tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59807192009-02-21T01:21:08.803-05:00the skewed views of a large opinion: Persistent World DesignKastnoreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1095767603315930162004-09-21T07:52:00.000-04:002004-09-21T07:53:23.316-04:00

If you hadn't noticed, this blog has been mothballed.

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1090268306348726392004-07-19T15:31:00.000-04:002004-07-19T16:18:26.346-04:00

I've been away from posting; life can get like that.  We might know where we'd like a project or a plan to fall, but often those we depend upon deem our original goal untenable.  Change is needed, compromise.  Persistent world design is much the same.  I spend an awful lot of time pontificating about the joys of casual design and dynamic worlds.  But is a pure casual/dynamic world something I'll

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1086190434260107432004-06-02T10:50:00.000-04:002004-06-02T11:33:54.260-04:00

NPCs are mindless automatons -- they're dull, dumb and disposable. Every so often someone brings up the idea of using warm bodies to actually play out the interactions that players have, rather than subjecting them to flat conversation trees, or rather maddening text parsers. I happen to think it's not only a waste of time, but a step in the wrong direction. NPCs are particularly delineated

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1085102032479543482004-05-20T20:33:00.000-04:002004-05-20T21:50:21.453-04:00

How do we engage the mass market? Persistent worlds have a horrible time even engaging those within our own niche - so it's not surprising that the mass market has almost no chance to pick up and play. A mass market gamer is like our casual gamers with ADD. They'll play perhaps 60 to 90 minutes at a time. In the traditional design paradigm, they'd be lucky to do their housekeeping (buying/

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1083097828469074252004-04-29T12:04:00.000-04:002004-04-29T12:04:12.216-04:00

A level-free design is not a design without advancement. Rather, it is a design centered primarily on diversification, rather than amplification, of power. The goal of such a system is to reward the veteran with capability, but not at the expense of the newcomer. As is the norm in persistent worlds, most designs are currently just going back to the well. Amplification of power is an

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1081973652728622162004-04-21T10:33:00.000-04:002004-04-21T10:33:44.186-04:00

Much attention is given to the loot mechanisms in persistent world games. Sure, the Blue Foozle may have a well designed lair, or even a solid context for conflict - but if the reward sucks, who cares? At the same time there is much concern about the prevalence and undesirable effects of 'MUDflation'. Clearly the two are related, but how does one reconcile a stable economy with providing

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1081194267950564932004-04-07T22:26:00.000-04:002004-04-07T22:26:02.483-04:00

Stagecraft and Simulation represented the two philosophical extremes in persistent world design. In short, simulationists believe that content should be derived from a dynamically simulated environment to maximize verisimilitude -- the 'sandbox' approach to content. Those in favor of stagecraft feel that content should be persistent, hand-crafted, and emulated to maximize convenience and

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1081193927789851222004-04-05T15:38:00.000-04:002004-04-05T15:42:31.996-04:00

One of the great potential benefits of the Mob-Box architecture, is the ability to have Hierarchical AI. In short, we could create a sort of higher-level AI that deals with more abstracts and goals, separate from the day to day 'housekeeping' that normal mobs do. In an effort to make our games more dynamic, or simply appear more dynamic, we could use hierarchical AI as a sort of Director,

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1080846326709364422004-04-01T14:05:00.000-05:002004-04-01T14:09:05.670-05:00

So AI's a problem; what can we do about it? It turns out, there is a straightforward solution, unique to the architecture of persistent worlds. Put bluntly: it's the network. The root problem of mob AI shortcomings is limited resources. This problem hinges on the supposition that mob AI runs on the same server that's resolving combat, handling network IO, passing around player communication

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1079718698298913362004-03-31T14:10:00.000-05:002004-03-31T14:10:09.873-05:00

Artificial Intelligence is something that is hard to do in any game, in any genre, on any platform. AI in persistent worlds is typically some of the worst. Monsters rarely use their abilities intelligently, and groups of enemies never work together, or demonstrate any behavior other than spamming random attacks, on targets determined by 'hate' lists. The first primary problem in persistent

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1080580812002921712004-03-30T08:43:00.000-05:002004-03-30T08:43:29.310-05:00

So what can we do to support our community by easing the difficulties of organization? No Required Classes If a game is balanced such that nearly any selection of groupmates are an effective force, we can severely curtail the amount of time players sink into finding a group. This is naturally a little trickier than it sounds. For many games, classes are predicated on the concept of

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1080226137846823282004-03-25T09:48:00.000-05:002004-03-25T10:00:23.810-05:00

Community being perhaps the primary draw of persistent worlds, we understandably take steps to encourage it, and make it visible. A large part of this, typically, is the requirement for players to get together into groups or raids, to take on 'fun' content. The unfortunate side effect of this, is organizational downtime. Anyone who's been on a raid before knows (and loathes) the half-hour or

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1080062583915487072004-03-23T12:23:00.000-05:002004-03-23T12:28:52.623-05:00

Recently I've come to realize that my posts are rather long and digressive. A big part of this is that I wish to avoid predictable responses by covering all my bases before presenting an idea. The last thing I wanted to do was to have a suggestion in favor of level-free design elicit a few dozen accusations that 'skill based design has been around forever' and things of that sort. Yet this

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1079629766722257092004-03-19T12:54:00.000-05:002004-03-19T12:54:12.030-05:00

The primary reason designs keep coming back to static camps, is to serve as predictable play. The primary player complaints with dynamic content designs (UO/SWG) is the inability to consistently find 'Fun'. The lack of a dependable known 'point of adventure' has players wasting much of their time wandering about, looking for fun. Static camps serve the goals of predictable play, but they add a

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1079028317380021912004-03-16T12:59:00.000-05:002004-03-16T12:59:42.140-05:00

Most of the design discussions I have online end up coming back to my feelings on this topic. As such, I figured it would be beneficial to create a condensed overview of my previous ramblings on the subject for posterity and reference. What follows are ideas of mentioned in my backlog of posts, collected and concise. CG : a casual gamer. Casual gamers are defined here purely by the rate at

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1078857716538945632004-03-11T12:35:00.000-05:002004-03-11T12:35:24.530-05:00

The archetypes in persistent games are well established. Regardless of setting, or genre, there is common typecasting amongst character roles. Whether skill-based or class-based there are assumed balance considerations that are adhered to. The particular mechanics of a game can see a 'new' archetype emerge, but the 'balance wisdom' will still be applied. Balance boils down to: character

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1078782427021788032004-03-09T14:21:00.000-05:002004-05-04T20:04:29.390-04:00

This post will take a slight detour from my usual focus on persistent world gaming. Instead, I'm going to spend some time on a broader hot topic -- acceptable content in video games. In short: I think it's all bullshit. The ESRB is almost as ridiculous as the reactionary groups and the politicians. The broader issue is highlighted by Comic and Cartoon industries. Those industries in their

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1078776371368873872004-03-08T15:06:00.000-05:002004-03-08T15:09:17.483-05:00

No post this past Thursday. Took some AFK time.

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1077827774870244402004-03-02T08:43:00.000-05:002004-03-08T15:15:59.263-05:00

'Chance' is a big theme in the modern roleplaying zeitgeist. Nearly every game system that models conflict includes a random constituent in all its resolution checks. Characters have a 'chance' to hit, dodge, sneak, climb and accumulate word-on-the-street. Their abilities and the situation merely modify this chance. It's a concept that was created and embraced as a 'good enough' stand-in for

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1077815446885781672004-02-26T14:54:00.000-05:002004-02-26T14:54:43.890-05:00

Most of my suggestions to this point have centered around the idea of trying to attract and retain more casual players. Across the board, I recommend lowering the design barriers that keep casual gamers out. An interesting offshoot of this, is realizing those same barriers are what keep many hardcore players in. By designing a game to entice in the casual player, we're gambling that our

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1077140905936082412004-02-24T09:02:00.000-05:002004-02-24T11:39:02.763-05:00

Based on the previous post, here are some samples of leveraging task misdirection, rumor, and varying levels of 'failure' to improve questing in persistent worlds. These examples are separated into the categories of: retrieval, delivery, kill, protect, explore, and create. These ideas can even be seen as potential goal/action selections from a Planning Quest System as outlined by Richard Bartle

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1077131443717375752004-02-19T09:04:00.000-05:002004-02-19T09:04:35.250-05:00

In the tradition of pen-and-paper roleplaying, the idea of Questing is central to most persistent worlds. Quests can vary in difficulty, length, context, objectives, and consistency - yet players routinely lump them together logically into a single classification. The derogatory description for every hated quest under the sun is simply: FedEx. We know what FedEx quests are, and we hate them.

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1076946149274707092004-02-17T12:58:00.000-05:002004-02-17T12:58:59.623-05:00

It may seem as if I'm staunchly opposed to powergaming. Most of my suggestions seem aimed at destroying the systems in which they dominate, and obviating much of the traditional advantage their time investments grant them over the rest of the playerbase. While that is true, I still regard powergamers as the single most important group of participants in any persistent world. Simply put:

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1076347574821557172004-02-12T09:55:00.000-05:002004-02-12T09:55:54.090-05:00

Nearly every type of game, aside from a narrow subset of puzzles, predicates 'loss' on the game concept of Death. The protagonist never truly 'loses' until he has met his end despite that, increasingly, it is anything but permanent. In persistent worlds, it is nearly anathema to even raise the possibility of permanent death. The overwhelming majority of players don't want to even consider a

Kastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5980719.post-1076002526846816322004-02-10T10:23:00.000-05:002004-02-10T10:27:40.250-05:00

I've had the unique (mis)fortune of seeing customer service from nearly every angle. I've been the frustrated customer, the support tech, the developer of the software in question, and the developer of the customer service software tools. I've seen a nauseating quantity of call centers and customer service departments, and I'd like to think I learned a thing or two about the common pitfalls and

Kastnoreply@blogger.com