18 Dec, 2012, Tyche wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
I'm sort of partial to features 4, 6, 8, 10, 11.
Another solution to 4 (unlimited advancement) is permadeath.
For 6, I prefer turn-based over real-time combat.
There are interface solutions to 8 (realistic manipulation of equipment) as others have mentioned.
I don't see 10 (class/race combination) as a problem at all. I don't understand the desire for balance. Maybe because I'm used to playing tabletop games with this imbalance built in.
For 11 (differently sized equipment), I don't see it as a problem if you've got a nice way of keeping track of what equipment you've built.

Elanthis had some interesting ones:
Colorful Rainbows are Colorful
1) allow user to turn it off
2a) allow user to configure colors
2b) only works if builders use a consistent color guide

Shell-like Commands
I have to agree with this. Doesn't even make sense for content creators to be using *nix memes like: @chown room Bob

Information Overload
Again user configurable. Some enjoy reading everything. Some just want game important information (brief).
18 Dec, 2012, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
Information overload is also a problem with people with screen to speech tools. (as are non optionnal ascii maps). Had a few blind users that were happy to have the most concentrated info possible. (some people enjoy to see their 6 attacks shown and their respective damage, other are happier with just you six attacks did xxx (cumulated) damage.
18 Dec, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
Famine said:
Think of it as you being the doctor and your players being the patient. The action is through what the patient conveys as his or her symptoms.

To continue the analogy, the difference of opinion here seems to be that you're suggesting addressing (or even just hiding) the symptoms, while I'd rather address the underlying problems.

Famine said:
The proposed features you listed are not broken in my opinion. They are working as they were intended to be designed.

But they are broken in my opinion, and that's what this thread is about, as I made clear in the first post - my opinion based on features I've seen and/or implemented myself. Those I personally implemented certainly weren't working as intended, and I can make a pretty good guess at the design goals of the other features.

Tyche said:
I don't see 10 (class/race combination) as a problem at all. I don't understand the desire for balance.

The problem is that if all the classes and races are paired up, they're no longer doing anything useful - you don't have two choices, you have one, because your class effectively determines your race (or else serves as a way to shoot yourself in the foot during character creation). You might as well merge them into the same thing, like older versions of D&D, where "elf" was both a race and a class.
18 Dec, 2012, Igabod wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
In one mud where they had races and classes each race was good at 2 professions. So an elf was great at being a cleric and good at being a ranger. A dwarf was a great fighter and good paladin. Some had only one class they were good at but they had significant bonuses in that one that it made up for the lack of another choice. seemed to be a good solution. Another addition I could think of would be to make specific skills that are only available to certain races for each class. So an elf warrior would have one unique skill that a human warrior and a dwarf warrior would not have access to. And that human would have a skill the others don't have etc.
18 Dec, 2012, plamzi wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
Igabod said:
In one mud where they had races and classes each race was good at 2 professions. So an elf was great at being a cleric and good at being a ranger.


I think that actually supports KaVir's argument. You either have a great build (elf cleric) or you just shot yourself (elf ranger–in the foot, elf knight–in the head). Given that class and race choices are usually made at creation, you have effectively created a trap for new players only.

Igabod said:
Another addition I could think of would be to make specific skills that are only available to certain races for each class. So an elf warrior would have one unique skill that a human warrior and a dwarf warrior would not have access to. And that human would have a skill the others don't have etc.


That's a better idea, but one that has less obvious pitfalls. One pitfall is that 10x10 is 100. So instead of developing all aspects of the game to create a rich experience, the implementors will be coding hundreds of skills, some of which may never actually be used by anyone. Kudos if they pull it off and end up with 100 amazing and amazingly different skills, while still developing other interesting features. But it won't be a walk in the park.

Another pitfall is that a "dwarf cleric" will look at an "elf cleric" and think to themselves, "I wish I had picked elf. Seems to have better race-based skills. But no way I'm not going to create another cleric (because they're not sufficiently different / because I don't plan on having 100 alts just to try all skills). So now I'm stuck with this crappy dwarf cleric." It doesn't matter whether "dwarf cleric" is really a crappy build or not–what matters is that players will feel that way looking at the grass in the neighbor's yard.
18 Dec, 2012, Igabod wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
hmm you raise some good points but I think your view is at the extreme end of the spectrum. There is a way to make the various different combinations intriguing enough for everybody to want to try at least 10 different combinations. I myself have played a certain mud that was like that. I ended up with so many alts I had to have a .txt file listing them since that mud didn't have an account system. Sure, if the developers don't do enough design planning as far as the unique skills for each race/class combination go, the mud could end up with just 5 or 6 that are worth even attempting and 100 others that are crap. But with enough thought and creativity its possible to make each combination a worthwhile endeavor. Just can't have lazy developers.
18 Dec, 2012, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
You can also like to chose to be an underdog sometimes. And more kudos to you if you are more succesful than the 'cookie cutter' build everyone pick.
Who cares about the xxxxth mage elf…now a succesful dwarf mage, THAT is something to remember. (I have race and classes, obvisouly some are better combo than other, but I hardly allow to totally shoot yourself in the foot (sure if you decide to be completly stupid you can…like picking paladin AND dkn subclasses) . Only human can pick all classes, other are limited in the one they can choose from. And all races have way more than 1 way to be successful as well.
19 Dec, 2012, quixadhal wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
Most people who complain about balance are only thinking about combat, because their games (and most games they've played) focus entirely on combat. Another issue which I continue to find amusing, is that MUlti-player Dungeons always balance things for the single player, rather than the group. Perhaps that's because nobody can remember ever playing with a group on a text MUD, but it seems self-defeating to design your multi-player game for solo players.

I've always been a fan of giving every playable character type some strengths and some weaknesses. Perhaps dwarves have higher resistances to elemental damage, while elves resist nature damage. Maybe elves cast spells easier and faster, while they have a harder time wielding heavy weapons. The balance people are whining already, but I suggest you make various NPC groups that play to and against those strengths and weaknesses. So, your dwarven fighter can plow through the fire mages like butter, while the elf will have a tough time. The elf will make mincemeat granola bites out of orcs, while the dwarf has to slog through them, one axe blow at a time.

Now, I suppose if you have a PvP-only MUD, that won't work. But, otherwise, you can either pick your battles OR… group with other players? *gasp*
19 Dec, 2012, Runter wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
A solution I find viable to the race/class dilemma is simply not making race a significant source of power for classes. More interesting to me is making races have some type of distinctly unique properties useful to all classes aside from traditional stats. When a player makes a decision to play an elf knight he/she is usually making a decision related to *lore* differences. If you're only making a game different based on power derived from a race, I think you're failing to give them the experience they're looking for. Like content that is distinctly different from elves, a different perspective into the storyline, and other options for play-style. It just needs to be balanced well enough to make these things happen.
19 Dec, 2012, Famine wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Famine said:
Think of it as you being the doctor and your players being the patient. The action is through what the patient conveys as his or her symptoms.

To continue the analogy, the difference of opinion here seems to be that you're suggesting addressing (or even just hiding) the symptoms, while I'd rather address the underlying problems.

Famine said:
The proposed features you listed are not broken in my opinion. They are working as they were intended to be designed.

But they are broken in my opinion, and that's what this thread is about, as I made clear in the first post - my opinion based on features I've seen and/or implemented myself. Those I personally implemented certainly weren't working as intended, and I can make a pretty good guess at the design goals of the other features.


Pretty much sums up why I brought it up haha. You're addressing issues that are not really issues based on you're own opinion as opposed to the opinions that matter–the players. Clear cut definition of developers in their ivory towers! :devil:
19 Dec, 2012, Igabod wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
Famine said:
Pretty much sums up why I brought it up haha. You're addressing issues that are not really issues based on you're own opinion as opposed to the opinions that matter–the players. Clear cut definition of developers in their ivory towers! :devil:


Most mud developers are also mud players. I believe Kavir fits into that category though it is likely a few years since he last actively played any muds. Your point is moot.
19 Dec, 2012, Famine wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
Indeed, I would hope you play what you create as well play what others have created. However, that does not mean you're developing the game just for you. If so, good luck with that. Personally, I think it's important to make a game for the people who actually are playing it, not the developers. Most games made for developers, normally suck.

And my point is not moot. Instead of a the patient telling the doctor where the pain is on the doll. The doctor is coming into the patient house at random and performing open heart surgery on them regardless if they need it or not. <Insert ivory tower joke here>

"I know what's best for you because I'm a doctor!"
19 Dec, 2012, plamzi wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
Famine said:
You're addressing issues that are not really issues based on you're own opinion as opposed to the opinions that matter–the players. Clear cut definition of developers in their ivory towers! :devil:


In my experience, devs in ivory towers is a much less common sight than people who claim to speak for "the players" and then go on to claim that such and such eccentric feature is what "the players" want. Think of it this way: every player on KaVir's games votes daily for his game design decisions by virtue of playing. But when the odd LFM poster comes along and asks for a MUD that requires your char to sleep at least 8 hrs a day, or wonders why in most MUDs there are two ring slots and not 25 (36 for elf chars who have longer fingers), that's just the lone voice of someone who'll never find what they're looking for.

MUD vets who advocate realism for the sake of realism are a special breed. You could design a game that tries to cater to (all 7 of) them, but I'm betting that after all your efforts in trying to make bowel movements less dull, they will disqualify your game anyway (e. g. you didn't really pull off character creation because it was missing inception, gestation, birth, and the first 16-odd years of development).

Why realism in some things and not in others? Because that's what games *are*. They abstract some elements from reality and suspend all other elements in a way that creates a closed, artificial system that is knowable/finite and thus enjoyable to explore and re-visit. It's futile to try to make a game that is as big as reality or as realistic as reality. If you make the most realistic game ever created, you will very likely find that it is unplayable by a human being who *also* has to have a normal life.

Very simple example: tetris. Bricks are falling from the sky, and some of them fit nicely with others. Millions of people have clocked millions of hours playing with abstract forms of gravity and form-fitting, and having great, super-addictive fun. But the bricks fall unrealistically slowly, even at the highest levels. Just make them fall as fast as a real brick would, a-a-and you have made a game that is impossible to play by human beings.

Just to be clear, I am not opposed to realism in all forms–I'm only opposed to realism for its own sake, changes that make the game less enjoyable for most players. I've added tons of what I see as harmless realism, back stories 'explaining' why and how this game mechanic 'actually works'. But I would call that 'texture' and would not even dream of trying stuff like realistic inventory management.

And guys, we should be talking about how to make more people play MUDs. More, not less. Surely we can all agree that most people would find having to go to the restroom in a game juvenile at best, disturbing at worst.
20 Dec, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
Famine said:
You're addressing issues that are not really issues based on you're own opinion as opposed to the opinions that matter–the players.

No, you certainly don't let the players make your design decisions, that's a recipe for disaster. The requirements analysis is where you take into account what the players want. You should listen to the players, you should find out what they like and what they want, such feedback can be extremely valuable. But you (the mud owner) should make the design decisions.

Famine said:
Personally, I think it's important to make a game for the people who actually are playing it, not the developers.

Which was precisely the point I made back in post ..., where I referred to "developer toys" - features that developers find cool, while for players "all they do is make the game frustrating".

However you should leave off the last three words from the above quote - it's extremely important that the game is also enjoyable for the developers, particularly if it's non-commercial. If you create something you enjoy, you'll attract players with similar interests to yourself, and enthusiasm can be contagious; it's much easier to relate to players who share your interests, and this makes it easier to create something that your target audience will enjoy.

On the other hand, it's very difficult to motivate yourself to invest time and effort into something you don't enjoy. Lack of motivation is one of the biggest long-term challenges a mud developer faces.
20 Dec, 2012, Famine wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
How in the world did you get that I said "players should make the design decisions" out of that? Saying something is a problem does not translate into a design decision… Again, players are there to point out where on the doll it hurts. Ideally, that translates into: why this is fun, not fun and so forth. Once you have that data, you as the developer decide if a design decision is actually needed. Not the opposite and make design decisions on things that are basically not causing any issues with the players (i.e.: not broken).

That does not mean that what you change is going to destroy the MUD or it's the wrong decision. I mean, we have to do something if the players are not actively giving critical feedback for you to make any decisions on. But, it does have a higher risk of turning players away because you are actively making design decisions in areas that your players–your thriving force–is not actively voicing opinions on. That's why I'm advocating sort of against trying to nitpick at designs as if they are broken when they are clearly not broken. They may not be designed to your specifications, but on the other hand, they may not be driving your players away either. Why swing a bat at a potential hornets nest until you know for sure it's a hornets nest? Instagram just did that, guess what happened to them?

And yes, you should be enjoying the MUD too as a developer. I was meaning, you shouldn't be just developing it for yourself. Should be for both you and the players. Commercial or not, both areas lack motivation due to that.
20 Dec, 2012, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
>Again, players are there to point out where on the doll it hurts. Ideally, that translates into: why this is fun, not fun and so forth.
Most players opinions: NERF THIS NERF THAT, AND OP ME ME ME ME…..this is the vast majority of their idea about fun.
Most players being people as well (there are quite a few bots) they dont like changes as well…

>Why swing a bat at a potential hornets nest until you know for sure it's a hornets nest? Instagram just did that, guess what happened to them?
Instagram hornest nest was a very big and real hornest nest: how do we earn money….it was a pretty ovious nest to begin with, and not one they could keep ignoring forever.
20 Dec, 2012, Famine wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
Players attitudes are normally reflected by the staff. If you don't put forth the effort in advocating constructive feedback, then you will always get the same bad feedback like the quoted comments above.
20 Dec, 2012, quixadhal wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
If you want to see examples of player feedback, go visit the world of warcraft forums.

For every helpful, constructive, smart idea posted there, there's a thousand screaming children's rants acting as camoflague and ensuring the devs probably don't notice the good bits unless somebody stirs the masses and gets many of them talking about the same thing.

Hence, if you compare WoW as it was in 2004 to the state it's in today, you'll find almost all the changes have been inline with what the majority (screaming children) want, tempered by what the devs felt like doing. The one exception is the user interface….. because WoW allowed lua programmable GUI elements, people created some pretty clever things, and the devs cherry picked the best and incorporated them into the standard UI.
20 Dec, 2012, plamzi wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
Famine said:
Players attitudes are normally reflected by the staff. If you don't put forth the effort in advocating constructive feedback, then you will always get the same bad feedback like the quoted comments above.


Ah, the joys of being a MUD dev! Not only do you work your ass off for nothing, but also if the vast majority of your players are selfish idiots–know that it's your fault! :)

Famine, I'm curious to see the player base you have cultivated, where everyone discusses game ideas at the level of PBS and NYTimes commentators, never veering from the vision they all share about how to make their favorite game better. Got links?
20 Dec, 2012, KaVir wrote in the 60th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
If you want to see examples of player feedback, go visit the world of warcraft forums.

Also worth reading: Why Virtual Worlds are Designed By Newbi...
40.0/74