Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Trathen
Minmatar SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 17:17:00 -
[1]
I decided to read some old articles about virtual worlds ("bored at work"), and came across a chunk of text that is very interesting in light of recent EVE changes. I imagine half of you have seen this before; this is nothing new for game design discussion. If you haven't, this is by the "father" of MUDs, who has seen many virtual worlds rise and fall. It outlines states of equilibrium in multiplayer games and explains many of the trends in EVE. I bolded the important parts and added commentary for your reading "pleasure."
Quote: This analysis of the dynamics of the relationships between players leads naturally to a consideration of what configurations could be considered stable. There are four:
1) Killers and achievers in equilibrium. If the number of killers gets too high, then the achievers will be driven off, which will cause the number of killers to fall also (through lack of victims). If there aren't enough killers, then achievers feel the MUD isn't a sufficient challenge (there being no way to "lose" in it), and they will gradually leave; new killers could appear, attracted by the glut of potential prey, however this happens so slowly that its impact is less than that of the disaffection among achievers. Socialisers who venture out of whatever safe rooms are available eventually fall prey to killers, and leave the game. Those who stay find that there aren't many interesting (to them) people around with whom to talk, and they too drift off. Explorers potter around, but are not a sufficient presence to affect the number of killers.
This is where the debate in mission-running comes in. It has been argued that EVE has always lied in this state of equilibrium (Bartle also comments that this form of equilibrium appears harsh and unforgiving to socializers). Currently, the uproar of easy mission running may be driving both PvPers and mission-runners out of the game because it bores both groups to tears. He also comments that Achievers do become very annoyed at being killed but leave out of boredom nonetheless. This is one of the reasons devs should not listen to the players.
Quote: 2) A MUD dominated by socialisers. Software changes to the MUD are made which prevent (or at least seriously discourage) killers from practising their craft on socialisers; incoming socialisers are encouraged by those already there, and a chain reaction starts. There are still achievers and explorers, but they are swamped by the sheer volume of socialisers. The number of socialisers is limited only by external factors, or the presence of killers masquerading as socialisers. If the population of socialisers drops below a certain critical level, then the chain reaction reverses and almost all the players will leave, however only events outside the MUD would cause that to happen once the critical mass had been reached.
Hello, Ambulation. If Bartle's experience in watching MUDs has any weight, we should fully expect Ambulation to swamp EVE with chatroom types, turning it into a form of PvPer ****, where they all sit outside a station and fanasize about burning them alive in a sweet inferno. Yet like ****, most PvPers will eventually go elsewhere for the real thing. Nonetheless, EVE will likely see record subscription numbers.
This is also arguably where WoW falls, since an outside influence may have turned WoW into a social phenomenon. The success of Facebook, mySpace and other social tools pull in a far bigger user base than any "game," demonstrating that "socializers" are easily the potentially largest market group to target. _ |
Trathen
Minmatar SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 17:18:00 -
[2]
Quote: 3) A MUD where all groups have a similar influence (although not necessarily similar numbers). By nurturing explorers using software means (ie. giving the game great depth or "mystique", or encouraging non-explorers to dabble for a while by regularly adding new areas and features), the overall population of explorers will gradually rise, and the killer population will be held in check by them. The killers who remain do exert an influence on the number of socialisers, sufficient to stop them from going into fast-breeder mode, but insufficient to initiate an exodus. Achievers are set upon by killers often enough to feel that their achievements in the game have meaning. This is perhaps the most balanced form of MUD, since players can change their position on the interest graph far more freely: achievers can become explorers, explorers can become socialisers, socialisers can become achievers - all without sacrificing stability. However, actually attaining that stability in the first place is very difficult indeed; it requires not only a level of game design beyond what most MUDs can draw on, but time and player management skills that aren't usually available to MUD administrators. Furthermore, the administrators need to recognise that they are aiming for a player mix of this kind in advance, because the chances of its occurring accidentally are slim.
Nothing really keeps killers in check thanks to a broken bounty system, so I have sincere doubts this equilibrium exists. Personally, I am considered an "explorer" by game-design means and I find EVE considerably lacking in this department (no experimentation in ship fitting for instance, just nano it).
Quote: 4) A MUD with no players. The killers have killed/frightened off everyone else, and left to find some other MUD in which to ply their trade. Alternatively, a MUD structured expressly for socialisers never managed to acquire a critical mass of them.
This, folks, is why they will never listen to PvPers. EVE will most definitely die.
Quote: Other types could conceivably exist, but they are very rare if they do. The dynamics model is, however, imprecise: it takes no account of outside factors which may influence player types or the relationships between then. It is thus possible that some of the more regimented MUDs (eg. role-playing MUDs, educational MUDs, group therapy MUDs) have an external dynamic (eg. fandom interest in a subject, instructions from a teacher/trainer, tolerance of others as a means to advance the self) which adds to their cohesion, and that this could make an otherwise flaky configuration hold together. So other stable MUD forms may, therefore, still be out there.
It is entirely possible that EVE as the only choice of spaceship MMORPG may be holding it together. With the threat of competition, it may pull apart as quickly as Everquest unless CCP scrambles to find a reasonable target equilibrium--that is assuming Bartle's observations are somewhat true. I have found them to apply in every virtual world to date, more or less. _ |
Judge Ment
Aeon Interstellar Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 17:33:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Judge Ment on 06/09/2008 17:34:20 Ignorants: Doesn't matter if I was playing Atari - Its the people I'm playing with that make the game. Remove the memories and dreams that I share - There will be NO more Atari
AOL isn't a game but it built the biggest community on the planet
|
Roshan longshot
Gallente Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 17:35:00 -
[4]
This is what happens when a college geek gets board....Good read though....but I think its wrong. 0.0 will always be out there...0.4-0.1 will always be the choke points...and empire space will always have non-pvpers playing there.
Everquest did'nt die...Sony just redirected their resources to EQII
Isnt CCP and White wolf working on another game right now? Can CCP be prepping Eve-Online to run static...(no more expansions, very few updates...less server power?)
Makeing Empire space safer gives Eve-onine a Non Pvp area...a controlled PvP area (low sec) and a open PvP area. All on one server. Good idea. Damn you CCP! Why did you have to make such a good game?? Yes you drew me back AGAIN! Oh well wheres the Omber? |
FluterEx
Caldari 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 17:36:00 -
[5]
Thats a interresting read and so far i agree. But one thing, it hurts the eyes. ---------------------------------------
CCP Teara, we will all miss you. |
Trathen
Minmatar SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 17:39:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Trathen on 06/09/2008 17:40:40
Originally by: Roshan longshot This is what happens when a college geek gets board....Good read though....but I think its wrong. 0.0 will always be out there...0.4-0.1 will always be the choke points...and empire space will always have non-pvpers playing there.
That is something I'm not so sure about. The problem with the "Achiever" type is that they aim for the path of least resistance because beating a game is all about finding that path. There is no reason for them to visit 0.0, so it doesn't provide two isolated worlds so much as high-sec acts as an external force on 0.0 to leave only killers. _ |
Berendas
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 17:40:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Berendas on 06/09/2008 17:40:42 Looks like theres a lot of sense in these observations and they kind of outline my worst fears for EVE. Does Bartle have any observations on MMO's that have been 'saved,' so to speak, from these problems (if there indeed exist any MMO's that fall into that category)? As far as accuracy in what Bartle says the process seems to have begun already.
And I hope this doesn't sound like a flame; but if you changed the title of this thread it may get the attention that these frightening trends deserve. Not to sound like a jerk but the current title makes it just sound like another "Gloom and Doom" thread.
If you make it sound a little more constructive more people may look at it and realize what's happening. On the whole though its a great post because it is true, and I'm glad I read it.
Edit: spelling and grammar.
|
Trathen
Minmatar SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 17:42:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Berendas And I hope this doesn't sound like a flame; but if you changed the title of this thread it may get the attention that these frightening trends deserve. Not to sound like a jerk but the current title makes it just sound like another "Gloom and Doom" thread.
If you make it sound a little more constructive more people may look at it and realize what's happening. On the whole though its a great post because it is true, and I'm glad I read it.
Edit: spelling and grammar.
Thanks, point taken too, I'll change it. I even give my own college essays "troll" titles. _ |
Forge Lag
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 18:18:00 -
[9]
I am no expert on the topic but there are few soft spots:
- it is quite possible as some studies show that killers are just subset of achievers and as such can find other activity where to achieve (EvE fails here as you cannot reasonably display or even gauge personal achievement other than killmails and even that is limited - this is possibly very important)
- the observation applies to rather niche market (be it EQ2 or MUDs); WoW analysis may show different data (as you note "WoW fails" or rather does not fit)
- the whole problem with killers is that they do not produce any value, the total sum of PvP is negative; in that light it is very trivial why no world would sustain large portion of killers and you do not really need any in-depth analysis
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 18:22:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Forge Lag I am no expert on the topic but there are few soft spots:
- it is quite possible as some studies show that killers are just subset of achievers and as such can find other activity where to achieve (EvE fails here as you cannot reasonably display or even gauge personal achievement other than killmails and even that is limited - this is possibly very important)
- the observation applies to rather niche market (be it EQ2 or MUDs); WoW analysis may show different data (as you note "WoW fails" or rather does not fit)
- the whole problem with killers is that they do not produce any value, the total sum of PvP is negative; in that light it is very trivial why no world would sustain large portion of killers and you do not really need any in-depth analysis
You're assuming that a player can only act within a single role.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
Kryss'tal
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 18:39:00 -
[11]
I agree with Bartles findings and your extrapolation of those findings into EVE up until a point.
I think the point where EVE parts ways with MUD's and even the countless hundreds of other MMO's in the world, is that EVE is truly a sandbox.
There are no limitations on what one can or cannot do with their character(s), and many people like myself play multiple characters with completely different goals on each.
The real actual danger in EVE is that it is truly becoming what some call "Capital Ships Online". There are not severe enough drawbacks or limitations on the operation of these ships, and therefore a very large segment of the population feels compelled to fly them rather than a subset willing to put up with the drawbacks.
|
Forge Lag
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 18:45:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Malcanis You're assuming that a player can only act within a single role.
I am not sure where you derive that from or how that is relevant to what i say - especially since i am explicitly saying that achieveres can be expected to change what goal they work towards.
This thread seems to concentrate on killers vs the rest of the world and I dispute that such problem actually exists at all - and as consequence that trivially explains why there is not a solution. You are probably quoting the wrong guy.
|
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 18:50:00 -
[13]
isn't it logical that once a company goes past its goal of making a great unique game that the need for money reverses any and usually all its earlier efforts?
in other words its natural that the game will be less unique and have stronger safe zones as the need for more income and thus subscribers gets stronger in detriment to whatever it was meant to be when it started Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Tippia
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 19:05:00 -
[14]
The problem is that the taxonomy he uses to drives his points does not really apply all that well to ≡v≡.
It sets up a number of mutually exclusive groups with a number of false dichotomies separating them. It assumes that "killers" will almost exclusively prey on "achievers"; that there is no inherent value in socialising for non-"socialisers"; that "explorers" only get rewarded by their own experiences. None of these are true for ≡v≡.
Here, all four categories overlap massively.
|
Trathen
Minmatar SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 19:53:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Tippia The problem is that the taxonomy he uses to drives his points does not really apply all that well to ≡v≡.
It sets up a number of mutually exclusive groups with a number of false dichotomies separating them. It assumes that "killers" will almost exclusively prey on "achievers"; that there is no inherent value in socialising for non-"socialisers"; that "explorers" only get rewarded by their own experiences. None of these are true for ≡v≡.
Here, all four categories overlap massively.
He provides more detail in the original article for the typologies. They describe the reasons why people play, not what they do. He goes over that achievers can and do form strong social bonds to achieve common goals and other types socialize, achievers may retaliate, etc. I do think the line between achiever/killer is blurry after playing other MMORPGs, but the solidity of that line seems to increase with a harsh death penalty. . . _ |
Anubis Assassin
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 20:55:00 -
[16]
Generally, the idea of using abbreviations or acronyms in a body of text is first defined to its full extent. This not being the case here... Wtf is a MUD?
|
Tchell Dahhn
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 21:03:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Anubis Assassin Generally, the idea of using abbreviations or acronyms in a body of text is first defined to its full extent. This not being the case here... Wtf is a MUD?
Google is your friend.
We're Recruiting! |
Artemis Rose
Varion Galactic Accord Corporate Enterprise Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 21:13:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Kryss'tal The real actual danger in EVE is that it is truly becoming what some call "Capital Ships Online". There are not severe enough drawbacks or limitations on the operation of these ships, and therefore a very large segment of the population feels compelled to fly them rather than a subset willing to put up with the drawbacks.
Capital ships will never fill in all the roles in combat, so you'll never see the fabled Capital Ship Online.
True, some the population only gets more skillpoints but that doesn't mean 2 years from now, all 350K (or whatever the number) of active players will just have 24 million skillpoints, people quit/move on.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere (on the interwebs, its all true) average pilot's life is 6 months. Hardly capital ready.
*** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 21:16:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Forge Lag Edited by: Forge Lag on 06/09/2008 19:04:54 Edited by: Forge Lag on 06/09/2008 18:54:25
Originally by: Malcanis You're assuming that a player can only act within a single role.
I am not sure where you derive that from
The final paragraph. "killers destroy more than the produce."
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Gimpb
Sturmgrenadier Inc Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 21:18:00 -
[20]
Why can't we socialize while killing people to achieve our goals?
|
|
Kajj Mackallister
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 21:20:00 -
[21]
Basicly CCP cannot keep trying to nerf or redirect the combat, high sec/low sec, NPC hostils or any of this. The biggest problem that new players have with the game is being ganked by pirates. Now I'm an anti-pirate; however I think that nerfing what pirates can do is clearly not the right avenue to take. Players have problems with everything from gate camps in low sec, suicide gankers in high sec and traps while mission running. When pirates out number anti-pirates and bounty hunters nearly 3-1 there is a clear problem. I mean lets be honest, what is the real point of placing a bounty on a pirate. I mean even a die hard anti-pirate whos does alot of anti-pirating can get his sec low enough for a bounty to be placed on his head. Furthermore you can't capture the bounty in high sec and you still take a sec hit for it. So how does that system work? Instead of changing the mechanics of the game or nerfing mods or restricting pirates or calling everything an exploit; just improve the ability that the pirate convex has. Allow a more active role of a bounty hunters in the game to try and balance out the priate and griefer threats. As it stands right now, pirates can gank someone in high or low sec and don't really have anything to worry about. I propose CCP allows pilots attack other pilots with bounties in high sec without a sec hit. Of course you can't leave it that open; so make it that you have to have a sec status like 5.0 with that faction who's space you are wanting to collect the bounty in. This way pirates with large bounties do need to worry about thier bounties getting larger. Plus we will be seeing more anti-pirates and bounty hunters to bring Eve back into balance.
|
Pesky LaRue
Minmatar L.O.S.T. Defence Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 21:35:00 -
[22]
much of that is true for EVE, like any MMOG, but EVE is truly different from any other game on the market and doesn't necessarily fall into an easy paradigm. i believe CCP know that after 5 years EVE is more polished than ever and more commercially successful than at any other point in it's history and while other games come and go, EVE is basically #2 in the market behind WoW and that there is now a chance to capitalize further on their position in the marketplace.
many of the recent changes (called Carebear-ish by most) are indeed softening the game and making it more carebear-friendly because when Ambulation is released, the population of EVE is going to swell as people who have always wanted or needed an avatar to play with or just the RP types that love to hang-out and make pretend shady-deals or whatever, will finally try - and perhaps stay - with EVE. They will be able to role-play on stations and run missions and be more strongly protected by game mechanics against the 'harsh world' of EVE that ever before, and this might just be a good thing. more players, more subs, whatever comes of it can only be beneficial to EVE.
"more carebears = less targets to pewpew" - maybe, maybe not. perhaps some of the new players will like PvP and even if they don't, EVE has survived for 5 years with a big enough PvP base and i'm sure that'll continue to grow as it always has, just now there will be more traders and role-players and industrialists and mission runners.
at the end of the day, low-sec and 0.0 aren't changing and if ambulation and/or a general softening keeps EVE healthy and growing, i'm all for it.
This message came from the Minmatar Messiah, accept no imitations Pesky LaRue, Minmatar Messiah Bringing Salvation To Your System Soon! ++ PRAY FOR PESKY ++ |
Forge Lag
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 22:04:00 -
[23]
New players should realize that losing ship is not the end of the world but actually freeing experience. It encourages them to try new ship, gives them exciting experience and frees them from endless grind towards crazy expensive epics.
Now, it would be nice it it actually worked that way, if the players were enlightened enough, if the PvP experience was not frustration from being confronted by loser who can only gank worthless targets, cryptic aggro rules, no hope of fighting back, if there was new fit to explore and no wrestling with market lag.
Bounty system will probably never work. I would suggest transferable kill rights instead and developing better method how to deal with thievery (both can flipping and looting suicide victims) - possibly having long cooldown between aggroing by attempting unauthorized access and being allowed to loot can (aka you touch my can I have 5 mins to get my PvP ship and kill you or get can to safety before you are allowed to loot it).
|
Baron Serakh
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 22:23:00 -
[24]
1st, Im only reading this and posting cause I cant get on the eve server for some unkown reason.
But while Im here:
Interesting read. Bartles stuff seems obviously valid and makes a lot of sense.
Im not so sure on the analysis and application to Eve.
The multiple player types are, I think, well balanced at the moment. Each play style has its tools, it's box to play in, with enough cross over to make it interesting (obviously completely ****ing off some people, who, as it has been pointed out, would have otherwise left through boredom).
I'd say the number of threads emerging weekly, authored by a player from one play style, complaining about the practices and usefulness of another, only proves how well its working.
Specifically regarding Ambulation, based on the limited info out at the moment, it could attract a new kind of player to the game without really threatening the game play of the majority of other styles of game play. Trying to predict if this will be acheived is virtually impossible till it happens, but I wouldnt ring MMO mortuary to book a casket just yet.
|
Roy Batty68
Caldari Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 22:48:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Tippia The problem is that the taxonomy he uses to drives his points does not really apply all that well to ≡v≡.
It sets up a number of mutually exclusive groups with a number of false dichotomies separating them. It assumes that "killers" will almost exclusively prey on "achievers"; that there is no inherent value in socialising for non-"socialisers"; that "explorers" only get rewarded by their own experiences. None of these are true for ≡v≡.
Here, all four categories overlap massively.
I would say that that is one of the major strengths of eve. That there is such a diverse playerbase made up of all types of mixed motivations for each player.
I think the problem we as a playerbase have in discussing major issues in eve, is that we often fail to recognize that. Hell, just visit any of the "raging debate" threads and you will see it in every other post. People pigeon holing players into one of two sides and then using some form of ad hominem against them. "You're just a gankbear looking for easy targets". "You're just a selfish carebear who doesn't care how he affects others as long as you progress". I know I've been guilty of it at times.
I think the danger of that is we get into this battle of "nerf him!" - "No, nerf him!" which really isn't beneficial to anyone other than making things predictable. What we really should be doing is asking for more tools or ways to interact with each other. More ways to level the playing field rather than trying to remove ways of interacting. That's why devs shouldn't listen to players. We always seem to ask for the wrong things.
I think eve has the potential to bridge those Bartle player typologies by keeping things well mixed throughout. That's why I hate to see the different security zones in eve become well defined. This is where you go to be totally safe and grind away. This is where you go if you want to hang out with the blood thirsty killers. This is where you go if you want to be lagged to hell and back. And so on.
Also I think there are some important aspects of the game that have been ignored far too long. Eve's space theme seems to limit the possibilities for the explorer types, as crazy as that sounds. I think the game needs some real work in that regard. The Jovian area is prime for this sort of thing. Imagine if you could only find limited life span wormholes into the Jove area, and could only make short excursions into there. Only an hour to get in there, find something cool, and bring it out. Linger too long and become stranded and eventually nuked (some RP reason why trying to live there isn't feasible... jovian starnet gone crazy or something).
Bah. Going to stop myself before I write a novel. Anyway, I think Eve's strong point against the Bartle arguments is keeping things well mixed. We have lost some of that with the subtle nerfs to lowsec. They should really look at turning that back around if possible. And I think the seemingly natural reaction of trying to seperate those who want security and those who want pew pew is the wrong way to go. It's at least an aspect of the game that should be shepharded very carefully. Not managed with hamfisted broad strokes.
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Clair Bear
Coalition of Nations Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 23:01:00 -
[26]
*EVERYONE* in this game is an achiever. Seriously. It's all about your score and the length of your e-peen vs some other guy. All tasks in this game are about lengthening your e-peen. Some are about lopping off someone else's to make yours relatively longer.
Killing is an achievement. Not dying is an achievement. A monstrously huge wallet is an achievement. Smack talking creatively is an achievement.
|
DMAN666vic
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 01:05:00 -
[27]
Nerf = Soft
EVE Exclusive Specialized Search Engine - Search Only Eve Sites! |
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 01:37:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Anubis Assassin Generally, the idea of using abbreviations or acronyms in a body of text is first defined to its full extent. This not being the case here... Wtf is a MUD?
If you don't know what a MUD is, you wouldn't understand what the acronym meant either.
By the way, what does WTF mean? You didn't define it.
|
Caleb Sabbatius
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 01:38:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Anubis Assassin Generally, the idea of using abbreviations or acronyms in a body of text is first defined to its full extent. This not being the case here... Wtf is a MUD?
If you don't know what a MUD is, you wouldn't understand what the acronym meant either.
By the way, what does WTF mean? You didn't define it.
wtf = what the f*ck
|
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 11:33:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Strill on 07/09/2008 11:33:31
Originally by: Forge Lag I am no expert on the topic but there are few soft spots:
- it is quite possible as some studies show that killers are just subset of achievers and as such can find other activity where to achieve (EvE fails here as you cannot reasonably display or even gauge personal achievement other than killmails and even that is limited - this is possibly very important)
The Certificate system that they're releasing next patch should alleviate this problem.
Originally by: Caleb Sabbatius
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Anubis Assassin Generally, the idea of using abbreviations or acronyms in a body of text is first defined to its full extent. This not being the case here... Wtf is a MUD?
If you don't know what a MUD is, you wouldn't understand what the acronym meant either.
By the way, what does WTF mean? You didn't define it.
wtf = what the f*ck
That was a rhetorical question. You weren't supposed to answer it.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |