Comment by stackghost
16 hours ago
>The truth is though there was no “bad experience”, it was all just an experience.
I mean there absolutely were bad experiences. Griefing drove lots of players away, which is why they implemented Trammel.
16 hours ago
>The truth is though there was no “bad experience”, it was all just an experience.
I mean there absolutely were bad experiences. Griefing drove lots of players away, which is why they implemented Trammel.
You approach that from a game design perspective to reduce the reward and set bounds on how much fun a player is allowed to destroy maliciously and what kind of counterplay is available, but if you completely eliminate it the world loses a lot of its drama. Conflict drives narrative.
I know Raph Koster has spent a lot of time since he designed UO thinking about this problem. I haven't looked at his current project but am curious to what extent he's licked this issue.
Grief is a natural consequence of player freedom, but it’s not worth giving up that freedom for some safety.
Players don't want to be continually victimized. That game design drives away all but a tiny minority of players.
turns out it is for a lot of players which is why the kind of game is extinct. Just like in the real world, there's a fine line between risk and adventure and walking into something that looks like Liu Cixin's the Dark Forest.
You want enough friction to generate interesting interactions, you don't want so much freedom that the worst exploiters start to crowd out every honest player, because then, just like in a rundown lawless neighborhood, you're getting a lesson in the broken window theory and you're only left with the scammers.