you build it, they will come" mantra in our heads. *grin*

I think it's obvious that most game admins would prefer to have players, rather than having no players. However, I was originally (points waaaaay back up there) trying to get at the difference between an admin who puts their "vision" first, and one who puts their player population first.

Of course you can walk a line between the two extremes, and most admins do just that. Commercial games are another beast entirely. If you have investors, they expect a certain level of ROI, and they generally have control over what you do and how you do it, either directly by contract, or indirectly by making the funding go away. So, *IF* you are trying to attract 12 million paying subscribers, you are almost certainly going to have to do stuff you don't want to do to keep that money rolling in the door.

Once you HAVE 12 million subscribers, you can probably tell the investors to stick it. :)

I suspect a great many of the "idle" muds out there (mine being one of them) are games that were once popular, but the players drifted off, the builders and admins didn't have time or energy to recruit more, and years later the player landscape has changed. With enough effort, I'm sure I could find the masochists who used to like my old game and get some of them back, but I'm not willing to put the time in. I'm probably not the only one out there.

Should I shut it down? Eh… I have a server, it's on 24/7, it doesn't do much else besides serve up a few files on my LAN… if one person every couple of months gets 15 minutes of amusement from it running, I'm happy to let it run.
04 May, 2010, sweatsack wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
The idea of a MUD being too small is interesting to me. I'm playing with a new idea for a MUD where that will almost be the point. I don't plan to purposely limit myself to a certain number or anything, but I have kind of a scatterbrained personality, and with previous MUD projects I've taken on (and other similar projects in life) I tend to shoot for quantity and try to churn out as many rooms (or whatever) as possible, and imagine that I'll go back and flesh them out later. Which usually doesn't happen.

My plan is kind of an exercise in self-control, to force myself to focus on quality rather than quantity. It's going to start with one room, I imagine like a barroom. Before I even connect it to another room, I'm going to make it 100% complete, very vivid and rich, almost like I'm trying to create a one-room MUD. Only when I feel that it's perfect will I expand it. The same thing with users, I'd like to just have a close group of users (at least at first) and focus on the social aspect. Then the users and rooms can kind of feed off each other; as more "pioneers" come to populate the area, more places start to sprout up, it becomes a village, then a city, and the world just expands in general. But everything is done in small increments.

I have no idea if this sounds like an interesting idea, or a good idea even, to anyone else but like I said, it's more of a self-exercise and if it takes off, cool.
06 May, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Big or small, the important thing is to consider the kind of gameplay you want to foster, and focus towards that. The traditional MUD is based on the old Dungeons & Dragons paradigm, and that typically involves gathering your party in town (preferably at an inn), hearing about some treasure/monster/event, and then venturing out across the wilderness to steal/loot/kill/save something.

The goal of a MUD with many thousands or rooms is to recreate that "wilderness" feel. However, if you've played D&D at all, you realize that while the DM (or module author) spends a lot of time mapping out the encounters themselves, putting all kinds of traps, hidden passages, extra details, even mob reactions which tell the player something… the wilderness is usually just rolled up on the fly. Sure, any DM worth anything will draw a map of the area and may place a few fixed encounters, but generally the descriptions of the areas you're walking through are made up on the fly.

Translated to a MUD, this usually means you know you have a city here, and you have a kobold encampment that you want to be in the foothills of some mountains about 2 miles south. So, how many rooms of grassland/hills/forest do you need to plot in to make up that 2 mile distance? Let's say your scaling makes that 20 rooms, and you probably want a wide enough swath to allow for some meandering, so maybe 10 rooms wide at least. 200 rooms.

In a traditional MUD, those 200 rooms are fluff. They serve two purposes… one is the fill in the distance so you have a feel that the place you're going is "somewhere" other than next door. The other is the give the players some random encounters as they walk around. In neither case will the room descriptions really prove to be terribly important. Because of that, players are used to ignoring them.

I, personally, like expansive worlds. I plan to create a virtual wilderness that's simply generated from a set of seed values. In that case, the world will be millions of rooms (possibly infinite, depending on the generation method). I don't consider that to be a finished product though. That's a canvas, in which I can wander and place interesting hand-built content.

Now, if you want to focus on a minimal world, I suggest you choose the opposite approach. By that, I mean add lots of details and things to look at (detail descriptions), and make them all relevant to the game in some way. So, not only can you look at the fireplace, and then look at a statue on the fireplace, and then look at the gemstone in they eye of the statue… but that gemstone might be a focusing crystal needed for a quest. The statue itself may be of someone or something that you'll encounter elsewhere. The fireplace might tell you something about the inn you're staying at, or perhaps another fireplace in the inn will stand out as different, prompting you to look closer and see a hidden alcove.

Also, when you do open to the public, you will have to leave plenty of clues to inform the players they really do need to read all the descriptions. Most players are lazy, and because many builders (especially on stock Dikurivatives) are also lazy, they even run around in "brief" mode most of the time. That needs to be corrected. :)
06 May, 2010, Runter wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Now, if you want to focus on a minimal world, I suggest you choose the opposite approach. By that, I mean add lots of details and things to look at (detail descriptions), and make them all relevant to the game in some way. So, not only can you look at the fireplace, and then look at a statue on the fireplace, and then look at the gemstone in they eye of the statue… but that gemstone might be a focusing crystal needed for a quest. The statue itself may be of someone or something that you'll encounter elsewhere. The fireplace might tell you something about the inn you're staying at, or perhaps another fireplace in the inn will stand out as different, prompting you to look closer and see a hidden alcove.


Just to add my 2 cents here. I think if you're focusing on an extremely small world you want to make sure you build up interesting models for how things interact. Ultimately it makes it more difficult to thoughtfully design a small world.

Another thing to consider is that with large worlds you can have filler and you can have largely rotten areas. When you have a limited play area it requires much more elegance when designing it. Players are likely to look at everything with a certain amount of scrutiny that they wouldn't in a very, very large game.
06 May, 2010, flumpy wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
One of the most fun text adventures I ever played (not a MUD) was a game stuck to the front of a Your Sinclair magazine called "The Balrog -behind closed doors III".

Set in one room, the objective was to get out of it. The room? An outhouse, that had been locked from the outside. All you had was a magazine and a bogroll…

Fun fun fun.
06 May, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
While I believe that it was fun to play, your description must not be doing it justice. :wink:
06 May, 2010, Idealiad wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
If you're going to have a small mud with more than a few players, it'd be nice to think of some new ways to make enter/exit spam easier to deal with.
20.0/45