Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - Success of Imping Quests into a Hack-n-Slash ?

01-31-2005, 01:50 AM

Here's one I think measurably more traumatic:

But yeah you can't screw with expectations that are set. The must quest to level does that. How traumatic that is...well I wouldn't venture to guess. If you have 10 players does it really matter as much as if you have 75. Thinking you will attract a new audience I think is unreasonable, especiially because it doesn't change the dynamics of that audience which is fixed by the set expectations of the same game. You are just exchanging player preferences and borrowing players, not expanding the audience. Keegan's ancient piece in JOMR laments that. He doesn't get his finger right on it. And I won't pretend to either.

The other problem when implementing the choice of advancement option (quest or level-grind) is the goal stays the same (stuck with the initial game design). The reason that's a problem is invariably either one or the other will be the shorter path to the cheese. Your achievers will figure that out in very short order and if the new way is shorter... well you've shortened the the player experience time of your game. Achievers wil become explorers in the sense that they are "exploring", but not in the sense that they are real explorers. Someone (can't remember who) suggested explorers really don't exist anyway. I found it semi-convincing, but not at the gut level. One might conclude then that making the new way harder is better. Well... I believe that many HnS games are flush with achievers, and that would in my view make the quest feature little used. Perfect balance then? Maybe.

Do nothing? No, a static mud is no fun. From the staff's view who likely pursue it at their pleasure and from a long time players view it isn't either. I think you are stuck with the initial game design and to have a living dynamic game, you have to resort to content creation, expansion packs(?) - new stuff, additional levels -remorting - subclassing - specialization. New races and classes are different as they represent opportunities to screw up as they aren't extensions to the goal path but represent potential shortcuts to the cheese.

I think the above is an important question: Is a feature an extension of the path, or is it another way on the same path?

Odd as it may be, I think adding 10 levels to your game and the content go along with it is far better for the game than adding a new race or class.

Or even better... experimentation with sub games with DIFFERENT GOALS. Not subgames that feed back into the reach the hero level goal, but present new goals. You can certainly do that with questing. There is no reason questing need feed directly into the reach hero goal. And that's potentially more interesting.

01-31-2005, 01:50 AM	#15
Posts: n/a	Here's one I think measurably more traumatic: But yeah you can't screw with expectations that are set. The must quest to level does that. How traumatic that is...well I wouldn't venture to guess. If you have 10 players does it really matter as much as if you have 75. Thinking you will attract a new audience I think is unreasonable, especiially because it doesn't change the dynamics of that audience which is fixed by the set expectations of the same game. You are just exchanging player preferences and borrowing players, not expanding the audience. Keegan's ancient piece in JOMR laments that. He doesn't get his finger right on it. And I won't pretend to either. The other problem when implementing the choice of advancement option (quest or level-grind) is the goal stays the same (stuck with the initial game design). The reason that's a problem is invariably either one or the other will be the shorter path to the cheese. Your achievers will figure that out in very short order and if the new way is shorter... well you've shortened the the player experience time of your game. Achievers wil become explorers in the sense that they are "exploring", but not in the sense that they are real explorers. Someone (can't remember who) suggested explorers really don't exist anyway. I found it semi-convincing, but not at the gut level. One might conclude then that making the new way harder is better. Well... I believe that many HnS games are flush with achievers, and that would in my view make the quest feature little used. Perfect balance then? Maybe. Do nothing? No, a static mud is no fun. From the staff's view who likely pursue it at their pleasure and from a long time players view it isn't either. I think you are stuck with the initial game design and to have a living dynamic game, you have to resort to content creation, expansion packs(?) - new stuff, additional levels -remorting - subclassing - specialization. New races and classes are different as they represent opportunities to screw up as they aren't extensions to the goal path but represent potential shortcuts to the cheese. I think the above is an important question: Is a feature an extension of the path, or is it another way on the same path? Odd as it may be, I think adding 10 levels to your game and the content go along with it is far better for the game than adding a new race or class. Or even better... experimentation with sub games with DIFFERENT GOALS. Not subgames that feed back into the reach the hero level goal, but present new goals. You can certainly do that with questing. There is no reason questing need feed directly into the reach hero goal. And that's potentially more interesting.