Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 02-07-2006, 04:14 PM

If 'good' is defined in such a subjective manner, how can one ever quantify any design decision? And if you don't question the value of your design decisions, how will you detect potential flaws with the goal of the game itself?

But where does one draw the line?

Bubba is a warrior, Boffo is a thief. Bubba has better armour, but Boffo has a nasty backstab. The two classes can be balanced out against each other, but there will be many situations in which one has the edge. So the classes are dropped, and Bubba and Boffo now both have good armour and a nasty backstab. The possibilities for strategic gameplay have been reduced in order to promote equality...

But is there really equality? Bubba and Boffo now have the same abilities, but what about their stats? Bubba is stronger and tougher, while Boffo is faster and smarter. These attributes may have been mathmatically balanced against each other, but they will still result in situations where either Bubba or Boffo has the advantage. So we strip out stats, removing even more options for strategic gameplay.

But we still don't have equality, because Bubba is wielding a two-handed sword and wearing platemail, while Boffo is using leather armour and a pair of daggers. Numerous tests have been run on the various weapons and armour in order to ensure that they are well-balanced against each other, but there will still be many situations in which one set of equipment has the advantage over the other. Do we strip out equipment as well?

You cannot achieve true equality for all situations without literally making all characters carbon copies of each other - but the more you try, the fewer strategic options will be available to players. And for a game which focuses on competitive gameplay (which is also the type most likely to be worried about game balance) strategy is likely to play a very important role.

This comes back to the point I made earlier - if every design decision is only ever judged relative to the goal, how will you recognise flaws with the goal? If attempting to design a PK mud, and the goal is to create a mud in which there is "perfect equality" between characters, the above scenarios should be flashing up big red warning lights that shouldn't be just blindly ignored. Instead, the designer should be reconsidering their goal to take into account the problem they've just overlooked, and deciding where the line should be drawn between 'equality' and 'strategy'.

This is actually a very serious point, and once which I've seen many mud developers stumble over - so eager to create their cool new feature that they don't stop to consider whether it's really going to do what they thought it would. You'll hear things like "I'm going to add 1000 levels!", from people who obviously haven't stopped to consider what the players are going to do once they get past level 50. The end result is a lot of bored and frustrated level 50 characters who can't progress any further because there's no content for them, and (with such a huge increase in levels) there's unlikely to be sufficient content for many years to come.

Once again this comes down to design decisions. For example, if the amount of effort required for the class content is very high, then the design document should consider how best to take advantage of that new content - for example, is it sufficiently new that players will want to create additional characters in order to play the game from a new perspective? Even if the average player were only to create one secondary character, it would still double the effective game content. Another option might be to allow players the chance to redesign their characters at specific points during the game, allowing each character potential access to all of the abilities - just not all at the same time.

This isn't a design that's never occurred to me. I implemented a mud in which every character could max every skill, over a decade ago, and had the opportunity to see first-hand the pros and cons of such an approach within a mud environment. I later created another mud in which the only difference between two characters was their stat configuration (with each stat mathametically balanced against the others) - not even player tactics could result in inequality. Later still, I created another mud in which every character started with every skill maxed, so that any inequality could only occur as a result of each player's choices prior to and during each fight.

My views are therefore the result of over ten years mud development, and three completely separate muds.

02-07-2006, 04:14 PM	#127
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	If 'good' is defined in such a subjective manner, how can one ever quantify any design decision? And if you don't question the value of your design decisions, how will you detect potential flaws with the goal of the game itself? But where does one draw the line? Bubba is a warrior, Boffo is a thief. Bubba has better armour, but Boffo has a nasty backstab. The two classes can be balanced out against each other, but there will be many situations in which one has the edge. So the classes are dropped, and Bubba and Boffo now both have good armour and a nasty backstab. The possibilities for strategic gameplay have been reduced in order to promote equality... But is there really equality? Bubba and Boffo now have the same abilities, but what about their stats? Bubba is stronger and tougher, while Boffo is faster and smarter. These attributes may have been mathmatically balanced against each other, but they will still result in situations where either Bubba or Boffo has the advantage. So we strip out stats, removing even more options for strategic gameplay. But we still don't have equality, because Bubba is wielding a two-handed sword and wearing platemail, while Boffo is using leather armour and a pair of daggers. Numerous tests have been run on the various weapons and armour in order to ensure that they are well-balanced against each other, but there will still be many situations in which one set of equipment has the advantage over the other. Do we strip out equipment as well? You cannot achieve true equality for all situations without literally making all characters carbon copies of each other - but the more you try, the fewer strategic options will be available to players. And for a game which focuses on competitive gameplay (which is also the type most likely to be worried about game balance) strategy is likely to play a very important role. This comes back to the point I made earlier - if every design decision is only ever judged relative to the goal, how will you recognise flaws with the goal? If attempting to design a PK mud, and the goal is to create a mud in which there is "perfect equality" between characters, the above scenarios should be flashing up big red warning lights that shouldn't be just blindly ignored. Instead, the designer should be reconsidering their goal to take into account the problem they've just overlooked, and deciding where the line should be drawn between 'equality' and 'strategy'. This is actually a very serious point, and once which I've seen many mud developers stumble over - so eager to create their cool new feature that they don't stop to consider whether it's really going to do what they thought it would. You'll hear things like "I'm going to add 1000 levels!", from people who obviously haven't stopped to consider what the players are going to do once they get past level 50. The end result is a lot of bored and frustrated level 50 characters who can't progress any further because there's no content for them, and (with such a huge increase in levels) there's unlikely to be sufficient content for many years to come. Once again this comes down to design decisions. For example, if the amount of effort required for the class content is very high, then the design document should consider how best to take advantage of that new content - for example, is it sufficiently new that players will want to create additional characters in order to play the game from a new perspective? Even if the average player were only to create one secondary character, it would still double the effective game content. Another option might be to allow players the chance to redesign their characters at specific points during the game, allowing each character potential access to all of the abilities - just not all at the same time. This isn't a design that's never occurred to me. I implemented a mud in which every character could max every skill, over a decade ago, and had the opportunity to see first-hand the pros and cons of such an approach within a mud environment. I later created another mud in which the only difference between two characters was their stat configuration (with each stat mathametically balanced against the others) - not even player tactics could result in inequality. Later still, I created another mud in which every character started with every skill maxed, so that any inequality could only occur as a result of each player's choices prior to and during each fight. My views are therefore the result of over ten years mud development, and three completely separate muds.