|
|
|
date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:04:47 -0700,
group: microsoft.public.games.zone.asherons_call
back
Re: Turbine and DnD
"John J. Case" <Johnjcase@casepropertiesdotnet> wrote in message
news:do3dg150f96f5t8v9tcmf0qqgp0i2piptg@4ax.com...
> Ken Troop says : http://www.ddo.com/index.php?page_id=90
>
> Jason Booth says : http://jbooth.blogspot.com/2005/08/rolling-one.html
>
> I"m with Booth on this one.
I'm not sure what you mean by "I'm with Booth". Neither article says
anything in conflict with each other.
Game design is ALL about psychology. You cannot divorce game mechanics from
how people perceive things. All Booth is doing is commenting on the quirk
of human nature, while Troop is explaining how that quirk of human nature
has guided the design of D&D Online.
But neither has the ability to do anything about the quirk of human nature;
they are locked into respecting it, because to not respect human nature is
to fail as a game designer.
And for what it's worth, I want my games to respect my human nature.
Everything Troop said is accurate: pen and paper games take longer real time
to play, and so 20 levels of advancement is quite appropriate, and in fact
could be unreachable for some players (I'm in a PnP game now with a
character that has only advanced three levels in 18 months...we often go
weeks before we find an opportunity to get together and play). Conversely,
if advancement in a computer game were so slow as to match the real time
delay between advancement that a PnP game took, I would toss the game in a
trash bin, because I'm likely playing that game at *least* an hour or so per
day, and I don't feel like waiting 30 hours or more just to advance a single
level.
Now, one can question HOW the move from PnP to computer game is done. There
are a variety of solutions, and probably more than one viable solution. But
that's the fun of being a game designer; you get to make those decisions,
and see whether they turn out to be right or wrong (the market will tell you
that :) ).
Pete
date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:46:46 -0700
author: Peter Duniho
Re: Turbine and DnD
"John J. Case" <Johnjcase@casepropertiesdotnet> wrote in message
news:8sldg1lliidmcamacj67orl0d4lnakackg@4ax.com...
> The fact that Booth labeled his blog article "rolling a one" should
> tell you something about how he feels about the decision.
Possibly. But I didn't see anything in his article that contradicts the
other.
> Turbine and the current DDO group has taken the angle that if the
> lengthen the grind they make the experience better because it's
> lengthened.
Define "lengthen the grind". What Troop's article said (paraphrased) is
that they need to ensure that there is ample content to maintain player
interest. If there are only 20 level increments, then to keep a player for
a year or more, the levels have to be VERY far apart. But players don't
like that.
If by "lengthen the grind", you mean that they intend to ensure that it
takes a long time to get to the 20th level, then you are correct. However,
as far as this being required to "make the experience better", to some
extent, they are correct. The two alternatives are to either allow players
to get to the 20th level far too early, or for the players to have far too
long between leveling. Neither alternative will result in a game that is
successful in the marketplace.
> Booth was trying to point out that it's a meaningless
> change "Simply changing the numbers does not change the amount of
> content in the game."
The example Booth gave is actually a bit different. But as far as
"meaningless" goes, the only lack of meaning in the example he gave is with
respect to the underlying numerical aspects. There was a very significant
*psychological* change in his example, and since game design is all about
catering to psychological needs and desires, that's far from meaningless.
In the example of how the levels are defined (which is what Troop's article
was about), the underlying numerical aspects are actually changed as well.
That is, to lengthen the time it takes to get to the 20th level, they will
necessarily be reducing the amount of xp an average character can generate
over a given amount of time (or else they will increase the amount of xp
required for each level). Presumably, they will still adhere to the D&D
level paradigm, will introducing this new concept of "enhancements" to
address the issue of not making players go too long without rewards.
In both Booth's article and Troop's, they are in agreement that these are
necessary changes, a consequence of how human beings work. It's not clear
at all to me from the article whether Booth thinks the change to D&D
leveling in DDO is bad or good, but all he accomplishes in his article is to
support their decision.
> Booth was on the team before he quit and went
> to work to make a game that, as far as I can tell, uses music as it's
> focal point. I did find his comments on the AC skill point system
> entertaining.
I did too. But they also illustrate exactly the point that Troop is making
as well.
> How well recieved DDO is going to be isn't based on how many sub
> levels they put between every full one.
Not entirely, no. A lot of other things need to be "right" in the game as
well. But it's false to say that "how many sub levels they put between
every full one" has nothing to do with how well received DDO is going be.
If they get that wrong, the game will be poorly received regardless of how
good the rest of it is.
Pete
date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:58:10 -0700
author: Peter Duniho
Re: Turbine and DnD
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:58:10 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:
>Possibly. But I didn't see anything in his article that contradicts the
>other.
Nothing possible about it. Rolling a one has a certain connotation.
>Define "lengthen the grind". What Troop's article said (paraphrased) is
>that they need to ensure that there is ample content to maintain player
>interest. If there are only 20 level increments, then to keep a player for
>a year or more, the levels have to be VERY far apart. But players don't
>like that.
>
>If by "lengthen the grind", you mean that they intend to ensure that it
>takes a long time to get to the 20th level, then you are correct. However,
>as far as this being required to "make the experience better", to some
>extent, they are correct. The two alternatives are to either allow players
>to get to the 20th level far too early, or for the players to have far too
>long between leveling. Neither alternative will result in a game that is
>successful in the marketplace.
They aren't doing anything to make it go faster from 1 to 2, just
adding more milestones. You get 1, 1.1, 1,2, 1.3 and 1.4 which is a
little vague because from 1 to 10 you get 46 to 50 milestones
(depending on if you stop at 10 or 10.4) so either 1.1 is equal to 1
or they miscounted and I don't care enough to check.
>In both Booth's article and Troop's, they are in agreement that these are
>necessary changes, a consequence of how human beings work. It's not clear
>at all to me from the article whether Booth thinks the change to D&D
>leveling in DDO is bad or good, but all he accomplishes in his article is to
>support their decision.
I disagree with that assessment. It's very clear by the title that he
isn't happy with the direction they took, which might be part of the
reasons he left, and his closing paragraph points that way as well.
>I did too. But they also illustrate exactly the point that Troop is making
>as well.
While they agree that players want some kind of feedback for playing
how each of them would give that to the players is radically
different. Turbine's answer is more leveling points. While Booth
didn't exactly say his solution to be I'm certain that it's not going
to involve more levels.
http://jbooth.blogspot.com/2005/05/new-home.html
For the record, I disagree with some of the conclusions he came to in
there but to say that he was trying to support what direction Turbine
took on this issue.
JJC
date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:23:07 -0700
author: John J. Case Johnjcase@casepropertiesdotnet
Re: Turbine and DnD
"John J. Case" <Johnjcase@casepropertiesdotnet> wrote in message
news:vkkfg11jmu8vbb32jj7vd5jne2hndlgkni@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:58:10 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
>>Possibly. But I didn't see anything in his article that contradicts the
>>other.
>
> Nothing possible about it. Rolling a one has a certain connotation.
"Rolling a one" has a very specific connotation. But since it's being used
as a metaphor, the exact meaning *in this context* is far from clear. Even
so, let's assume Booth is unhappy.
> [...]
> They aren't doing anything to make it go faster from 1 to 2
But they ARE providing positive reinforcement on a more frequent schedule.
That's the whole point, and it's why they need to do it, given the length it
would take to go from 1 to 2 otherwise.
> [...]
>>In both Booth's article and Troop's, they are in agreement that these are
>>necessary changes, a consequence of how human beings work. It's not clear
>>at all to me from the article whether Booth thinks the change to D&D
>>leveling in DDO is bad or good, but all he accomplishes in his article is
>>to
>>support their decision.
>
> I disagree with that assessment.
Which assessment? Surely you don't mean to comment on what's clear to me or
not. That leaves the question of what he's accomplished in his article.
And what he's accomplished in his article is to *defend* the decision made
by the DDO group, by illustrating very clearly how powerful a part
psychology plays in game design.
> It's very clear by the title that he
> isn't happy with the direction they took, which might be part of the
> reasons he left, and his closing paragraph points that way as well.
Whether he is happy with the direction or not is irrelevant to the question
of whether reward frequency is important. He provides a very specific and
insightful example of why it's so important to frame the leveling experience
correctly, even if it means fooling the player into thinking they are
accomplishing more than they really are.
It may well be that Booth fails to understand that he's providing this
defense of the DDO decision, but he *is* providing the defense.
> [...]
> While they agree that players want some kind of feedback for playing
> how each of them would give that to the players is radically
> different. Turbine's answer is more leveling points. While Booth
> didn't exactly say his solution to be I'm certain that it's not going
> to involve more levels.
Well, therein lies the rub. The fact is, you need a particular frequency of
reward in order to keep the player happy. People may well disagree on how
best to implement that, but the truth is there are probably an infinite
number of different solutions, all of which are reasonable. One of the
mistakes people make, especially when they are too close to the situation,
is to think that their ideas are the only ones that work.
IMHO, while Booth may feel there is a conflict between his point of view and
Troops, I just don't see that there is. Especially in absence of any
specific suggestion as to how he'd do it differently. Certainly Booth is in
agreement that *something* had to be done.
> http://jbooth.blogspot.com/2005/05/new-home.html
>
> For the record, I disagree with some of the conclusions he came to in
> there but to say that he was trying to support what direction Turbine
> took on this issue.
That last sentence seems imcomplete. :)
Pete
date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 21:35:48 -0700
author: Peter Duniho
Re: Turbine and DnD
Peter Duniho wrote:
>"John J. Case" <Johnjcase@casepropertiesdotnet> wrote in message
>news:vkkfg11jmu8vbb32jj7vd5jne2hndlgkni@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:58:10 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Possibly. But I didn't see anything in his article that contradicts the
>>>other.
>>>
>>Nothing possible about it. Rolling a one has a certain connotation.
>>
>
>"Rolling a one" has a very specific connotation. But since it's being used
>as a metaphor, the exact meaning *in this context* is far from clear. Even
>so, let's assume Booth is unhappy.
>
The very first sentence is:
"It's amazing how easy it is for some people to muck up something which
is entirely about illusion. "
So yes, he doesnt like what Turbine did.
But like Peter said, He then goes on to say how fooling the player makes
the player happy even though it really doesnt impact the game system.
I think Jason wanted to keep the "time honored system" intact since any
change would ultimately be an illusion. So why not keep the old way.
Perhaps his frustration is really targeted at those silly players who
are so easily fooled by big numbers. He goes on to challenge the reader
to make a choice.
Turbine has simply understood the player's psychological need and are
trying to satisfy it, with no real change to the game, but intermediate
accomplishments.
Having short term goal/rewards is a good thing. They probably only
changed the level numbers for the sake of simplicity. "I'm level 1.3"
sounds funny.
>
>
>It may well be that Booth fails to understand that he's providing this
>defense of the DDO decision, but he *is* providing the defense.
>
He sure is :)
Perhaps he had a bad writing day.
Dave
date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:46:01 -0400
author: David Burke
|
|
