Synopsis: Player entertainment preferences often conflict in MMOs, which is a source of problems for the players. Various means of addressing the conflict are described.
I've been meaning to write this article for a while now. I wrote something related to it almost 7 years ago. The basic notion is that players each have a preferred way of playing a game. They want a particular experience from it. For some, that experience is very specific and they might only want to go fishing. For others, it is very broad, where they might go adventuring and hope to find some treasure, some fights and perhaps even have some other players to tangle with.
Multiplayer games work best when all the players in the game are looking for the same kind of experience. This is the old "birds of a feather flock together" ethic. People want to interact with other people who enjoy what they enjoy.
A problem arises when birds from one group try to fly in the same space as birds from another group. They slam into each other at odd intervals. We see the clashes of philosophy all the time on internet forums, and it's also pretty clear when it happens in the games themselves. Players tell each other what to do, how to play the game 'properly'. It becomes more pronounced when whole chunks of the player population are in conflict. Instead of individuals colliding, there are whole flocks colliding. It makes for an unpleasant time for at least one of the groups.
The cliche example is PvP mixed with PvE. Take a bunch of players who want to kill monsters. Mix them with a bunch of players who want to kill other player characters. Whamo. The monster killers are getting killed by other player characters, which wasn't what they were looking for. They accuse the PvP crowd of playing the game wrong, while the PvP guys tell the PvE crowd to stop being such whiners.
Neither side is right or wrong. The only important point to it is that the two crowds don't play the game the same way.
A perhaps less contentious example is the case of role players and people who want to talk about things outside of the game. They are in fundamental conflict about how they enjoy the game. The role players try to get the guys talking about sports to shut up while the sports guys are telling the role players that "Thee" and "Thou" doesn't make for role playing. Again, a cliche encounter.
What can be done about these sorts of clashes? Fundamentally, the groups need separate play spaces so that their experiences don't clash. The means of doing this boils down to players being able to find the entertainment that they want - and nothing else. Players do this today with single player games by simply buying the game that they want to play. If they want sports, they play a sports game. If they want a shooter, they buy a shooter. And so on. With multiplayer games, there is a need for players to be able to say what it is that they want to be doing - and to somehow find it.
1. Choice by game. This is the single player approach. Consider Multiverse, which is Raph Koster's attempt to make multiplayer virtual environments as common as web sites. If he succeeds, then there will be so many MMOs that any entertainment that you care to pursue will have been implemented by somebody. Then it's just a matter of seeing how many other people are interested in the same activity. The ability to transport characters between these games would become an issue, and a number of folks are working on how to best handle that. So you can take your character to Fishing World one day, and then off to Leveling Tank-Mage World another.
2. Choice by geography. Once in a given game, there can be changes of entertainment according to changes in where your character is located. Ultima Online and Eve Online both partition the geography of their worlds by PvP safety. Other games have had PvP arenas. Instances are also a way to geographically partition players. Or just arbitrarily change the game experience as the characters move around, like a theme park. At the race track, you get a Need for Speed experience. On that murky island in the bay you get a Deus Ex experience, and so on.
3. Choice by mutual consent. A given game may provide players with the opportunity to interact in ways that are departures from the normal gameplay experience. In a PvE game, it may be possible for two players or two groups of players to enter into PvP only amongst themselves.
Once players who agree that they like to play the same way are able to come together without disruption, the potential for drastic rule changes by mutual consent becomes possible. Today, rules are static. What if they were dynamic? Given that instances of portions of games and even instances of whole games can be created, consider having an instance set aside for you and your friends. Whenever you want to, you can change the rules that operate in the instance. Perhaps gravity is reversed if physics are implemented. Perhaps theft is permitted where it normally wouldn't be. Perhaps stealth is disabled. No matter how crazy the change, all the players will be operating under the same rules.
Players have conflicting agendas when it comes to entertainment. Tossing everyone into the same space and having them operate under the same rules means that any large commercial game must have very generic rules. Only those rules that most everyone can agree to at a very basic level will be implemented. World of Warcraft succeeds because the majority of players can pursue something innocuous to do without being bothered by the things that other players are doing. But it's a rather bland experience.
Games that attempt to let everyone do everything frees players to constantly bump into each other. the experience might be more intense, but only for a certain small set of play styles.
By partitioning players according to the experience that they want, players can share their experience with like-minded players, and those experiences can be as deep as the developers can possibly make them. The key for game companies is figuring out how to create a single property that will draw huge numbers of players while still keeping the various flocks away from each other.
User Comments
" they accuse the PvP crowd of playing the game wrong "
Heh, funny stuff here. If your in an area where you can be attacked by other players, guess what, suck it up or go to a diferent area. How can you tell someone he is playing the game wrong when the game is designed specifically to play this way.
I usually find its the carebear mentality thats starts the trouble. A PvP find someone to kill, he simply attempts to kill it. Then said carebear player begins to whine and cry. Dude, go to a PvE area. DO NOT SAY, i want to experience this content with out PvP. The game was build for that area to be PvP, so suck it up or DO NOT go there. Its a game, dieing is part of it. Dont get your panties in a bunch and cry every time you die. If you get camped, find a new spot to kill or gather some comrades and run off the PvPers.
Normally they do make specific servers to cater to specific players. PvP servers, RP servers, etc. If you find yourself on the wrong server, you only have yourself to blame.
I used to respect your opinion t0nyd... that has now changed.
You are exactle what JB is talking about. Bumping into others, blaming them for not playing the game the way you want to. Can you not see that?
The only respectable thing you said was the last two sentences. This is what MMORPG devs do to answer your questions JB, they create seperate server types. Some more catered to PvP, some to PvE, some to role players, etc. This helps to seperate the flocks, and as t0nyd said, if you find yourself on the wrong server, you have only yourself to blame.
Moving forward, I'd like to see even more varied server types. FFA PvP, full loot PvP, solo PvE servers, group oriented PvE serves... the only problem becomes that many players like to do a bit of everything, so how do they do that without making a ton of alts?
You can't move characters from the "easier" servers to the more "challenging" in a progression based game. It's just not fair.
Hence why I think Trammel / Felucca split was so incredibly genius. It allowed seperation of flocks, yet gave you the choice to run with the other crowd if chose to, but only for as long as you wanted to. You were never really "stuck" on one side or the other...
Heerobya-
My opinion is my opinion. Disagree if you choose. Point is, i dont log into a pve server and cry "woe is me, no pvp". SO in return I dont want to hear the cries of the carebear in my server " quit pvping me, im trying to quest ". You choose your fate, its not my fault that you choose to play in an area where the game allows me to PK you.
" blaming them for not playing the game the way you want to ", i dont do that, thats a pretty lame statement. Read what I wrote. I blame others for playing a game and crying over things that they knew could happen. If you dont want chicken, then dont order chicken. If you dont want PvP, then dont play a damn PvP game. You get what you order. Its not the cooks fault that you ordered something you do not like to eat.
I simply play the game the way it was created. If I come across you, im gonna try to kill you. If you do not like PvP, dont blame me. Blame yourself, you didnt have to be there...
I understand your point and appologize if I was rude.
You are simply saying if the game allows the player to kill another player, you will take the opportunity to strike. I understand that and agree 100%. I would too. I love PvP.
Just a note, using terms like carebear and whining etc. makes you sound much less respectable. "Don't get your panties in a bunch" etc. etc. doesn't represent the intelligent posting I know you are capable of.
This quite makes me rant, its everything that pisses me off about people...
" Bumping into others, blaming them for not playing the game the way you want to. Can you not see that? "
Its like going into the smoking lounge and saying, "do you have to smoke?" Its like going into a steak house and saying, " do you have to eat meat? Im vegan and dont like that ". WTF is wrong with people these days. If you do not like something, simply dont do it.
Im not the one bumping into others and blaming them for not playing the game the way that I want to. I simple play the game the way that I want to play. This involves killing every player that I come across. If you happen to be the carebear questing, bad luck I guess. Its your fault you died, not mine. So dont blame me.
Heh, the panties in a bunch thing was a joke..:) I was trying to lighten the mood. Ive been a sailor for the last 5 years, so i can be a bit vulgar..:).
I use the term carebear because it does describe a specific type of person. Just like the term ganker describes a specific type of PvPer. Its not meant as an insult to every PvEer out there. Its just meant to describe a specific type of PvEer.
heerobya, the real focus of the article is to encourage budding designers to understand that players do have agendas and that they do conflict. How to keep players with conflicting agendas from coming into contact with each other is touched upon, and there are undoubtedly many more techniques besides those I mention.
Yes, creating servers is a means of separating those agendas. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Distinct servers were created to address a problem of PvP, PvE and RP player groups mixing. There is also the opportunity for a feature set where players can choose not from just one or two general rule sets, but from a wide range of rule sets. That's where the mention of reversed gravity and other changes came from. Games become configurable. Not only when instanced, but also during play.
This is predicated in the mindset that the rules are not sacred. It's all about having fun, so the rules should be able to be set for your fun, or my fun, or anybody else's fun. We should let you enjoy the game your way with people who like it your way. Because it's their way too.
If the rules are no longer sacred, strange ideas start to pop up, such as suspending an instance (including a raid) right in the middle of the action so that people can take a break. Or laugh about something. Or argue about who did what to whom.
Note that with this approach, players get to mess the things about the game that annoy them most. "If only warriors had stealth". Blam. Make the change. Invite your friends to join you with stealthy warriors. Anybody who doesn't want to be ganked by stealthy warriors won't enter that person's game instance.
This all has secondary and tertiary effects as well. Fooling with the rules of a game permits lots of people to come up with combinations that seem pretty entertaining. Share them with friends. Spread them on the internet. Suddenly, anyone who can fool with the rules in a skillful way can have those skills noticed.
Mind you, all of this is exactly what Raph Koster is after with Multiverse. He wants all the experiments that people can think of out there so that both players and designers can find out what works and what doesn't. Not by argument via discussion forums, but by actually building the things and finding out how they actually work.
So it begins with understanding that one little tidbit about MMOs - they're about fun, and different people have different notions of what is fun. If MMOs cater to that, we end up with either a few games that are highly configurable, or something like the Multiverse project, which is intended to let everyone build their own MMO.
A nice write up. Many of the conflicts you describe could be avoided, if the internet masses in general would have a more open-minded approach to going about their business.
wow in just secons the comments prove what hes been saying. lol.
this is why i think the perfect mmo has to have the ability to level by yourself or with a friend or friends in an instince or several and the pvpers can stay outside, that way pvers wont have complaints, and the pvpers can kill eachother till there sick of it and equal experience should be awarded for both.
I understand T0nyd, no worries mate. You are correct, why join a server clearly labeled "PvP server" then complain about PvP? At the same time, I'm all for having options, I'm all about choice. Hence, why I so stongly support varied and interesting rule sets.
JB, I understand what you are getting at and I am very, very interested in the prospects you think of... but don't you think it'll end up that a player and his group of friends will create their own server/instance/rules and not play with anyone else? If everyone can create their perfect MMO in their own little space easily, what encouragement is there to play with others?
To me, a large portion of MMO gaming is the social experience, including playing w/ people who don't neccessarily have the same mind set as you do.
I mean, if someone creates a massively popular instance/server and leaves it open for others to come enjoy, awesome. but as soon as the players there have a disagreement about something that should be changed, why not run along and create their own version?
I just don't see any single shard/instance/server/etc. having any permanence, and being able to move your single avatar effortlessly through the different worlds only adds to this.
Where is the dedication and/or commitment to your toon?
I do understand the draws of this type of thing, but also see many potential drawbacks.
Conflicting agendas provide what I call a "competitive game" where two players have different objectives and they try and prevent each other from realizing their respective objectives.
When you take out the conflict you take out the drama that made games like UO (probably the only graphical MMO that forced people of all playstyles to play together) so fascinating.
Also, a modern MMO is extremely difficult to balance when there are seperate PvP and PvE areas - few games have even bothered trying.
Furthermore, a PvP only community usually is not large enough to sustain a financially successful RPG, and PvE+Crafting only communities usually reach the maximum for their character and begin to dwindle until you start releasing expansion packs (which historically continue to screw up PvP).
Everybody loses.
When you put them both together, the PvPrs have people to prey upon plus a community large enough to sustain the game while they play competitively with other PvPrs, and the opposite camp has a much more exciting experience when you could be jumped at any moment when you are chopping trees or mining ore (provided you can easily escape). Also these players would always be recouping losses in tandem to amassing wealth, so stockpiling huge amounts of crap happens more slowly (or in a perfect game, the stockpiles would be helped to depete).
UO was a lot like this at one time, but griefers got way too zealous, and their victims got way too attached to their meaningless loot.
Both of these people have the same problem: they aren't interested in playing a game to its fullest potential. They want easy street like killing hundreds of week old players or killing millions of boars with no threat at all to your safety. It isn't that they can't coexist.
heerobya, I'm sure that many disastrous scenarios are springing to mind. We might apply the same logic to AOL and the world wide web. AOL presented a coherent packaging of content, complete with all sorts of bells and whistles. The internet started out as a mishmash of vanity pages. It took years for the internet to catch up to what AOL was.
The same thing would happen if players could easily design their own MMORPG experience. It would start out ugly, but as time progressed, people would come up with editors, generators, review sites and all sorts of other tools and content that would make it work. It will work because the players want it to. If they are given the infrastructure, they can.
Saikron: "Conflicting agendas provide what I call a "competitive game" where two players have different objectives and they try and prevent each other from realizing their respective objectives."
Nope. I'm talking about player agendas, not character agendas. If you and I both want competition, then we have the same agenda. If you want competition and I do not, then we have different agendas. Putting us into the same environment such that I have to deal with competition from you means that I'm not being entertained. MMOs are games. They are about entertainment.
Saikron: "Both of these people have the same problem: they aren't interested in playing a game to its fullest potential. They want easy street like killing hundreds of week old players or killing millions of boars with no threat at all to your safety. It isn't that they can't coexist."
They do want easy street. That's their player agenda. That's their fun. They are just as entitled to it as you are to have a virtual world where player characters can do just about anything that they want. The fact that they don't want to play in the same game that you do is a reflection of the agenda clash. They should have a different game that they can find the fun that they're after so that you're not bothered by their shortsightedness - and their complaining when you kill them.
JB4 while your attempt to promote Metaplace is valiant, I think you are missing the point entirely in this arguement of customized player spaces. You seem to assume that currently, the only way to pick your destiny and play what you like is by choosing a single player game. These colliding flocks which you talk about have become gruops of players that want different things but for some odd reason.. are still playing the same game. MMO's are not unmarked boxes with a Mystery Game/flavor inside. Once you buy it, you are not forced to continue playing it. This is not a 1 chance and then your are screwed playing field. All the people that are colliding are in fact CHOOSING to play that respective MMO. Which leads me to believe that they are still getting what they want out of playing. If they weren't.. why would they still be subscribing and logging in.
Your idea only works in a hypothetical setting where gruops of gamers could actually prevent other gruops from playing.. by maybe killing their avatars permanently. Even so.. there are other games to choose from. Creating a plethora of invidiual parameters and putting PWs on them so only certain people can access them, is basically like creating a place for people to Roleplay whatever they want privately on the web. Multiplace is like putting pen and paper to the internet. If you like that .. then fine.. but thats not what the MMO genre is about.
The living breathing world is a place of conflict. Whether you like it or not.. people thrive because of this conflict while other people suffer. Working for microsoft, you should have understood this a long time ago (sorry, a bit of ad hom there). MMO's simulate this in a controlled safe environment. We play them b/c we like the lore.. we like the story.. and we like the conflict. It is in our nature to be competative. Flocks collide in life all the time.. maybe we should hasten to prevent those collisions rather than trying to prevent collisions in virtual worlds which we voluntarily subscribe to.
I know I'm late posting here but it cant be helped. I will log some notes here:
PVP- its about Resource Denial, Risk vs Reward (even in BF2142 we have this to an extent if you follow), competition, player skill, etc
At the basic level we need player interaction. There cannot be huge player interaction if we are all split apart by these artifical boundaries
What EVE online did was clever and far beyond Trammel. CCP/EVE found a way to create an enviroment where all can coexist. Sure, sometimes perhaps an Achiever might get ganked in high sec but its rare occurence overall. Yet, they provide motivation to hit low sec. might not be perfect but on design level I find this a move in right direction
Instances where small groups can congregate- I question any game mechanic in an MMO that benefits from it. I contend if your design calls for an 'Instance' the MMO in question is really designed to fulfill a different purpose. It's a portal into a Coop RPG (like neverwinter nights) rather then full blown MMO that I thought this genre would be like before I joined
So about Flocks Colliding. I think you can find a happy medium possibly.
great article (im a sandbox proponent so salvage what you can from my post hehe)
vajuras: "I contend if your design calls for an 'Instance' the MMO in question is really designed to fulfill a different purpose. It's a portal into a Coop RPG (like neverwinter nights) rather then full blown MMO that I thought this genre would be like before I joined"
Cooperative play really has nothing to do with my points. But I think I realize why I'm getting these comments.
I'm ultimately talking about the rule set that a player wants to play under. If two players are trying to play under different sets of rules, then they have conflicting agendas. Technically, it's not just rules but every characteristic that goes into a game. 3D versus 2.5D, real-time versus turn-based, and so on.
The cooperation that I'm interested in is players who agree to the same rules. That's all. Those rules can be rules of conflict, of cooperation, of speaking spanish, of wearing blue, whatever.
If you and 100 of your buddies agree that you want a player-run fantasy sandbox with permadeath, then you should be playing that - but away from the people who want a player-run fantasy sandbox without permadeath.
Note that one of the characteristics of a game is the number of players in it. So a player might be faced with the choice of two games:
Game 1 is great, but only has 10 people in it.
Game 2 is okay, but has 100 people in it.
He may choose the okay game just so that he can be around lots of other players. Because that's a more important part of his player agenda than whatever differentiated the okay game from the great game.
I've just re-read this tonight. Brilliant article I must say I do agree. I guess back in the day, I wanted gamrs to play my way. But after playing Second Life for a bit, I now see potential and wisdom here.
"Players have conflicting agendas when it comes to entertainment. Tossing everyone into the same space and having them operate under the same rules means that any large commercial game must have very generic rules. Only those rules that most everyone can agree to at a very basic level will be implemented. World of Warcraft succeeds because the majority of players can pursue something innocuous to do without being bothered by the things that other players are doing. But it's a rather bland experience."
You really do think out of the box this is one of my favorite blogs I've ever read
Login or Register to post a comment