23 Jun, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Orrin said:
KaVir said:
I did once consider a concept for a mud that aimed at HnS players, PKers and hardcore roleplayers. Maybe one day.

That's broadly what I've tried to do with MD, though I think that in some ways it works to our disadvantage because players aren't quite sure which niche we fit in.

I was thinking more faction-oriented though. The concept I posed previously was that of an Ice Age themed mud, where players can choose between cavemen (RP-oriented), dire wolves (group-based HnS) or sabre-toothed tigers (solo PK). The different factions would be unable to communicate with each other, so the wolves and tigers wouldn't be able to disrupt the roleplaying for the cavemen, and unprevoked attacks would be perfectly IC.
23 Jun, 2010, Oliver wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Orrin said:
KaVir said:
I did once consider a concept for a mud that aimed at HnS players, PKers and hardcore roleplayers. Maybe one day.

That's broadly what I've tried to do with MD, though I think that in some ways it works to our disadvantage because players aren't quite sure which niche we fit in.

I was thinking more faction-oriented though. The concept I posed previously was that of an Ice Age themed mud, where players can choose between cavemen (RP-oriented), dire wolves (group-based HnS) or sabre-toothed tigers (solo PK). The different factions would be unable to communicate with each other, so the wolves and tigers wouldn't be able to disrupt the roleplaying for the cavemen, and unprevoked attacks would be perfectly IC.


That's actually… pretty ingenious. I don't think anything like that has ever been attempted.
23 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Not that it's not a good idea (it is a good idea), but it's not exactly a new idea to separate factions and prevent communication between them. (DAoC does this for each realm, for instance.) Separating people into different corners based on play preference (fighting, RP, etc.) has also been done.
23 Jun, 2010, Oliver wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Those concepts have been done, yeah, but not in such a unique blend, I'd say? From a caveman's perspective re: KaVir's idea, the OOC PKers would essentially serve as super-intelligent MOBs. From a PK/HnS player's perspective, the roleplayers are fair game to kill whenever. It preserves RP, PK, and PvE in a way that would probably be really neat if done right.
23 Jun, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
The full theme description is here. One of the main goals was to have a single world in which three distinct styles of gameplay could co-exist side-by-side without disrupting each other. Limited communication between factions would be possible by way of socials.
23 Jun, 2010, Kline wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
I would totally be interested in playing such an Ice Age themed MUD; please do develop :) Or even a game with a similar setup as that!
24 Jun, 2010, Idealiad wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
I just reread that IARW thread, that's some good stuff.

Hey, there's our Mudbytes contest – make that mud before the next ice age.
24 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Idealiad said:
Hey, there's our Mudbytes contest – make that mud before the next ice age.

Sounds like an acceptable time frame for those of us who don't have a lot of spare time. :wink:
24 Jun, 2010, Littlehorn wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Oliver said:
KaVir said:
Orrin said:
KaVir said:
I did once consider a concept for a mud that aimed at HnS players, PKers and hardcore roleplayers. Maybe one day.

That's broadly what I've tried to do with MD, though I think that in some ways it works to our disadvantage because players aren't quite sure which niche we fit in.

I was thinking more faction-oriented though. The concept I posed previously was that of an Ice Age themed mud, where players can choose between cavemen (RP-oriented), dire wolves (group-based HnS) or sabre-toothed tigers (solo PK). The different factions would be unable to communicate with each other, so the wolves and tigers wouldn't be able to disrupt the roleplaying for the cavemen, and unprevoked attacks would be perfectly IC.


That's actually… pretty ingenious. I don't think anything like that has ever been attempted.


Not really depending on the game vision. You're basically splitting your player base into 3 different games that can affect each others game play, but on moderate levels. This can be bad if you have a lot of group content where players have to depend on each other to complete the content. If one faction has lower numbers than the other, then you risk players not being able to find anyone to complete the content for their specific faction. It's the same concept for some major online games where they have multiple factions and one faction is more popular than the other. You can't force players to become on faction over the other, but you can offer bonuses to those who join the weaker faction over the strongest faction.

I like the idea however, just don't know how it would work in a smaller community if there was grouped content for players to experience like dungeon crawls etc. I could also see it being a headache for PKILL MUD's that offered territory control.
24 Jun, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Littlehorn said:
You're basically splitting your player base into 3 different games that can affect each others game play, but on moderate levels.

That depends on how you view it - one of the main goals here is to design a game that appeals to three different audiences, each of which would normally play different games to each other. So you could also argue that you're combining the playerbase of 3 different games, by allowing them to interact with each other in a manner that doesn't disrupt each other's gameplay.

Littlehorn said:
This can be bad if you have a lot of group content where players have to depend on each other to complete the content.

That's true, but lets take a look at the three factions:

1) Cavemen: These require other cavemen for roleplaying. But this is the same problem that all RP muds face, and the wolf and tiger factions are aimed at non-roleplayers who wouldn't want to play cavemen anyway, so you're not really splitting up the roleplayers.

2) Dire wolves: These rely on other wolves for grouping. But this is the same issue that all HnS muds face, and can be addressed in the same way - by ensuring that there is solo content as well as group content. In theory a wolf could even team up with a caveman.

3) Sabre-toothed tigers: These rely on other players for PK. But this is the same issue that all PK muds face, and in this case you have an advantage - it's normally very difficult to build up a playerbase in a pure PK mud, because if someone logs on and there's nobody else to PK, there's no incentive to hang around. But in Ice Age mud, you're going to have cavemen and wolves to kill, even if no other tigers are online.

Littlehorn said:
I like the idea however, just don't know how it would work in a smaller community if there was grouped content for players to experience like dungeon crawls etc. I could also see it being a headache for PKILL MUD's that offered territory control.

The territory control would be specific to the PK faction - the sabre-toothed tigers, who would fight each other for control over hunting grounds. This wouldn't affect the other factions, other than to prevent them facing groups of tigers.
24 Jun, 2010, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Hehe, I thought from the post on the homepage you meant:


THEMED MUD
24 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
3) Sabre-toothed tigers: These rely on other players for PK. But this is the same issue that all PK muds face, and in this case you have an advantage - it's normally very difficult to build up a playerbase in a pure PK mud, because if someone logs on and there's nobody else to PK, there's no incentive to hang around. But in Ice Age mud, you're going to have cavemen and wolves to kill, even if no other tigers are online.

And therein lies the biggest problem with this idea, namely the flipside here: just as a PKer wants people to PK, the people interested in more RP are probably not going to be thrilled about having to continually beat off PKers who don't behave like hungry animals but like people interested in killing (perhaps even griefing) them.
24 Jun, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Cavemen can light fires in their caves to keep animals out, although sooner or later they'll be forced to send hunters out to collect food. This does provide them with a safe place to rest and roleplay, however, and also ensures that non-combat cavemen don't have to worry about being attacked while painting cave walls or making flint weapons.
24 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
I had seen that already on the mudlab thread (as well as some discussion about why griefing isn't actually a problem, you believe), and the issue is that that paragraph somewhat defeats itself with the second part of the first sentence, ne?

Furthermore, that statement implies that the cavemen have a large enough group to be able to send out enough people to stave off danger and still let the roleplayers be satisfied. This means that while PKers need players to PK or they'll leave, the RPers need not only other players but a relatively large enough group if they want to be able to RP in peace without dealing with the PKers – not only do they need a large enough group, but they need a group with enough combat-oriented cavemen! So a group of RP-only cavemen who didn't really want to fight would not be catered to.
24 Jun, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
The fires provide cavemen with a safe haven, removing the need to "continually beat off PKers". Equally, not all cavemen need to hunt. This model obviously requires that some of the roleplayers are willing to risk themselves some of the time, but they can choose who - and when.

I'd envision the mud attracting a mixture of roleplayers, but it's a harsh setting and I would therefore expect it to appeal to players from other harshly themed muds, such as Armageddon and Harshlands. I've encountered a number of roleplayers who love combat and even PK, so I would be very surprised if nobody wanted to hunt.

However if there weren't sufficient cavemen at the start, one option would be to use bots for the hunters - without inter-faction communication, they could be made pretty player-like from the perspective of the other factions. This wouldn't please the tigers, but the wolves probably wouldn't care, and it could serve as a temporary measure until more PC hunters started playing. Having fewer tigers when the playerbase is small would probably be a benefit anyway.

No mud will ever please everyone, and there would be players from each of the three target audiences who would hate it. But with three target audiences you might still end up drawing in more total players than you would from targeting just one.

It's unlikely I would ever use this concept, but I think it has the potential to work, with the obvious caveat that the game is carefully designed. But even if it failed, it would still make a welcome change from yet another stock Diku with elves and hobbits.

I'd also like to see an aquatic mud where everyone plays a fish, and that Ladybug mud sounded good too, with everyone playing an insect. Wonder what happened to that one…
24 Jun, 2010, Tonitrus wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Even in a game less dedicated to this concept, these ideas could have uses. I was thinking about having supernatural creatures in the role of KaVir's tigers. They'd be hard to kill and need very little in the way of equipment. The normal laws that protect people wouldn't protect them, so cities would provide a safe location from them. Adventuring types could be like the wolves, and people predominantly interested in roleplay could hang out in the mostly safe cities. This loses one of the main benefits of KaVir's version, namely that the types can't communicate with one another, but still has some of the benefits of that design while being less extreme.
24 Jun, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Tonitrus said:
Even in a game less dedicated to this concept, these ideas could have uses. I was thinking about having supernatural creatures in the role of KaVir's tigers.

I vaguely recall once discussing a dual mud concept, in which one "world" was a pure PK game, with everyone playing vicious demons, and the other was a more traditional fantasy setting with roleplaying. The idea was that players in the fantasy mud could summon and bind demons to destroy their enemies - but if those demons broke free, there would quite literally be hell to pay.

Of course you when you summon a towering demon lord within the roleplaying mud, you probably wouldn't want it saying "wtf??? dude i'm gonna pwn your city!!111 lol!", so once again it would require limited communication. Although perhaps it would be necessary for mages to learn the "demon tongue" (aka "leetspeak") in order to negotiation with the foul creature. But this is definitely one scenario in which griefers would be useful!
24 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
You would have to give the demon a pretty strong incentive to play along and not "break free", unless there was some kind of true interaction between summoner and summoned to determine if the summoner is strong enough to keep it under control. But I can't imagine players being terribly fond of being summoned and bound without much choice in the matter.
24 Jun, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
In a lot of fantasy fiction, demons are summoned and bound against their will - something that tends to make them very angry. The mage uses circles, wards and enchantments to protect themselves and force the demon to obey them, often along with a more direct contest of wills, while the demon constantly attempts to break free and take its vengence, and usually ends up returning home with one or more souls for its collection.

Whether this would actually be enjoyable to play is debatable, but I find the concept rather entertaining, and the summoned PKer shouldn't have much trouble roleplaying an angry demon even if they're not into roleplaying.
24 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Oh, yes, I'm well aware of how it works in common fantasy fiction. The big difference here is that the demon being summoned and bound is another player who's supposed to be enjoying time on the MUD.

Perhaps you could model it as a 2-way fight of some kind: the demon and mage against the mage's target, and separately the demon and the mage vying for control. (In fact, to make it even possible to be enjoyable, the summoned demon player would need to be able to actively attempt escape, instead of being forced into a binding unconditionally.)

I agree that the concept is pretty entertaining, but it's not terribly clear to me how to translate it into enjoyable mechanics.
0.0/23