the History of Dumbed Down MMOs

AutemOx · October 2011

I want you guys to check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6_Dq1Bw0Ss&feature=youtube_gdata

My below discussion starts at 14:50 of the video and is like 5-10 minutes.

It is a video of Raph Koster talking about MUDs and how communities tended to police themselves because they were small enough that everyone knows everyone and that would lead to less griefing. When the graphical RPGs started coming up, the developers of these games had never worked with such large communities before, and found themselves shocked with how much 'misbehaving' there was in these games. For instance:

In UO you could attack anyone. You could build houses. You could place objects on the ground. There was player collision. These are all things that have been removed, not necessarily because they are hard to implement (although they are) but because they are very difficult to police. Koster gives the example of when players dropped thousands of pieces of furniture at the entrance of a city, leaving only one small entrance to and from the city. They would then camp this entrance and kill anyone coming to and from the city. This would have not been a problem in MUDs, so it was the first time developers ever faced this issue.

How did they solve it? They increased realism to solve the problem. They added the ability to destory and set fire to furniture. This allowed players to set aflame to the furniture blocking their exit to the city and it made blocking the city gates much more difficult.

Koster then explains that this continued... Players would find ways to exploit the game and the devs would combat that. But eventually they got sick of it, and instead of increasing realism of the virtual world to fix these problems things started going the other way: They started removing features from the game. For instance, the new solution to the problem of furniture blocking city gates would be to remove the ability to drop items on the ground.

So now we are left with MMOs that are more restricted. Just because some devs decided it would be easier to not have features in a game at all.

Koster goes on to describe how MMOs have become action RPGs. He jokes that the combat was his least favorite part of Dungeons and Dragons and 'not the reason why he loves RPGs'.

What do you guys think about the decision to remove realism to solve problems in game instead of increasing it?

AutemOx · October 2011

One of the other interesting things I got from the video was his discussion on how games are costing more and more to create. He then describes the 'resetting' of this which happens occasionally, like when a new technology/indie platform is released (ie flash, iphone, facebook). Although he does not claim it directly, Koster alludes to the worry that facebook and smartphones will be the last indie platform. Even they have been moving towards costing a lot of $$ to develop, and theres no new technology for indie devs on the horizon.

Robsolf · October 2011

Not sure the thread topic matches the actual content. When most people think of "dumbed down" MMO's they think of easier mobs, less traveling, etc., as opposed to collision and drop rules, etc. But that's just MO.

Reminds me of an earlier thread following a blogger who thinks devs should start catering to PK'ers, again.

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/330001

Or rather, a debate response to it.

Anonymity and lack of consequences work really well together to bring out the worst in people. Some folks... alot of folks, really, see that as a golden opportunity to be the biggest D-bag they can be. Whenever you consider adding a feature to a game, a developer has to assume, "how would a complete PoS possibly use this to ruin the game for other players?" And so they have to either chuck the idea altogether, or tighen everything up so you have a heavily controlled experience.

The furniture thing... I remember people used to do that with houses in SWG. You could basically box people in by dropping houses down in a square around them. After which, the house droppers would either gang up on them from inside the box, or drop from outside and just leave them there. SWG had no teleport, so you either had to call CS, or you'd have to know there's a suicide command you'd have to use in order for you to get out.

Some people are just A-holes. Go to any car stereo shop, observe the many knobless display decks and kicked in speakers and see for yourself. They'll go out of their way to screw someone else despite it having no benefit to them, whatsoever. If they'll do it at the risk of getting busted for vandalism, why WOULDn'T they do it in a place where no one knows who they are, and there is 0 risk of consequences?

Creslin321 · October 2011

Originally posted by Robsolf
Not sure the thread topic matches the actual content. When most people think of "dumbed down" MMO's they think of easier mobs, less traveling, etc., as opposed to collision and drop rules, etc. But that's just MO.

Reminds me of an earlier thread following a blogger who thinks devs should start catering to PK'ers, again.

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/330001

Or rather, a debate response to it.

Anonymity and lack of consequences work really well together to bring out the worst in people. Some folks... alot of folks, really, see that as a golden opportunity to be the biggest D-bag they can be. Whenever you consider adding a feature to a game, a developer has to assume, "how would a complete PoS possibly use this to ruin the game for other players?" And so they have to either chuck the idea altogether, or tighen everything up so you have a heavily controlled experience.

The furniture thing... I remember people used to do that with houses in SWG. You could basically box people in by dropping houses down in a square around them. After which, the house droppers would either gang up on them from inside the box, or drop from outside and just leave them there. SWG had no teleport, so you either had to call CS, or you'd have to know there's a suicide command you'd have to use in order for you to get out.

Some people are just A-holes. Go to any car stereo shop, observe the many knobless display decks and kicked in speakers and see for yourself. They'll go out of their way to screw someone else despite it having no benefit to them, whatsoever. If they'll do it at the risk of getting busted for vandalism, why WOULDn'T they do it in a place where no one knows who they are, and there is 0 risk of consequences?

Conscience? Knowing the difference between right and wrong?

I don't know...I'm not a religious person, but having played UO and Darkfall I understand why religion can be a good thing. Religion used to keep immoral people in check because they thought that some deity was always watching them so they would behave...apparently they are incapable of policing themselves so they need that.

Maybe we need to bring religion back.

Arglebargle · October 2011

....Because no one did bad things in the past?

VirusDancer · October 2011

Realism is lost the moment you login.

How so?

It is a MMO...where there may be a massive amount of players, but not necessarily a massive amount of space. It is the massive number of "heroes" that exist in what has basically become a simultaneous RPG/co-opRPG.

What do I mean here?

You could remove every other player in the game (perhaps leave enough friends to fill out a party), and tada - the world is pretty much scaled to accomodate that. For the most part, the worlds are scaled as if they were in a single player game.

Now add 10 more people. Add 100 more people. Add 1000 more people. The world is the same world that was designed for that single person or that group of friends playing together. It is crowded now though, eh?

While all of these different people may not be doing the exact same thing at the same time, generally speaking they are all on the same "path" - on the same "rails" - that the other players are. Thus my calling it a simultaneous RPG/co-opRPG.

Why do so many people complain that it is barren outside of cities then?

That is often because they have joined the game later, and the majority of their fellow residents are participating in the game lobby nature of the game at that point. They generally have no reason to return to those areas.

So much as you stated they said early on about the MUD devs never having worked with such large communities before - you can look at most MMORPGs and see that - well, they're still not really designing the games for such large communities. Imagine the layouts of the cities had they actually been designed to accomodate hundreds if not thousands of people? Would issues such as collision have arose?

This is just one example where I feel the developers are trying to blame the players... for an issue that is obviously on the devs side.

bezado · October 2011

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Robsolf
Not sure the thread topic matches the actual content. When most people think of "dumbed down" MMO's they think of easier mobs, less traveling, etc., as opposed to collision and drop rules, etc. But that's just MO.
Reminds me of an earlier thread following a blogger who thinks devs should start catering to PK'ers, again.

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/330001

Or rather, a debate response to it.
Anonymity and lack of consequences work really well together to bring out the worst in people. Some folks... alot of folks, really, see that as a golden opportunity to be the biggest D-bag they can be. Whenever you consider adding a feature to a game, a developer has to assume, "how would a complete PoS possibly use this to ruin the game for other players?" And so they have to either chuck the idea altogether, or tighen everything up so you have a heavily controlled experience.
The furniture thing... I remember people used to do that with houses in SWG. You could basically box people in by dropping houses down in a square around them. After which, the house droppers would either gang up on them from inside the box, or drop from outside and just leave them there. SWG had no teleport, so you either had to call CS, or you'd have to know there's a suicide command you'd have to use in order for you to get out.
Some people are just A-holes. Go to any car stereo shop, observe the many knobless display decks and kicked in speakers and see for yourself. They'll go out of their way to screw someone else despite it having no benefit to them, whatsoever. If they'll do it at the risk of getting busted for vandalism, why WOULDn'T they do it in a place where no one knows who they are, and there is 0 risk of consequences?

Conscience? Knowing the difference between right and wrong?
I don't know...I'm not a religious person, but having played UO and Darkfall I understand why religion can be a good thing. Religion used to keep immoral people in check because they thought that some deity was always watching them so they would behave...apparently they are incapable of policing themselves so they need that.
Maybe we need to bring religion back.

This. I been saying the same thing for years and ideals about it. The reason why was to keep people in check and keep them scared. Why do you think all people in power during these times were so open about religion and to throw it on people, it was to keep the people in control so that the leaders could govern their people easier without having any incidences and to be able to collect taxes easier.

Grahor · October 2011

Originally posted by Creslin321

I don't know...I'm not a religious person, but having played UO and Darkfall I understand why religion can be a good thing. Religion used to keep immoral people in check because they thought that some deity was always watching them so they would behave...apparently they are incapable of policing themselves so they need that.

Maybe we need to bring religion back.

The Lord Commandeth me to grief you forever and ever and ever till the end of time.

I'm going to hunt you down religiously in all and every game you play and spend my life griefing you.

Such is Lord's will.

Trolldefender99 · October 2011

From what I got out of it, griefers ruined MMOs...so now we have what we got.

(edit)

People like the poster above me ^^...though it sounds like he is more kidding, there are people that did that in MMOs until the person logged out. And if they came on again, they would find them and do it again.

AlBQuirky · November 2011

Originally posted by wormywyrm
Koster goes on to describe how MMOs have become action RPGs. He jokes that the combat was his least favorite part of Dungeons and Dragons and 'not the reason why he loves RPGs'.

Exactly! I'd rather figure out how to avoid combat and accomplish my goal than wade on through, blades blazing. Sometimes, though, combat is fun and is a good side activity. It is, for me, definitely NOT the end-all, be-all for game enjoyment.

What do you guys think about the decision to remove realism to solve problems in game instead of increasing it?

I think it is sad, but the griefers are the lowest common denominator to be dealt with. I agree with the developer's choice to "dumb down". Why spend untold amounts of time on a small percentage of the populace who will find ways around any "fixes" they come up with? Games could be so much more fun if people were not so immature. Alas, there is no way of policing these people. They, like cockroaches, find ways around any barriers to continue their imbecilic attacks on other people trying to enjoy a game.

ElderRat · November 2011

Originally posted by wormywyrm
Snip...

Koster then explains that this continued... Players would find ways to exploit the game and the devs would combat that. But eventually they got sick of it, and instead of increasing realism of the virtual world to fix these problems things started going the other way: They started removing features from the game. For instance, the new solution to the problem of furniture blocking city gates would be to remove the ability to drop items on the ground.

So now we are left with MMOs that are more restricted. Just because some devs decided it would be easier to not have features in a game at all.

snip...

Ok then Just because some Devs decided? Do not blame the Devs, blame the people who always have to cheat(use exploits, same thing as cheating). The cheating came first, the Devs responded to that. Blame the cheaters.

Cik_Asalin · November 2011

Originally posted by wormywyrm
Koster goes on to describe how MMOs have become action RPGs. He jokes that the combat was his least favorite part of Dungeons and Dragons and 'not the reason why he loves RPGs'.

What do you guys think about the decision to remove realism to solve problems in game instead of increasing it?

Very insightful. He worked with the man that coined the word "MMORPG", Richard Garriott with Ultima Online. His intellectual honesty about what mmorpgs have de-volved into is refreshing.

The decision to remove realism was flawed, as it turned what could have been better developed to balance the organic with the inorgaic. But in all honesty, we are left with these so-called mmorpg's being more of ARPG and CORPG than MMORPG.

For example, as I look at SW:TOR, I am anticipating it to be an entertaining ARPG or CORPG, but as with most of its' predecesors in this same genre, a mmorpg it is not.

idgarad · November 2011

I think a lot of you missed something in the MUD Post-MUD era. A lot, and I mean a LOT of MUDs were invite only. You could apply, but you might not get in. Some of the biggest MUDs still around (200+ players) are invite only, they don't even advertise anymore on Mud Connector.

Here is a solution but a hell of a gamble.

Start a shard for your MMO that is invite only. Give out 100 accounts.

Each account has 1000 reputation points and 5 invites.

If anyone a player invited gets banned or suspended the person inviting them losses 200 points. The person getting banned loses 500 points. Anyone gets to 0 and that person (not account, person) is banned from that shard permanently.

Each player gets 5 and only 5 invites.

Now let us see how that community evolves. I'd gamble it would be a vast improvement for those playing on that shard, when it comes to the people they play with.

(Mechanics taken from a Rom MUD from back in 93-94ish based on of all things Dune)

Distopia · November 2011

It's funny to me because I've said a lot of this stuff over the years, and I always get the same type of "you're crazy" "it's all the devs fault, player tendancy has nothing to do with it"...in reply..

AutemOx · November 2011

Originally posted by idgarad
I think a lot of you missed something in the MUD Post-MUD era. A lot, and I mean a LOT of MUDs were invite only. You could apply, but you might not get in. Some of the biggest MUDs still around (200+ players) are invite only, they don't even advertise anymore on Mud Connector.

Here is a solution but a hell of a gamble.

Start a shard for your MMO that is invite only. Give out 100 accounts.

Each account has 1000 reputation points and 5 invites.

If anyone a player invited gets banned or suspended the person inviting them losses 200 points. The person getting banned loses 500 points. Anyone gets to 0 and that person (not account, person) is banned from that shard permanently.

Each player gets 5 and only 5 invites.

Now let us see how that community evolves. I'd gamble it would be a vast improvement for those playing on that shard, when it comes to the people they play with.

(Mechanics taken from a Rom MUD from back in 93-94ish based on of all things Dune)

I actually think this is a great idea. I would start reputation at 0 and allow it to become negative, however. And there could always be additional mechanics to modify your rep as the game expands.

I may do that for my next project; I run several small online flash games. lysle.net

VirusDancer · November 2011

Originally posted by wormywyrm

Originally posted by idgarad

I think a lot of you missed something in the MUD Post-MUD era. A lot, and I mean a LOT of MUDs were invite only. You could apply, but you might not get in. Some of the biggest MUDs still around (200+ players) are invite only, they don't even advertise anymore on Mud Connector.

Here is a solution but a hell of a gamble.

Start a shard for your MMO that is invite only. Give out 100 accounts.

Each account has 1000 reputation points and 5 invites.

If anyone a player invited gets banned or suspended the person inviting them losses 200 points. The person getting banned loses 500 points. Anyone gets to 0 and that person (not account, person) is banned from that shard permanently.

Each player gets 5 and only 5 invites.

Now let us see how that community evolves. I'd gamble it would be a vast improvement for those playing on that shard, when it comes to the people they play with.

(Mechanics taken from a Rom MUD from back in 93-94ish based on of all things Dune)

I actually think this is a great idea. I would start reputation at 0 and allow it to become negative, however. And there could always be additional mechanics to modify your rep as the game expands.

I may do that for my next project; I run several small online flash games. lysle.net

Unfortunately though, like any system that allows players a say in the matter - it can be subject to griefing.

Have you ever PUGged as DPS in a 5 man where the tank or the healer was being an ass? Did you grin and bear it, or say something - even politely - only to find yourself back in town?

Did you ever join a basketball game or a football game as a kid - only to find yourself out of the game, because of a clique playing?

Perhaps I have a low opinion of the species, eh? Jaded? Likely...lol.

Adamantine · November 2011

Originally posted by Creslin321
Conscience? Knowing the difference between right and wrong?

I don't know...I'm not a religious person, but having played UO and Darkfall I understand why religion can be a good thing. Religion used to keep immoral people in check because they thought that some deity was always watching them so they would behave...apparently they are incapable of policing themselves so they need that.

Maybe we need to bring religion back.

LOL it never was gone.

And its always funny when atheists want to use religion for their very mundane ends.

AutemOx · November 2011

Virus, how would the griefing occur?

AutemOx · November 2011

And I would appreciate it if the discussion on religion stops before the thread ends up getting locked.

Naqaj · November 2011

please ignore, off-topic

Loktofeit · November 2011

Originally posted by wormywyrm

Originally posted by idgarad

I think a lot of you missed something in the MUD Post-MUD era. A lot, and I mean a LOT of MUDs were invite only. You could apply, but you might not get in. Some of the biggest MUDs still around (200+ players) are invite only, they don't even advertise anymore on Mud Connector.

Here is a solution but a hell of a gamble.

Start a shard for your MMO that is invite only. Give out 100 accounts.

Each account has 1000 reputation points and 5 invites.

If anyone a player invited gets banned or suspended the person inviting them losses 200 points. The person getting banned loses 500 points. Anyone gets to 0 and that person (not account, person) is banned from that shard permanently.

Each player gets 5 and only 5 invites.

Now let us see how that community evolves. I'd gamble it would be a vast improvement for those playing on that shard, when it comes to the people they play with.

(Mechanics taken from a Rom MUD from back in 93-94ish based on of all things Dune)

I actually think this is a great idea. I would start reputation at 0 and allow it to become negative, however. And there could always be additional mechanics to modify your rep as the game expands.

I may do that for my next project; I run several small online flash games. lysle.net

For a free or exclusive community, that is an excellent system, idgarad.

Wormy, the reason for starting at 500 and counting down is because at 500 you start with something, and when you have 'something' you don't want to lose it and particularly don't want it to reach 'nothing' especially if 'nothing' has consequences.

If you start at zero and work down, then you immediately go into the negative after the first hit. For most people, there is little difference between being 10 in the hole and 500 in the hole... either way, they're still in the hole. While it's entirely possible to tier penalties through the negatives as a counter, at that point one is back to creating arbitrary solutions to self-created problems, which is how mainstream MMOs got to where they are in the first place.

DoctrJackal · November 2011

When the tsunami hit Japan and the power went out in a store, everyone calmly put everything back on the shelves and left. There were no lootings, and people were very orderly in relief camps and shelters. This is a population where a large majority claim no personal religion. This is a population of people that are so densely packed together, that they need to hire people in train stations to shove passengers onto the train so that they fit. They're called "pushers".

Getting a population to follow rules and respect the working of society is about community and culture. Not about the population size, anonymity, developer response, system restrictions or religion. The best way to reduce crime in an area isn't to hire more police - it's to set up a community center. There are proven pyschological triggers that can make total strangers into total dicks or friendly neighbors.

I was an administrator on a Zombie Panic Source server - a game where griefing, cheating, and trolling is our daily bread. Getting people on a forum, giving them custom events, custom maps, and custom votes gave everyone a sense of community and responsbility. People would grief less. People would actively report bad activity.

Dumbing down an MMO isn't a good solution. Today's developers need to sit down with this problem and work it out instead of just veto-ing shit. How many times have you come across an idea and thought, "That would be fun, but too exploitable"? Toooooo many.

VirusDancer · November 2011

Originally posted by wormywyrm
Virus, how would the griefing occur?

In that clique sense. In the "it's my baskeball" and you can't play sense. In the "he hasn't really done anything wrong, but we just don't like him for some reason so let's get rid of him" sense.

Invite only groups - those groups that separate themselves from others - are discriminating. That is using the term in a good manner. They can discriminate. That is using the term in a bad manner.

It would not be a given. There are people that are above it. There are people that are not though. One would have to be careful - make sure that they have kept themselves above it, etc - or have a third party outsider keep an eye on it, etc.

Unlight · November 2011

Originally posted by Adamantine

Originally posted by Creslin321
Conscience? Knowing the difference between right and wrong?

I don't know...I'm not a religious person, but having played UO and Darkfall I understand why religion can be a good thing. Religion used to keep immoral people in check because they thought that some deity was always watching them so they would behave...apparently they are incapable of policing themselves so they need that.

Maybe we need to bring religion back.

LOL it never was gone.

And its always funny when atheists want to use religion for their very mundane ends.

Funny why? Religion has always been used for mundane ends before.

kakasaki · November 2011

Originally posted by idgarad
I think a lot of you missed something in the MUD Post-MUD era. A lot, and I mean a LOT of MUDs were invite only. You could apply, but you might not get in. Some of the biggest MUDs still around (200+ players) are invite only, they don't even advertise anymore on Mud Connector.

Here is a solution but a hell of a gamble.

Start a shard for your MMO that is invite only. Give out 100 accounts.

Each account has 1000 reputation points and 5 invites.

If anyone a player invited gets banned or suspended the person inviting them losses 200 points. The person getting banned loses 500 points. Anyone gets to 0 and that person (not account, person) is banned from that shard permanently.

Each player gets 5 and only 5 invites.

Now let us see how that community evolves. I'd gamble it would be a vast improvement for those playing on that shard, when it comes to the people they play with.

(Mechanics taken from a Rom MUD from back in 93-94ish based on of all things Dune)

Problem with this is $. Games are made to make money. With such a small population base, how would you sell enough subs to recoup development costs?

Icewhite · November 2011

Originally posted by kakasaki
Problem with this is $. Games are made to make money. With such a small population base, how would you sell enough subs to recoup development costs?

$60 / month.

Believe it or not, there are commercial MUDs that are still charging that much to this very day. How? By offering superior Player:GM ratios (50:1 instead of 50000:1), customer service, deep lore and actual roleplay, frequent events, etc.

Wouldn't recommend it for the MMO crowd, though. These are not the droids you're looking for.

Howdy, Stranger!

the History of Dumbed Down MMOs

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

the History of Dumbed Down MMOs

Comments