[MUD-Dev] The Relationship between pkers and monster AI?

Dundee SkeptAck at antisocial.com
Mon Sep 13 14:42:06 New Zealand Standard Time 1999


On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 14:04:02 -0700 Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:10:43 CST, Caliban
Tiresias Darklock <caliban at darklock.com> wrote:

> Alternate perspective. This is not intended to be a challenge or any =
sort
> of authoritative ultimatum.=20
>=20
> I've always considered "PvP" to mean players competing with other =
players.

Is there _any_ term that _anyone_ uses that has _any_ common definition
among members of this list?  :-)

> There are, for example, no puzzle areas in Quake deathmatch levels --
> because they aren't necessary, and they get in the way. This is a very
> PK-centered environment,=20

Now see, since there's no such animal as non-consensual PvP combat in
Quake, I wouldn't call the players 'PKs' at at...

> absolutely NO such activity ever under any circumstances end of story. =
Some
> other people are coming at this from a standpoint of PK and PvP being a=
 lot
> more fun than mob slaughtering, and therefore see it as a desirable =
thing
> in any game they play.=20

I only see at as undesirable in games in which you aren't supposeed to be
doing it, (or aren't supposed to be doing it in the manner or degree to
which you are doing it, maybe).  The paintball in the mall example - it's
fine as long as the shoppers know to expect that there.  In other words,
it's fine if it's consensual.  Which is all I was saying.

> the one and only game people played. Do people here think of their own =
MUDs
> as being one in a sea of many, or as the next be-all and end-all of =
gaming
> that the rest of the gaming world imitates or duplicates until no other
> games survive?

We're currently running UOX - players use a UO client to connect and play=
 a
game that is sort of like what UO would be if it had more than a 1:50000
user:admin ratio.  UOX is some godawful unstable buggy software though.  =
We
exepect to change to POL (which is more or less the same as UOX) or
Neverwinternights, when that comes out.

So we don't get text MUD players.  For the most part we get ex-UO players
that were driven off by hoards of mass-murdering PiMpMaStA bands and =
ex-EQ
players that were driven off by boredom (or players that are both).

When NWN comes out we expect a different crowd - but still one that is
largely composed of the sort of teaming hoards of antisocial gits that =
make
MMORPGs such a chore to enjoy.

So anyway, that's the perspective I'm coming from there...  PK is fine in
simple games where the other player having the goal "to crush you" =
results
in a challenging experience.  So in those games - like quake- PvP can =
take
the place of the GM in a PnP game (where the GM's goal is not defeat you
really, it's just to challenge you).

But I think the more complex the system becomes, the less likely it is =
that
the other players trying to defeat you will result in a challenging
experience.  They'll maximize their chance of victory and minimize their
chance of defeat to the point where it's more like the killer GM of 8th
grade, "That's it!  You guys are all dead!"

It doesn't happen in games where very nearly all the players are mature
adults maybe, but it happens in the MMORPGs and I think it's going to
happen an awful lot in NWN, too... even though that is going to be more
like small-user MUDs than MMOPRGs, it's going to be pouring players into
those MUDs as though they were all one big massively multiplayer game.

It's a scary thought.

> Semi-topical: what's the list's reaction to the acquisition of WOTC by
> Hasbro? Many hobby shop owners were concerned that WOTC was destroying
> smaller game companies. Is that relaxed by Hasbro's defocused market
> position (they make pretty much everything), or intensified by Hasbro's=
 new
> place in the lead of yet another market segment?

I think Peter Adkison had a genuine love of the hobby, whereas for Hasbro
it's just a cow they should milk.

At one point WotC decided to exercise their patent over "the trading card
game method of play" - but they promised not to demand back royalties =
from
any company that started paying royalties voluntarily - which was nice.
The legal fees fighting it, or the back-royalties for that matter, would
have crushed a lot of little cash-starved, break-even start-ups there.

I think Hasbro would have crushed them.

But maybe I'm wrong... I don't know what kind of people are in charge at
Hasbro.  Big corporate type company though aint it?

--=20
http://dundee.uong.com/



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list