[AirheadGaming]

Greetings everyone! I have spent the last 4 years working on a Mud engine, before scrapping it and starting over fresh. I wrote the new version of the engine in C# with .NET 3.5, and I am currently in the process of finalizing a Gui based tool kit for designing the Mud project. The only thing that concerns me is my lack of knowledge when it comes to telnet and networking. I had planned on writing my own server code, and the server would sit on a couple Windows based servers (or linux when the project port to Mono is completed) and then write a custom client that users will download and use to connect to the server. I thought a custom client would be good, as I can share most of the code between .Net, .Net compact Framework, and Mono, but I suppose cross platform could be easily achieved with a telnet client or PHP based client.

What do you guys think? The goal is to have a version of the engine running on windows & linux, with client support on windows, linux, Mac OSX, Windows Mobile & PalmOS. What are the pro's and cons for running a custom client? If telnet is the best solution, where should I go for documentation on it? I don't know anything about coding telnet.

Thanks in advance!

Johnathon
Airhead Gaming

[Ide]

Originally Posted by AirheadGaming What do you guys think? The goal is to have a version of the engine running on windows & linux, with client support on windows, linux, Mac OSX, Windows Mobile & PalmOS. What are the pro's and cons for running a custom client? If telnet is the best solution, where should I go for documentation on it? I don't know anything about coding telnet.

Cons:

• takes away development time from mud itself
  
• barrier to entry for players (either because of extra download required or platform incompatibility).

Pros:

• UI control
  
• brand enhancement

One thing to keep in mind is that if your custom client won't include common functionality of existing telnet clients, you're probably better off just implementing telnet.

[Avasyu]

Originally Posted by Ide Cons: barrier to entry for players (either because of extra download required or platform incompatibility).

Having a client to download is actually barrier removal.

For example, if you have a 'PLAY NOW' button on your front page, or you have a form based login page that immediately starts a client when they submit, you are light years ahead of most MUD's.

Most muds require a player to download a third party client. The person then has to be savvy enough to configure and install. Then they have to figure out how to use this beast to connect to your game (and not someone else's). This is a lot to expect from someone who has never played a MUD before. This problem is one of the biggest barriers facing MUDs.

At the very least you should have a simple custom client that will allow them to connect to your game quickly and easily. The key being quickly and easily.

Once a player is into a game, understands how MUDs work, they will learn about custom clients with more power for what they may want to do.

[MikeRozak]

Fewer players willing to try:

Studies on various shareware dev sites has shown that as a client gets larger, it gets fewer download. I think the current sweet spot is 50-100 meg. (NOTE: This is way more than your typical MUD client. :-) )

Flash seems to the popular choice for language today because (according to the wisdom of the forums) almost everyone has Flash installed. (You might want to look at metaplace.) Java seems like the next choice (runescape has done well with this), followed by your own C++/etc.


Customizable UI - I think this is important, but I suggest you go beyond teletype (Teleprinter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) functionality and have multiple windows, maps, etc. (As has been discussed in other posts.) If you're just doing the same-old UI with a pretty background, your own client may not be worth it.

[Delerak]

Gold jacket, green jacket, who gives a ****.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Avasyu Having a client to download is actually barrier removal.

Perhaps - but requiring the download of a specific client, as the OP seems to suggest, is a big entry barrier for muds. Requiring the use of a specific client can also be an entry barrier for experienced mudders, as you have to convince them to stop using their favourite client.

Originally Posted by Avasyu Most muds require a player to download a third party client.

Most muds don't require any downloads at all - they work with raw telnet, or can be accessed directly from certain mud sites. The prospective player may be encouraged to download a client, and having a decent custom client can certainly be a big plus (although not so much in terms of reducing the entry barrier), but they are not usually required to download anything before they enter the mud.

[Aeran]

I think if a client helps to make a great game, then it is good. For example downloading a client for a 3D game is usually no problem for me as long as there appears to be some quality.

If say you make a text MUD client, and it is worse than zMUD and adds nothing really new then that would make me hesitant to download it. However say I primarily use telnet instead because I don't want to buy a client, then your client could very well become the client of choice if it isn't worse than telnet.

It is fun to download new software .

[Avasyu]

Originally Posted by KaVir Perhaps - but requiring the download of a specific client, as the OP seems to suggest, is a big entry barrier for muds. Requiring the use of a specific client can also be an entry barrier for experienced mudders, as you have to convince them to stop using their favourite client.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by KaVir Most muds don't require any downloads at all - they work with raw telnet, or can be accessed directly from certain mud sites. The prospective player may be encouraged to download a client, and having a decent custom client can certainly be a big plus (although not so much in terms of reducing the entry barrier), but they are not usually required to download anything before they enter the mud.

Lets face it, raw telnet sucks. I even hit a couple site to see how well Vista telnet works, and it would not fire up for any of the game sites I hit. I got a pop up window asking if I wanted to telnet, but it never worked. Of course, I did not try to figure out what was wrong, and I doubt most people would.

The best option for MUD owners is to have a simple flash or java client on their site which can quickly get new players into the game. Nothing that requires installation, it just play right in the webpage. Then move them on to something more powerful.

[Avasyu]

Originally Posted by Aeran I think if a client helps to make a great game, then it is good. For example downloading a client for a 3D game is usually no problem for me as long as there appears to be some quality. If say you make a text MUD client, and it is worse than zMUD and adds nothing really new then that would make me hesitant to download it. However say I primarily use telnet instead because I don't want to buy a client, then your client could very well become the client of choice if it isn't worse than telnet. It is fun to download new software .

Yeah, I agree. Your client is not going to be better then zMUD. (not without a lot of work)

Your best bet is to make a simple client that can be played directly in your webpage. It should have simple alias, macro, and trigger support. It should have clean graphics, status bars, and so on. Something professional looking that will get a player right into the game.

Once a new player learns more about MUD's they are probably going to move up to something more powerful.

[Aeran]

Originally Posted by Avasyu Your best bet is to make a simple client that can be played directly in your webpage. It should have simple alias, macro, and trigger support. It should have clean graphics, status bars, and so on. Something professional looking that will get a player right into the game.

The question is if you actually want to have macros/triggers . My opinion is that if you feel the game you design requires the player to write macros/triggers then you might need to ponder what the game is about. The game should probably be designed so that triggers aren't needed.

[shadowfyr]

Originally Posted by Aeran The question is if you actually want to have macros/triggers . My opinion is that if you feel the game you design requires the player to write macros/triggers then you might need to ponder what the game is about. The game should probably be designed so that triggers aren't needed.

Umm, I disagree. People use triggers and macros ***even for MMOs***. I use a program to track my DPS and everything I have killed in EQ2, by reading the data in the log file (annoying, since it would be a lot nicer to read it directly from the data stream in their client). Suggesting that you need to rework the game if people feel the need to use such things is just.... absurd. There will almost always be some things that you want to display in windows that the mud, even with a custom client, won't display they way you want, information the player wants to keep track of that the client/mud doesn't, or tasks that, no matter how well designed, may be easier to assign to a keypress than having to type them all manually. Its not about "requires", its about, "flexibility", and frankly, the ones that laughably try to ban "any" use of them, instead of just nailing the botters when detected, annoy the hell out of me, as do the ones that insist I have to use their client, because doesn't have scripting, or triggers/macros that are worth anything (being too limited).

But it is a catch-22. The more someone can do with you macro, trigger, alias and script system, the more vigilant you have to be at watching for people botting, but at the same time, the happier the user is with the client they use, when employing "allowed" tricks and helpers. And, *almost everyone* is going to find something they wish they could display differently, work out without using pen and paper, or use to help them in a way the existing mud/client won't, as it stands.

[AirheadGaming]

Thanks for the tips everyone, the main goal of designing this engine is to make creating MUDs easy, it has a tool kit with a real clean UI with drag and drop support for linking rooms to doors. I don't plan on building a large MUD with it, but rather releasing the MUD for 3rd party developers to make games with.

That being said I would not know where to begin with the telnet side of things, how would I go about writing a server that supports telnet?

As for custom clients, the goal was to provide a new user with a simplified experiance. Alot of times trying to remember all of the commands available or what commands do what can confuse a new player, and thus the reason behind a possible custom client with a UI so the user won't need to enter commands. The client download size should be less than 1MB (not including the .NET framework for windows machines) due to the server containing all of the files. The client should just send a command to the server, server parse it and send back text to display in the console. Am I going about that in the right way? clients should not have any of the game files stored on their local machine to prevent hacking correct?

Thanks again everyone.
Johnathon
Airhead Gaming

[Ide]

Yeah, I can't remember who said this, but the quote goes 'always remember the client is in the hands of the enemy'.

[Aeran]

Originally Posted by shadowfyr Umm, I disagree. People use triggers and macros ***even for MMOs***. I use a program to track my DPS and everything I have killed in EQ2, by reading the data in the log file (annoying, since it would be a lot nicer to read it directly from the data stream in their client). Suggesting that you need to rework the game if people feel the need to use such things is just.... absurd. There will almost always be some things that you want to display in windows that the mud, even with a custom client, won't display they way you want, information the player wants to keep track of that the client/mud doesn't, or tasks that, no matter how well designed, may be easier to assign to a keypress than having to type them all manually. Its not about "requires", its about, "flexibility", and frankly, the ones that laughably try to ban "any" use of them, instead of just nailing the botters when detected, annoy the hell out of me, as do the ones that insist I have to use their client, because doesn't have scripting, or triggers/macros that are worth anything (being too limited).

A lot of the display needs can be handled by easier methods than advanced triggers. For example the server could handle different ways to send the output to the client. In e.g MXP I believe you can set client side variables as an example how it could be done.

It is when the triggers are capable of sending data back to the MUD you start to get very close to automating gameplay. If you look at some scripts on Zugg Software's forum you can see that some of it is pretty questionable. Atleast if you would like to run a game that is somewhat fair to users both with and without zMUD.

But it is a catch-22. The more someone can do with you macro, trigger, alias and script system, the more vigilant you have to be at watching for people botting, but at the same time, the happier the user is with the client they use, when employing "allowed" tricks and helpers. And, *almost everyone* is going to find something they wish they could display differently, work out without using pen and paper, or use to help them in a way the existing mud/client won't, as it stands.

In some rpgs I have played botting has been so common that real play is rare. When you look at how some of those games are designed many of them almost force you to consider write a bot to endure the gameplay . That's in my opinion the kind of gameplay to avoid designing.

[Mabus]

Originally Posted by Avasyu I even hit a couple site to see how well Vista telnet works, and it would not fire up for any of the game sites I hit. I got a pop up window asking if I wanted to telnet, but it never worked.

Vista comes with telnet (client and server), but it is disabled by default.

To enable it you have to:
1) Click Start
2) Click Control Panel
3) Select Programs and Features
4) Select Turn Windows Features on or off
7) Click the checkbox beside the telnet client
6) Click OK

Hope that helps.

[Mabus]

Originally Posted by AirheadGaming That being said I would not know where to begin with the telnet side of things, how would I go about writing a server that supports telnet?

Couple links to get you started:
Wikipedia on Telnet
Sourceforge project - .NET Telnet

Google is my friend!

[AirheadGaming]

Thanks for the links and info, I'll take a look at it. Maybe the best thing to do is instead of writing my own networking engine, write it all to work with telnet, provide a custom client as an optional download, but still allow the game to be played through traditional telnet clients or php based web pages for those that have clients they prefer.

[shadowfyr]

Originally Posted by Aeran A lot of the display needs can be handled by easier methods than advanced triggers. For example the server could handle different ways to send the output to the client. In e.g MXP I believe you can set client side variables as an example how it could be done. It is when the triggers are capable of sending data back to the MUD you start to get very close to automating gameplay. If you look at some scripts on Zugg Software's forum you can see that some of it is pretty questionable. Atleast if you would like to run a game that is somewhat fair to users both with and without zMUD. In some rpgs I have played botting has been so common that real play is rare. When you look at how some of those games are designed many of them almost force you to consider write a bot to endure the gameplay . That's in my opinion the kind of gameplay to avoid designing.

This is true, and a "lot" if it can be solved by incorporating in features like MMOs have, like command toolbars, auto-targetting, etc. But, like I said, you still get cases where something is just a pain in a backside to do in the game, or the information you are looking for is not easily kept track of via the client.

Some simply can't be though, without having at least "some" questionable interactions. The rule the mud I played at has is, "It can send commands, as long as all you do with the result is display information, or do things that do not directly effect game play." This means you could have a trigger "set" the name to be used to heal someone, based on some event, but you still have to "cast" the spell. You can send commands to check your inventory, to make sure you put away all your stuff, as a sequence of things needed to log off, but *you* have to issue the command that starts that sequence of events. If it was something in combat, instead of a log off, that would be even more restricted, you can't have one command cast a series of buffs, but you could have triggers register the fact that you did cast the spells, then set timers to warn you when they where about to need to be recast. The timers **cannot** recast them though. At one point I even came up with a joke, based on sending multiple lines through tells, where my tell would respond like an NPC and display a price list for made up items. Other people grabbed the idea and set of shops to sell extra items they collected. This has become redundant (mostly), and there are now restrictions preventing multiple lines being sent over anything "except" tells, where its still allowed. But, its one case where technically the client "is" doing something one its own, completely separate from the user, but it has *zero* impact on actual game play. (Unless you consider telling people you have a piece of armor for sale as "effecting advancement". lol)

I don't know, I just like to have "some" control over what my client is doing and the ability to tweak some things to fit how I play. Limiting what the client can do, severely messes with that ability.

[Aeran]

Originally Posted by shadowfyr I don't know, I just like to have "some" control over what my client is doing and the ability to tweak some things to fit how I play. Limiting what the client can do, severely messes with that ability.

I guess one way to go between the both solutions is to have an API on the server the client user can access, e.g remote procedures similar to xmlrpc. It would give huge advantages to retrieving information to display, but still make it possible to limit bot-style scripts.

[tommi]

A custom client is the ultimate way to go. Muds need to come into the 21st century and use all the tools available to them and a custom client is certainly one of those tools.

That said, if all your going to do with the client is to offer a dull black screen and a connect button aka any telnet app out there, and by app i mean everything from windows telnet to zmud and mushclient then you might as well just embed some dumb java app into a website and call that connectivity.


Take a look at the Bat Mud Client for inspiration, those guys have written a truly amazing client for their mud. Its has good features and is easy to use and enhances the game play experience.

If you ever wish to gain players from outside the mud community you need to start offer non mudding players something that they understand. The understand download client, or click here to play, they don't need confusion of telnet or download someone else's client and try and work out how the hell to connect to the game you wanted to play. A mud client should be like every other game out there, you click start and your in the welcome screen with the press to connect button.

I have run some small scale tests on this with my children, their friends and with 2 classes of year 7 students (12 year olds) at school i have access too, using my own test muds website as an example. I found from talking with them that they find it confusing to have to download a 3rd party program and connect to a mud, 85% of them were happy to click the play now and use The Bean Client and none of them could work out how to use mushclient even when it was installed already for them.

[Fizban]

Most muds require a player to download a third party client.

There's these two neat programs, they've both shipped on every version of Windows in existence except for Vista, their called telnet, and hyper terminal... (Hell, even on Vista their incredibly simple to install) As for Mac/Linux, well telnet has shipped in EVERY version of them, so yeah stating that to play muds requires having to download a 3rd party client is really just well, not true, for most people.

Oh, and to stay on topic, custom clients are great, as long as they aren't enforced. Custom clients being an option is neat, being the only way to connect to a mud (goto crackwhip.com if you aren't sure exactly what I mean) is lame and will cause many people accustomed to their favorite client to flat out not play your game at all.

[Avasyu]

Originally Posted by Fizban There's these two neat programs, they've both shipped on every version of Windows in existence except for Vista, their called telnet, and hyper terminal... (Hell, even on Vista their incredibly simple to install) As for Mac/Linux, well telnet has shipped in EVERY version of them, so yeah stating that to play muds requires having to download a 3rd party client is really just well, not true, for most people.

A MUD will be slitting their own wrists if they direct a player new to our type of games to play on telnet or anything like it.

[shadowfyr]

Yeah. 1) They are usually intended to be "basic" shells for talking to networks, not games, 2) they can't do jack beyond that, and 3) at least with Windows versions, they don't automatically default to ANSI, but require archane methods of starting them to activate it, never mind any other extended features that clients may have, which means the game will look bad, or not work at all with them.

If default Telnet apps where upgraded, instead of languishing in the same state that MS also kept MS Sort-of-Paint and Barely-a-Notepad, this might not be true. Instead, they decided not to *ever* even upgrade it to something as basic as *supporting* ANSI automatically, instead of making you manually turn on the older V-100 standard, but actually *disabled it* by default in the latest OS... This is just completely nuts.

[MikeRozak]

Originally Posted by shadowfyr If default Telnet apps where upgraded, instead of languishing in the same state that MS also kept MS Sort-of-Paint and Barely-a-Notepad, this might not be true. Instead, they decided not to *ever* even upgrade it to something as basic as *supporting* ANSI automatically, instead of making you manually turn on the older V-100 standard, but actually *disabled it* by default in the latest OS... This is just completely nuts.

If an applet in Windows isn't going to be used by at least a million users (as a wild guess), Microsoft tends to remove it. You're lucky (in a way) that the Telnet apps haven't been removed completely.

Reaslistically, very few people use the Telnet apps, and even if they were super-souped up, the number of people using them wouldn't increase that much.

[shadowfyr]

Probably true, but then, like you said, this is MS mentality. Never correctly support anything old, make people upgrade, even if it doesn't work with prior documents/systems, then *insist* that this is to make the system more efficient, despite the fact that a) its more bloated, slower, consumes more system resources, etc., and b) other people somehow manage to make "better" systems, without cutting out every single application thats gotten "old". One would almost think they where trying to cheat people out of money, instead of providing the best product. lol

[The_Fury]

Originally Posted by Fizban Oh, and to stay on topic, custom clients are great, as long as they aren't enforced. Custom clients being an option is neat, being the only way to connect to a mud (goto crackwhip.com if you aren't sure exactly what I mean) is lame and will cause many people accustomed to their favorite client to flat out not play your game at all.

This is may be true if the only person your marketing your game to is the existing mud player who understands the differences between clients and has over many years come to understand how one particular client works and no matter how much better something is, will not for the love of god give up his particular client. We all know those who play using gmud or telnet or something equally as stupid IMO.

On the other hand, if you want to market your game specifically to non mudders and to grow new players into a text based game medium then your going to have to offer them an experience that they can understand. A custom client download is one method and an really good web interface would be another.

For the game that I'm currently working on, i put in a lot of time into researching various aspects of the game design and connection methods by surveying 140 people from 2 different age groups that I have identified as being my target audience. (Sidenote: This also was used as my university statistics project)

The one huge standout from the analysis was that nearly everyone saw the 3rd mud client as a barrier that would stop them from playing a game and that it was very confusing. When offered a choice between a web client and a propriety client download, they would take the download.

I have also been able to run practical experiments with 70 upper primary students, (12 y/o). When offered a choice between telnet, mushclient and a webapp, they all connected via the webapp. Not one could connect to a game using telnet, or mushclient. When offered a propriety client as a download that was configured in such a way as to connect to the game either automatically or via a quick connect method then nearly all were able to connect and progress through creation. (for this part i used a pre-configured mushclient and portal-GT)

The smart muds will come into the modern age and will offer prospective players a custom mud that has either been designed with a single game in mind like BatMud which in my opinion is absolutely brilliant or they can offer a preconfigured mushclient or similar as a download to overcome initial barriers. Mushclient with its plugin architecture is the perfect client for use in such situations.

As for limiting access to only one type of client + a web interface, i am considering this for my own game. i don't really see the current mud player as my target audience, so potentially missing out on a few players that way is not really an issue to me.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by The_Fury This is may be true if the only person your marketing your game to is the existing mud player who understands the differences between clients and has over many years come to understand how one particular client works and no matter how much better something is, will not for the love of god give up his particular client.

Emphasis mine. It's true if any of those you are marketing your game to are existing mudders. Also note that "better" is a subjective term - you might think your client is great, while someone else might think it stinks. If people have the choice then they'll use what they prefer, while if they don't they might decide to give your game a miss entirely.

Originally Posted by The_Fury On the other hand, if you want to market your game specifically to non mudders and to grow new players into a text based game medium then your going to have to offer them an experience that they can understand. A custom client download is one method and an really good web interface would be another.

You can still offer them a custom client without excluding other clients. Forcing people to use your client won't make your mud any more appealing to newcomers, it'll just raise the entry barrier for existing mudders.

Originally Posted by The_Fury As for limiting access to only one type of client + a web interface, i am considering this for my own game. i don't really see the current mud player as my target audience, so potentially missing out on a few players that way is not really an issue to me.

You're creating a mud which doesn't target mudders?

[MikeRozak]

Originally Posted by KaVir You're creating a mud which doesn't target mudders?

Some of the most successful games (of genres) have been simplified/revised games targeted at non-core games.

For example:

Real-time strategy games - Real strategy games (from Avalon Hill) took hours per move, and all sorts of complicated rules. The same complexity was included in the computer equivalents. Then RTS was invented, which is a strategy game that's targeted at non-strategy-game players.

Myst - You could think of it as a redesigned/simplified adventure game.

Runescape - A simple MMORPG with crappy graphics. Real MMORPG players despise it. Runescape has 9M players.

Adventurequest and friends - A very simple CRPG with anime graphics. Heaps of players.

[The_Fury]

Originally Posted by KaVir You can still offer them a custom client without excluding other clients. Forcing people to use your client won't make your mud any more appealing to newcomers, it'll just raise the entry barrier for existing mudders.

What forcing someone to use a specific client does tho, is allow you to offer a game experience that is uniform across all players and it allows me as the developer to have total control over every aspect of my game.

Raising the entry level to mudders in some situations might actually be a good thing. Lets be honest a great majority of mudders are pretty fickle, they dislike change and are happy with what they like and are comfortable with.

To elaborate much on this is difficult without sounding whining, there are a huge list of reasons based on my experience that has led me down this path, . tho if i was to make use of a 1 client policy it would be because i want to control every aspect of my game.

You're creating a mud which doesn't target mudders?

Yes this is exactly what i am doing. Firstly i do not consider my game to be a MUD from a traditional standpoint. And while i share features with muds and use text as the interface, i feel my game fits more into a FPS MMORPG category better than it does a MUD.

I do not see a lot of potential for growth within the existing mudding audience. I see it as a shrinking demographic of mostly over 25's who have been playing MUDs for a number of years who are well catered for by the existing games that own most of the market share and to break into this the existing mud market is extraordinarily hard. I feel that covers about 95% of the players out the, the other 5% are encompassed by the tinkerers who put up a stock base to play with for a while or those who are programmers who have a need to make something new.

I see the greatest potential for growth in the 12 to 19 y/o casual game segment, where the players actively try new games, play for a short period of time and move on to something new. Pretty much the opposite thinking of muds that like to gain players and keep them for extended periods of time.

My game has been designed to keep someone interested for between 4 and 6 months and then after that they would most likely move on to other games. I have developed a rather in depth marketing strategy for the game that i feel will be able to get it off the ground, and will be directly marketed to 35,000 individuals in my local community through a partner ship with a retail games outlet.

The game itself is competition based that will offer 6 to 8 weekly competitions with cash and prizes begin offered in a number of catagories.

I am happy to elaborate further if you want, im just rushed right now and cannot add more.

The_Fury.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by MikeRozak Some of the most successful games (of genres) have been simplified/revised games targeted at non-core games.

But how many successful games have been specifically targeted at people who don't play that type of game at all? Perhaps there are some, but I can't imagine there are many. A mud designed to appeal to people who have never played Diku, EverQuest, MUSH, WoW, etc...that's going to be a pretty hard sell.

Originally Posted by The_Fury What forcing someone to use a specific client does tho, is allow you to offer a game experience that is uniform across all players and it allows me as the developer to have total control over every aspect of my game.

Not really. There's nothing stopping a dedicated player from creating their own client - and if there is value in doing so, and your game is successful, then sooner or later that's exactly what will happen.

As I said before, all it does is raise the entry barrier for existing mudders.

Originally Posted by The_Fury Firstly i do not consider my game to be a MUD from a traditional standpoint. And while i share features with muds and use text as the interface, i feel my game fits more into a FPS MMORPG category better than it does a MUD.

It'll still be a type of mud, just as MMORPGs are a type of mud (indeed some of them are little more than Diku clones with a graphical client). Muds come in many different shapes and flavours, and those who play your mud will also be mudders.

Originally Posted by The_Fury My game has been designed to keep someone interested for between 4 and 6 months and then after that they would most likely move on to other games.

You're deliberately discouraging existing players from trying your mud, and those who do play will be expected to leave after 4-6 months? If I were attempting to create a popular mud I would be doing the reverse - appeal to existing players as much as to new ones, and attempt to keep them interested for as long as possible.