Dynamics


From the discussion in the previous section, it is possible to summarize the interactions between player types.

To increase the number of achievers :

  • Reduce the number of killers, but not by too much.

  • If killer numbers are high, increase the number of explorers.

To decrease the number of achievers:

  • Increase the number of killers.

  • If killer numbers are low, reduce the number of explorers.

To increase the number of explorers:

  • Increase the number of explorers.

To decrease the number of explorers:

  • Massively increase the number of killers.

To increase the number of socializers :

  • Slightly decrease the number of killers.

  • Increase the number of socializers.

To decrease the number of socializers:

  • Slightly increase the number of killers.

  • Massively increase the number of achievers.

  • Massively decrease the number of achievers.

  • Decrease the number of socializers.

To increase the number of killers:

  • Increase the number of achievers.

  • Massively decrease the number of explorers.

  • Increase the number of socializers.

To decrease the number of killers:

  • Decrease the number of achievers.

  • Massively increase the number of explorers.

  • Decrease the number of socializers.

What are the dynamics of this model? In other words, if players of each type were to trickle into a system, how would it affect the overall make-up of the player population?

Figure D.2 illustrates the flow of influence. Each arrow shows a relationship, from the blunt end to the pointed end.

Figure D.2. Flows of influence in player interactions.

graphics/dfig02.gif

Ends are marked with a plus or minus to show an increase or decrease, respectively; the symbols are doubled up to indicate a massive increase or decrease. For example, the line shown in Figure D.3 means that increasing the number of killers will decrease the number of achievers.

Figure D.3. Example relationship.

graphics/dfig03.gif

From this, it can be seen that the numbers of killers and achievers are basically an equilibrium; increasing the number of achievers will increase the number of killers, which will in turn dampen down the increase in the number of achievers and thereby reduce the number of excess killers.

The explorer population is almost inert; only huge numbers of killers will reduce it. It should be noted, however, that massively increasing the number of explorers is the only way to reduce the number of killers without also reducing the player numbers in other groups. Because increasing the number of explorers in a MUD generally encourages others to join (and non-explorers to experiment with exploration), this gives a positive feedback that will eventually reduce the killer population (although recall the earlier point concerning how few people are, by nature, explorers).

The most volatile group of people is that of the socializers. Not only is it highly sensitive to the number of killers, but it has both positive and negative feedback on itself, which amplifies any changes. An increase in the number of socializers will lead to yet more socializers, but it will also increase the number of killers; this, in turn, will reduce the number of socializers drastically, which will feed back into a yet greater reduction. It is possible for new socializers to arrive in large enough quantities for a downward spiral in numbers not to be inevitable, but it is unlikely that such a system could remain viable over a long period of time.

This analysis of the dynamics of the relationships between players leads naturally to a consideration of what configurations could be considered stable. There are four:

  • Killers and achievers in equilibrium. If the number of killers gets too high, then the achievers will be driven off, which will cause the number of killers to fall also (through lack of victims). If there aren't enough killers, then achievers feel the MUD isn't a sufficient challenge (there being no way to "lose" in it), and they will gradually leave. New killers could appear, attracted by the glut of potential prey; however, this happens so slowly that its impact is less than that of the disaffection among achievers. Socializers who venture out of whatever safe rooms are available eventually fall prey to killers and leave the game. Those who stay find that there aren't many interesting (to them) people around with whom to talk, and they too drift off. Explorers potter around, but are not a sufficient presence to affect the number of killers.

  • A MUD dominated by socializers. Software changes to the MUD are made that prevent (or at least seriously discourage) killers from practicing their craft on socializers; incoming socializers are encouraged by those already there, and a chain reaction starts. There are still achievers and explorers, but they are swamped by the sheer volume of socializers. The number of socializers is limited only by external factors, or the presence of killers masquerading as socializers. If the population of socializers drops below a certain critical level, then the chain reaction reverses and almost all the players will leave; however, only events outside the MUD would cause that to happen once the critical mass had been reached.

  • A MUD where all groups have a similar influence (although not necessarily similar numbers). By nurturing explorers using software means (i.e., giving the game great depth or " mystique ," or encouraging non-explorers to dabble for a while by regularly adding new areas and features), the overall population of explorers will gradually rise, and the killer population will be held in check by them. The killers who remain do exert an influence on the number of socializers, sufficient to stop them from going into fast-breeder mode, but insufficient to initiate an exodus . Achievers are set upon by killers often enough to feel that their achievements in the game have meaning. This is perhaps the most balanced form of MUD since players can change their position on the interest graph far more freely ; achievers can become explorers, explorers can become socializers, socializers can become achievers ”all without sacrificing stability. However, actually attaining that stability in the first place is very difficult indeed; it requires not only a level of game design beyond what most MUDs can draw on, but time and player management skills that aren't usually available to MUD administrators. Furthermore, the administrators need to recognize that they are aiming for a player mix of this kind in advance, because the chances of its occurring accidentally are slim.

  • A MUD with no players. The killers have killed /frightened off everyone else and left to find some other MUD in which to ply their trade. Alternatively, a MUD structured expressly for socializers never managed to acquire a critical mass of them.

    Other types could conceivably exist, but they are very rare if they do. The dynamics model is, however, imprecise; it takes no account of outside factors that may influence player types or the relationships between them. It is thus possible that some of the more regimented MUDs (e.g., role-playing MUDs, educational MUDs, group therapy MUDs) have an external dynamic (e.g., random interest in a subject, instructions from a teacher/trainer, tolerance of others as a means to advance the self) that adds to their cohesion, and that this could make an otherwise flaky configuration hold together. So other stable MUD forms may, therefore, still be out there.

It might be argued that "role-playing" MUDs form a separate category, on a par with "game-like" and "social" MUDs. However, I personally favor the view that role-playing is merely a strong framework within which the four types of player still operate : some people will role-play to increase their power over the game (achievers); others will do so to explore the wonder of the game world (explorers); others will do so because they enjoy interacting and co-operating within the context that the role-playing environment offers (socializers); others will do it because it gives them a legitimate excuse to hurt other players (killers). I have not, however, undertaken a study of role-playing MUDs, and it could well be that there is a configuration of player types peculiar to many of them that would be unstable were it not for the order imposed by enforcing role-play . It certainly seems likely that robust role-playing rules could make it easier for a MUD to achieve Type 3 stability.

At this point, we return to the social/game-like MUD debate.

Ignoring the fourth (null) case from the above, it is now much easier to see why there is a schism . Left to market forces, a MUD will either gravitate toward Type 1 ("game-like") or Type 2 ("social"), depending on its administrator's line on player-killing (more precisely: how much being "killed" annoys socializers). However, the existence of Type 3 MUDs, albeit in smaller numbers because of the difficulty of reaching the steady state, does show that it is possible to have both socializers and achievers co-existing in significant numbers in the same MUD.

It's very easy to label a MUD as either "hack-and-slash" or " slack -and-hash," depending on whether or not player-killing is allowed. However, using player-killing as the only defining factor in any distinction is an over-generalization, as it groups together Type 1 and Type 3 MUDs. These two types of MUD should not be considered as identical forms; the socializing that occurs in a Type 3 MUD simply isn't possible in a Type 1, and as a result, the sense of community in Type 3s is very strong. It is no accident that Type 3 MUDs are the ones preferred commercially because they can hold onto their players for far longer than the other two forms. A Type 1 MUD is only viable commercially if there is a sufficiently large well of potential players to draw upon because of the much greater churn rate these games have. Type 2 MUDs have a similarly high turnover ; indeed, when TinyMUD first arrived on the scene, it was almost slash-and-burn , with games lasting around six months on university computers before a combination of management breakdown (brought on by player boredom) and resource hogging would force them to close down ”with no other MUDs permitted on the site for perhaps years afterward.

This explains why some MUDs perceived by socializers to be "game-like" can actually be warm, friendly places, while others are nasty and vicious; the former are Type 3, and the latter are Type 1. Players who enter the Type 3s, expecting them to be Type 1s, may be pleasantly surprised (Bruckman, 1993). However, it should be noted that this initial warm behavior is sometimes the approach used by administrators to ensure a new player's further participation in their particular MUD, and that, once hooked, a player may find that attitudes undergo a subtle change (Epperson, 1995).

As mentioned earlier, this paper is not intended to promote any one particular style of MUD. Whether administrators aim for Type 1, 2, or 3 is up to them ”they're all MUDs, and they address different needs. However, the fact that they are all MUDs and not "MU*s" (or any other abbreviation-of-the-day) really should be emphasized .

To summarize: "Game-like" MUDs are the ones in which the killer-achiever equilibrium has been reached, i.e., Type 1; "social" MUDs are the ones in which the pure social stability point has been reached, i.e., Type 2, and this is the basis upon which they differ . There is a Type 3 "all-round" (my term ) MUD, which exhibits both social and game-like traits; however, such MUDs are scarce because the conditions necessary to reach the stable point are difficult or time-consuming to arrange.



Developing Online Games. An Insiders Guide
Developing Online Games: An Insiders Guide (Nrg-Programming)
ISBN: 1592730000
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2003
Pages: 230

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net