I'm quite sure that this won't receive the acclaim that accompanied Batman Returns, but some loyal followers have been clamouring for more armadillo, and it wouldn't be right to keep the faithful waiting any longer. So, I'm sorry for the lengthy Karinthadillo-less interlude there, and we'll get right back into it.
Incidentally, to help keep things fresh and let my fanbase get involved, I'm very willing to take requests for topics that would like my input and discussion here. Any method of getting it to me is fine, the comment section here works, and I will try to add my insights into these questions in later editions of the blog.
One of the major strongholds of the traditional MUD, I believe, is the area. Everyone knows what an area is, they're everywhere, most MUDs are made up of a whole bunch of separate areas all strung together. There are many advantages to this, not least that it neatly lets builders focus on their own areas and get their work done. Everyone has their own little world to build, they beaver away at it, and then they all get attached to form the world at the end. As well, it neatly divides the world up and ensures that everything is tracked and attributed correctly.
So, why challenge this view of the game world, when it seems to have kept MUDs in general in such good stead for years? Partly because I'm just generally a rebel that needs a cause, but moreso: the MUD world, as previously discussed, isn't in such good stead as it was a few years ago. Players, generally, are no longer loyal to games that just do what used to be done, individual zones are no longer enough to keep the attention of those who could easily get them in colourful graphics if they so chose. One area that text games have an advantage over their more illustrious graphical counterparts, as previously discussed, is flexibility. We have the choice to do things differently, a lot more easily than those who are involved with having to design character pictures and so on.
The plan, then, is to create more of a world of its own merit, than one solely based on the areas that make it up. Essentially to break down the arbitrary delineations that separate one area from another, making them seamless rather than instantly recognisable as being built by different people. Having the NPC inhabitants of the area realise that there is a greater world outside, their knowledge not limited solely to their immediate surroundings. Encouraging the player to see this world as a world: something breathing, living, evolving; rather than a bunch of zones to go and kill things in. Well, everyone wants this, right? I mean, we'd all welcome increased immersion and an easier suspension of disbelief, where everything just seems to fit together and be placed logically.
Easier said than done, as with most things, unfortunately. Builders are different people, of course, and it requires a major change in focus to get away from the traditional, technical viewpoint of creating a standalone area, to one that encourages collaboration, knowing what everyone else is building, integrating your area with other areas that it would make sense to integrate with. It takes time, especially when trying to integrate with old areas whose creators are no longer with us. Time that could, following traditional rules, be used in building more areas.
But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, they say. This is my first step. One small step for the Karinthadillo, one giant leap for MUDkind? Probably not, but let's go with it anyway.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Why Choose MUDs Over Real Games?
This question was posed on mudconnect.com today, so I thought that I would share my answer, as follows:
I take that to mean "real games" as graphical MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft, Neverwinter Nights, etc.
To get the easy one out of the way, cost. Almost all MUDs are totally free, including MUD clients. Other games include a purchase price of ~$50, and often have a monthly subscription. As well, they require additional hardware - a "non-gamer" can easily play a MUD on an outdated computer as long as it has Internet access, even with a 56k or older modem. They can even be played at libraries, schools, work and other institutions. Other games require a top of the line machine with cable or faster modem, which is not always realistic or worthwhile for everyone, for example highschool students.
Somewhat related, MUDs tend to last longer and are more economical over time. A lot of mudders play for 10 years or more, whereas the lifespan for a store-bought game is nowhere close to that. Someone who plays regular computer games is likely to have to buy new games or expansion packs on a regular basis: not only is this expensive, but it also means that you end up "starting again" on every new game. Many people dislike learning new systems and would rather stick with something they know, as long as it is still entertaining. What this means is that MUDs are potentially more attractive for character development - there isn't a pressure to get the new game out, so people feel comfortable staying in the same place for a much longer time. Due to the low-tech nature of MUDs, there isn't really much to be gained by trying a new one, whereas with regular games the graphics are always evolving, gameplay improves, etc. and you really get left behind if you're playing last year's version. With some good coders, MUDs can evolve and give new features to their players without requiring them to get a new version, or in anyway disrupt their experience.
So, most of that deals with cost and convenience: I'd also argue that in some ways, the product is better with MUDs.
Firstly, they're a lot more flexible: as alluded to before, they just require a couple of good coders, and you can be adding new features all the time. With MMORPGs, you just don't get that. It's a lot more difficult to get new features in, just because of the amount of work. You have to wait until developers release another patch, and the whole thing is a very time-consuming process that players have no say in. With a MUD, it's very possible for a bug to be noticed and fixed on the same day, whereas players of a store-bought game will likely have to live with it for weeks or months, unless it is critically serious.
There is also a lot more flexibility from the player's standpoint, as there are more tools that the players can use to develop. For example, almost all MUDs allow players to write their own character description, using all the words they want to use. With an MMORPG, your character looks like what the developers wanted it to look like. Sometimes you get a choice, but in the end every elf looks the same except with different hair colour and clothes. It is just too difficult for the developers to create a thousand different choices so that everyone can get their character to look exactly how they want. I would argue that the more a player is able to "create" their character and define everything about it, the closer link they feel with it, and as a result the more loyal they are to the game.
Also, text can be a huge advantage. Carrying on from that, roleplayers on MUDs can easily describe what their character is doing in great detail, just like a book's author. Again, in an MMORPG, that just isn't possible, the player does not have that power as the game is not flexible enough to allow it. On a good MUD, it really is like a book written by the players, and that allows a great deal of imagination and cooperation and lets players really take part and develop the game and it's story. On an MMORPG, for the most part, the story is static and often described in full through a single-player campaign. Players are simply players, they use and enjoy what the developer has written - on MUDs, I would argue that it is a lot easier for players to take part in the development process. Many MUDs are close to their players and encourage suggestions, and form a much closer-knit community than any commercial game: almost like everyone is a hobbyist and enthusiast, rather than "players vs. developers". This tends to create a much friendlier community, encouraging interaction and making people feel as though they are part of an online family, rather than just "paying subscriber #75892".
To sum it up, I suppose: television didn't make books obsolete, even with the huge amount of choice now of DVDs and so on; I don't see any reason as to why graphical games will make MUDs obsolete. Sure, fewer people will play them, but as long as they keep some sustainable advantages over MMORPGs, I think that they'll always have an interest base.
I take that to mean "real games" as graphical MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft, Neverwinter Nights, etc.
To get the easy one out of the way, cost. Almost all MUDs are totally free, including MUD clients. Other games include a purchase price of ~$50, and often have a monthly subscription. As well, they require additional hardware - a "non-gamer" can easily play a MUD on an outdated computer as long as it has Internet access, even with a 56k or older modem. They can even be played at libraries, schools, work and other institutions. Other games require a top of the line machine with cable or faster modem, which is not always realistic or worthwhile for everyone, for example highschool students.
Somewhat related, MUDs tend to last longer and are more economical over time. A lot of mudders play for 10 years or more, whereas the lifespan for a store-bought game is nowhere close to that. Someone who plays regular computer games is likely to have to buy new games or expansion packs on a regular basis: not only is this expensive, but it also means that you end up "starting again" on every new game. Many people dislike learning new systems and would rather stick with something they know, as long as it is still entertaining. What this means is that MUDs are potentially more attractive for character development - there isn't a pressure to get the new game out, so people feel comfortable staying in the same place for a much longer time. Due to the low-tech nature of MUDs, there isn't really much to be gained by trying a new one, whereas with regular games the graphics are always evolving, gameplay improves, etc. and you really get left behind if you're playing last year's version. With some good coders, MUDs can evolve and give new features to their players without requiring them to get a new version, or in anyway disrupt their experience.
So, most of that deals with cost and convenience: I'd also argue that in some ways, the product is better with MUDs.
Firstly, they're a lot more flexible: as alluded to before, they just require a couple of good coders, and you can be adding new features all the time. With MMORPGs, you just don't get that. It's a lot more difficult to get new features in, just because of the amount of work. You have to wait until developers release another patch, and the whole thing is a very time-consuming process that players have no say in. With a MUD, it's very possible for a bug to be noticed and fixed on the same day, whereas players of a store-bought game will likely have to live with it for weeks or months, unless it is critically serious.
There is also a lot more flexibility from the player's standpoint, as there are more tools that the players can use to develop. For example, almost all MUDs allow players to write their own character description, using all the words they want to use. With an MMORPG, your character looks like what the developers wanted it to look like. Sometimes you get a choice, but in the end every elf looks the same except with different hair colour and clothes. It is just too difficult for the developers to create a thousand different choices so that everyone can get their character to look exactly how they want. I would argue that the more a player is able to "create" their character and define everything about it, the closer link they feel with it, and as a result the more loyal they are to the game.
Also, text can be a huge advantage. Carrying on from that, roleplayers on MUDs can easily describe what their character is doing in great detail, just like a book's author. Again, in an MMORPG, that just isn't possible, the player does not have that power as the game is not flexible enough to allow it. On a good MUD, it really is like a book written by the players, and that allows a great deal of imagination and cooperation and lets players really take part and develop the game and it's story. On an MMORPG, for the most part, the story is static and often described in full through a single-player campaign. Players are simply players, they use and enjoy what the developer has written - on MUDs, I would argue that it is a lot easier for players to take part in the development process. Many MUDs are close to their players and encourage suggestions, and form a much closer-knit community than any commercial game: almost like everyone is a hobbyist and enthusiast, rather than "players vs. developers". This tends to create a much friendlier community, encouraging interaction and making people feel as though they are part of an online family, rather than just "paying subscriber #75892".
To sum it up, I suppose: television didn't make books obsolete, even with the huge amount of choice now of DVDs and so on; I don't see any reason as to why graphical games will make MUDs obsolete. Sure, fewer people will play them, but as long as they keep some sustainable advantages over MMORPGs, I think that they'll always have an interest base.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
If Greatness Only Comes Once an Era...
So, continuing with my recent theme of "topics discussed on mudconnector", here's another hot one (and I know it's hot because it kept me awake to write this): what makes MUDs great, players or developers?
Clearly it's highly subjective and depends on why someone plays a game. Also, just as clearly, some degree of development is required by someone at some point, otherwise there is no game to be good, bad or indifferent. As a result, there's no real point in arguing a general case since those are basically indisputable and totally varied for each individual. So, here's a neat segue into what I think, which is what you all wanted to hear, right? Right.
In my mind, both logically and from personal experience, it would totally be players. From a player's perspective, of course. I have played MUDs that are awesome technically, yet I didn't enjoy nearly as much as virtually stock MUDs that had a "better" playerbase. I don't enjoy mechanics in the least, in fact, I'm much more likely to stop playing a game because the mechanical side is too complex. I hate leveling but at the same time I prefer standard "boring" grinding because I would rather zone out and level rather than be forced to think about anything mechanically related in order to advance.
So why don't I just play a MUSH or chat in forums or something? Well, at the root of all of this, the reason I play MUDs generally is in order to achieve. To get somewhere, to be somebody. And in order to do this, there needs to be an independent, unbiased arbiter: the developer who wrote the code that applies to every player in the game. I have no interest in making up my own future without boundaries, because that has no credibility: it would just be unadulterated bragging without any backing whatsoever. I need this fair and unbiased source to tell me that I managed to kill my enemy, rather than just me making the story up.
To draw an analogy from my personal life, I am currently a university student for a couple more months before I graduate. I do not consider myself an "academic", although I have a lot of respect for academics. I am here to get a piece of paper that lets me get a (hopefully better) job in the future. I do not see assignments as something to broaden my horizons nor do they inspire my inner being or anything like that, they are obstacles to overcome to prove that I am worthy of gaining that piece of paper. On the other hand, they are necessary because they are unbiased proof that I actually did something. Much like attending a prestigious institution rather than a party school, it lends credibility and creates something to be proud of. I couldn't gain satisfaction from my achievements otherwise.
Essentially, from where I stand, the code forms a basic layer. It creates the rules, the physics for the world and forms a platform for player interactions. It is necessary for any enjoyment, yet does not especially increase enjoyment once it passes that necessary level of competency. In order to be truly great, in my opinion, a game needs a fitting playerbase, high quality interactions - whether they be roleplay, questing, killing, chatting or anything else. For those who would rebut this by saying that there are many great single-player RPGs out there: potentially, yes, although I have never enjoyed any of them.
How does all of this come together? It's another example of something fundamental yet flexible. Many of you will probably have different opinions, both from me and from each other. I'm willing to bet that if there was some way to plot all of these on a chart, we'd have a scatter similar to the last time I played darts while drunk. Yet we all play and enjoy the same game, that has numerous features yet encourages various interactions. One that includes both tremendous effort on the part of developers, as well as a great amount of loyalty on the part of players who shape the world from the other end.
Is it great? Whichever one you are, let's make it so.
Clearly it's highly subjective and depends on why someone plays a game. Also, just as clearly, some degree of development is required by someone at some point, otherwise there is no game to be good, bad or indifferent. As a result, there's no real point in arguing a general case since those are basically indisputable and totally varied for each individual. So, here's a neat segue into what I think, which is what you all wanted to hear, right? Right.
In my mind, both logically and from personal experience, it would totally be players. From a player's perspective, of course. I have played MUDs that are awesome technically, yet I didn't enjoy nearly as much as virtually stock MUDs that had a "better" playerbase. I don't enjoy mechanics in the least, in fact, I'm much more likely to stop playing a game because the mechanical side is too complex. I hate leveling but at the same time I prefer standard "boring" grinding because I would rather zone out and level rather than be forced to think about anything mechanically related in order to advance.
So why don't I just play a MUSH or chat in forums or something? Well, at the root of all of this, the reason I play MUDs generally is in order to achieve. To get somewhere, to be somebody. And in order to do this, there needs to be an independent, unbiased arbiter: the developer who wrote the code that applies to every player in the game. I have no interest in making up my own future without boundaries, because that has no credibility: it would just be unadulterated bragging without any backing whatsoever. I need this fair and unbiased source to tell me that I managed to kill my enemy, rather than just me making the story up.
To draw an analogy from my personal life, I am currently a university student for a couple more months before I graduate. I do not consider myself an "academic", although I have a lot of respect for academics. I am here to get a piece of paper that lets me get a (hopefully better) job in the future. I do not see assignments as something to broaden my horizons nor do they inspire my inner being or anything like that, they are obstacles to overcome to prove that I am worthy of gaining that piece of paper. On the other hand, they are necessary because they are unbiased proof that I actually did something. Much like attending a prestigious institution rather than a party school, it lends credibility and creates something to be proud of. I couldn't gain satisfaction from my achievements otherwise.
Essentially, from where I stand, the code forms a basic layer. It creates the rules, the physics for the world and forms a platform for player interactions. It is necessary for any enjoyment, yet does not especially increase enjoyment once it passes that necessary level of competency. In order to be truly great, in my opinion, a game needs a fitting playerbase, high quality interactions - whether they be roleplay, questing, killing, chatting or anything else. For those who would rebut this by saying that there are many great single-player RPGs out there: potentially, yes, although I have never enjoyed any of them.
How does all of this come together? It's another example of something fundamental yet flexible. Many of you will probably have different opinions, both from me and from each other. I'm willing to bet that if there was some way to plot all of these on a chart, we'd have a scatter similar to the last time I played darts while drunk. Yet we all play and enjoy the same game, that has numerous features yet encourages various interactions. One that includes both tremendous effort on the part of developers, as well as a great amount of loyalty on the part of players who shape the world from the other end.
Is it great? Whichever one you are, let's make it so.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Strange Magic
Just thought I'd check in with a small preview of what I'm working on right now (on the mud, that is... let's not get into the thousand pages of assorted crap that I'm supposed to be both writing and reading at this very moment).
Basically, I've been dubbed the new 'magic guy', meaning that I somehow took on the responsibility of coding all of the changes having to do with the magic system for the next little while. I can't discuss exact specifics just yet, I can say that expect to see some improvements in the next few days. These improvements include:
- Changes (for the better) to a few of the mechanics of the magic system. Nothing earth-shattering, just some improvements that I know you'll appreciate.
- Modifications to a few existing spells to make them, well, actually useful. I'm sure most of you can guess which spells are getting overhauls, since you either don't bother to train them or train them to 1 degree. The move to get rid of '1 degree wonders', as they're known in staffland, began with the abolishment of recall and it's going to continue. Don't worry, though: the new versions of the familiar spells are good.
- Finally, some new spells are going to be introduced. Some aligned with spheres, some not. A few might even require pre-requisites.. who knows. Stay tuned.
The point of these changes (and this is only the tip of the iceberg - there's a lot planned for the future) is to make the 'mage' a more self-sufficient player - in other words, not just a melee fighter with some spells, but someone who can more or less survive dedicating hours primarily to magic. I always like to hear new spell ideas, by the way, so if you've got any just send 'em along.
In other news, the much anticipated styles revamp is coming along well, thanks to the hard work of Tarn and Falknor. I hope you're all enjoying stage one of our favour implementation - there's a lot more planned for that too.
Basically, I've been dubbed the new 'magic guy', meaning that I somehow took on the responsibility of coding all of the changes having to do with the magic system for the next little while. I can't discuss exact specifics just yet, I can say that expect to see some improvements in the next few days. These improvements include:
- Changes (for the better) to a few of the mechanics of the magic system. Nothing earth-shattering, just some improvements that I know you'll appreciate.
- Modifications to a few existing spells to make them, well, actually useful. I'm sure most of you can guess which spells are getting overhauls, since you either don't bother to train them or train them to 1 degree. The move to get rid of '1 degree wonders', as they're known in staffland, began with the abolishment of recall and it's going to continue. Don't worry, though: the new versions of the familiar spells are good.
- Finally, some new spells are going to be introduced. Some aligned with spheres, some not. A few might even require pre-requisites.. who knows. Stay tuned.
The point of these changes (and this is only the tip of the iceberg - there's a lot planned for the future) is to make the 'mage' a more self-sufficient player - in other words, not just a melee fighter with some spells, but someone who can more or less survive dedicating hours primarily to magic. I always like to hear new spell ideas, by the way, so if you've got any just send 'em along.
In other news, the much anticipated styles revamp is coming along well, thanks to the hard work of Tarn and Falknor. I hope you're all enjoying stage one of our favour implementation - there's a lot more planned for that too.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
The Hunt for Red October
Or more accurately, "good roleplay". Although roleplay does not have the secret technology that allows it to remain unseen, many MUD players probably feel that it is just as difficult to detect and latch onto. In many cases, especially on smaller games, any kind of roleplay is a huge bonus, which leads to many interaction-motivated players going frustrated. This came up briefly on The Mud Connector.
So, what's the solution? In a word, it seems to be patience, closely followed by insight. The problem is that with the large number of games combined with a lesser number of total players (as described elsewhere in this blog), the MUD population is a lot more spread out than it used to be. This makes it harder to find quality interaction in at least two main ways: there are more "bad" MUDs interdispersed with good ones; and also there are fewer players around who make up the interactions that everyone wants to be a part of. This means that the likelihood of two or more "good" players meeting on a "good" game is fairly remote.
What this leads to is the danger that with all players constantly searching for interaction, they will not find any at all precisely because of their constant search. They try a new game, find no interaction, and move on regardless of whether they thought the game itself was good. The search for interaction is the driver, and no amount of code quality can make up for it. Or, they meet some other players and have some fun, but unfortunately the MUD itself is not good enough for them to stay for. With all of this going on, it is unsurprising that people can't find a satisfactory experience, as it seems as likely as all the planets being aligned at once.
Which leads us back to a solution, or at least a suggestion: find your place first. Good MUDs are by definition oriented towards the long-term, and will not disappear or become unplayable. Once you have found your place, stay there. Drum up interaction with others who wander by. Encourage like-minded friends to join you there. In time, the interaction will join you, and you will have found your home.
Remember, this is not the MUD world of ten years ago. There is no Shangri-La waiting out there just for you to stumble across if you wander long enough. The community is not overflowing with well-populated games that are bursting with the latest features. There may be many MUDs out there, but the landscape is more like a desert, with only cacti for company. If you find a small town by an oasis, it makes no sense to abandon it because it has no major-league ballpark, because that just isn't on the agenda. If you want a place to be great, the times dictate that you will have to put your faith in it and make it so, and help to build your new home amongst the dunes.
So, what's the solution? In a word, it seems to be patience, closely followed by insight. The problem is that with the large number of games combined with a lesser number of total players (as described elsewhere in this blog), the MUD population is a lot more spread out than it used to be. This makes it harder to find quality interaction in at least two main ways: there are more "bad" MUDs interdispersed with good ones; and also there are fewer players around who make up the interactions that everyone wants to be a part of. This means that the likelihood of two or more "good" players meeting on a "good" game is fairly remote.
What this leads to is the danger that with all players constantly searching for interaction, they will not find any at all precisely because of their constant search. They try a new game, find no interaction, and move on regardless of whether they thought the game itself was good. The search for interaction is the driver, and no amount of code quality can make up for it. Or, they meet some other players and have some fun, but unfortunately the MUD itself is not good enough for them to stay for. With all of this going on, it is unsurprising that people can't find a satisfactory experience, as it seems as likely as all the planets being aligned at once.
Which leads us back to a solution, or at least a suggestion: find your place first. Good MUDs are by definition oriented towards the long-term, and will not disappear or become unplayable. Once you have found your place, stay there. Drum up interaction with others who wander by. Encourage like-minded friends to join you there. In time, the interaction will join you, and you will have found your home.
Remember, this is not the MUD world of ten years ago. There is no Shangri-La waiting out there just for you to stumble across if you wander long enough. The community is not overflowing with well-populated games that are bursting with the latest features. There may be many MUDs out there, but the landscape is more like a desert, with only cacti for company. If you find a small town by an oasis, it makes no sense to abandon it because it has no major-league ballpark, because that just isn't on the agenda. If you want a place to be great, the times dictate that you will have to put your faith in it and make it so, and help to build your new home amongst the dunes.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Theme Song
Armadillo, armadillo
Armadillo, armadillo
Armadillo, armadillo
Rock me armadillo
Yes, there is now a Karinthadillo theme song, just because it seemed fitting. Also, because I have been somewhat happier as of late. More people have been playing, more people have been playing with each other, and just generally there has been more activity, which is always good. Would be nice if this didn't also mean so much chatter on the OOC channel, but you have to take the bad with the good, and on the balance of things, we're good.
Why? Well, you people, really. We get a few people who stick around and want to spread the word, and before you know it, the word is spread! As I have remarked previously, the Karinthadillo, though wise and insightful, just can't afford to do things like advertise for players during the Super Bowl. Much of our playerbase has to be attracted by word of mouth, whether directly through friends, or via reviews on game sites. This works out, of course, due to the greater likelihood of someone staying, compared to if they had found the game just by clicking on an ad. That's why the referral rewards are so generous: they mean a ton to us.
Logically, then, does this mean that reviews aren't worth anything to us? No, not at all. We would love to reward for reviews as well, however fairness is important to us: we believe that what you decide to post is really your own business. I know that some games do "pay" players to post favourable reviews, but that has an odour of bribery hanging around it, which in turn makes player-written reviews more like regular advertising, which in turn ruins the community just that little bit more. If your friends think you tried to pull a fast one and recommended something you didn't believe in, they'd let you know, and likely in a fairly forceful way. Some random person on the internet, though - well, he would probably just feel disenheartened and go play Counterstrike.
But this isn't a time for sadness. Things are moving along. And of course, Karinth is meant to be played to lighten the spirits, not spread black clouds of emotional distress. Give yourself a hefty pat on the back for helping the community to grow, and let's do what we can to build on this.
Kind of like getting better gear when you level, if we get more players then I'll come up with a better theme song.
Armadillo, armadillo
Armadillo, armadillo
Rock me armadillo
Yes, there is now a Karinthadillo theme song, just because it seemed fitting. Also, because I have been somewhat happier as of late. More people have been playing, more people have been playing with each other, and just generally there has been more activity, which is always good. Would be nice if this didn't also mean so much chatter on the OOC channel, but you have to take the bad with the good, and on the balance of things, we're good.
Why? Well, you people, really. We get a few people who stick around and want to spread the word, and before you know it, the word is spread! As I have remarked previously, the Karinthadillo, though wise and insightful, just can't afford to do things like advertise for players during the Super Bowl. Much of our playerbase has to be attracted by word of mouth, whether directly through friends, or via reviews on game sites. This works out, of course, due to the greater likelihood of someone staying, compared to if they had found the game just by clicking on an ad. That's why the referral rewards are so generous: they mean a ton to us.
Logically, then, does this mean that reviews aren't worth anything to us? No, not at all. We would love to reward for reviews as well, however fairness is important to us: we believe that what you decide to post is really your own business. I know that some games do "pay" players to post favourable reviews, but that has an odour of bribery hanging around it, which in turn makes player-written reviews more like regular advertising, which in turn ruins the community just that little bit more. If your friends think you tried to pull a fast one and recommended something you didn't believe in, they'd let you know, and likely in a fairly forceful way. Some random person on the internet, though - well, he would probably just feel disenheartened and go play Counterstrike.
But this isn't a time for sadness. Things are moving along. And of course, Karinth is meant to be played to lighten the spirits, not spread black clouds of emotional distress. Give yourself a hefty pat on the back for helping the community to grow, and let's do what we can to build on this.
Kind of like getting better gear when you level, if we get more players then I'll come up with a better theme song.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Evolution
OK. This is off the cuff - no editing. So here goes.
Let's lay the cards on the table first: I develop Legends of Karinth for fun. I want to see it grow; I want to see it made into a better game. I was a player for a long time, and now, as a staff member, I have a chance to see all of the fabled 'someday in the future' systems come into effect. As the main coder for Karinth right now, I'm responsible for most of the changes that come in on a day-to-day basis. So, let me clarify a few things.
We are still in active development. Now, I don't want to come across as the bad guy, but this means that, like it or not, changes ARE going to happen. And, like it or not, some of them ARE going to be drastic. We still have the 'beta' tag, which means that lots of our planned systems aren't in yet, and many of the ones that are in need fixing up. Just because a command, a skill, a system, or whatever doesn't seem 'broken' on the player end of things, it could very well be totally buggy, causing crashes, dealing with memory poorly, and so on. A good example are flymounts. Contrary to popular belief, the code WAS horribly broken. You may not have always seen it for yourselves, but it was. The tethering system caused horrible crashes, strange bugs, and lots of other things. Removing flymount saving cleared them all up. What you also didn't see was a whole lot of back-end stuff changing, which makes them easier to store, easier to access, etc.
The beacon/gateway system is another example of that. Both of them had major problems, especially when it concerned saving them in the playerfiles. So, to clear them up, we changed how they were stored. Yes, this meant some changes to user-end gameplay. But we thought that we balanced out the change in distance pretty well by (A) making beacon a whole lot cheaper, (B) increasing the max number of beacons by a ton, and (C) removing the need to train gateway as a separate spell. So, again: it was a NECESSARY change that will benefit the game a lot in the long run.
Which reminds me - you need to keep in mind that not all of the changes we bring in are designed to make the game easier, and they're not designed purely with "now" in mind. We're trying to balance the game for the long run, meaning that when we bring in a change to something like repairing, it's been designed with a long-term view in mind.
Speaking of which, most players probably don't realize how much we discuss things up in staffland. We're not just bringing in changes because we feel like it, or because we want to screw the players. No. Virtually every change is a result of hours, days, or even weeks of discussion involving basically the entire staff. We have lots of stuff planned for this mud, and eventually it'll all be put in. We take into account the future when we're bringing in new code, and that's not going to change.
And of course, we welcome constructive criticism, suggestions, and all that stuff. Players are just as important to the game as staff are.But please, if you're going to criticize, don't just talk to one staff member. We're all responsible for the changes. Use the QA channel, send a note to 'staff' or 'immortals', etc. But verbally lambasting in private isn't good for anyone. It accomplishes nothing and only serves to antagonize. At the very least, if you ARE set on talking to one person and one person only, then at least talk to the person who's bringing the changes in: me. But, talking to one person is NOT going to accomplish anything. So, don't do it. Talk to us all. That's why we're here.
Finally: don't forget that we're fans of Karinth just like you are. We play the game too. We're volunteers. We're sacrificing our spare time - hours a week, even hours a day in the case of a tireless coder like me - to try to make this game better. Where am I going with all this? Exactly where I started: expect change. It's going to happen. And it's good. It might be shocking sometimes, but trust me - we do our homework.
Let's lay the cards on the table first: I develop Legends of Karinth for fun. I want to see it grow; I want to see it made into a better game. I was a player for a long time, and now, as a staff member, I have a chance to see all of the fabled 'someday in the future' systems come into effect. As the main coder for Karinth right now, I'm responsible for most of the changes that come in on a day-to-day basis. So, let me clarify a few things.
We are still in active development. Now, I don't want to come across as the bad guy, but this means that, like it or not, changes ARE going to happen. And, like it or not, some of them ARE going to be drastic. We still have the 'beta' tag, which means that lots of our planned systems aren't in yet, and many of the ones that are in need fixing up. Just because a command, a skill, a system, or whatever doesn't seem 'broken' on the player end of things, it could very well be totally buggy, causing crashes, dealing with memory poorly, and so on. A good example are flymounts. Contrary to popular belief, the code WAS horribly broken. You may not have always seen it for yourselves, but it was. The tethering system caused horrible crashes, strange bugs, and lots of other things. Removing flymount saving cleared them all up. What you also didn't see was a whole lot of back-end stuff changing, which makes them easier to store, easier to access, etc.
The beacon/gateway system is another example of that. Both of them had major problems, especially when it concerned saving them in the playerfiles. So, to clear them up, we changed how they were stored. Yes, this meant some changes to user-end gameplay. But we thought that we balanced out the change in distance pretty well by (A) making beacon a whole lot cheaper, (B) increasing the max number of beacons by a ton, and (C) removing the need to train gateway as a separate spell. So, again: it was a NECESSARY change that will benefit the game a lot in the long run.
Which reminds me - you need to keep in mind that not all of the changes we bring in are designed to make the game easier, and they're not designed purely with "now" in mind. We're trying to balance the game for the long run, meaning that when we bring in a change to something like repairing, it's been designed with a long-term view in mind.
Speaking of which, most players probably don't realize how much we discuss things up in staffland. We're not just bringing in changes because we feel like it, or because we want to screw the players. No. Virtually every change is a result of hours, days, or even weeks of discussion involving basically the entire staff. We have lots of stuff planned for this mud, and eventually it'll all be put in. We take into account the future when we're bringing in new code, and that's not going to change.
And of course, we welcome constructive criticism, suggestions, and all that stuff. Players are just as important to the game as staff are.But please, if you're going to criticize, don't just talk to one staff member. We're all responsible for the changes. Use the QA channel, send a note to 'staff' or 'immortals', etc. But verbally lambasting in private isn't good for anyone. It accomplishes nothing and only serves to antagonize. At the very least, if you ARE set on talking to one person and one person only, then at least talk to the person who's bringing the changes in: me. But, talking to one person is NOT going to accomplish anything. So, don't do it. Talk to us all. That's why we're here.
Finally: don't forget that we're fans of Karinth just like you are. We play the game too. We're volunteers. We're sacrificing our spare time - hours a week, even hours a day in the case of a tireless coder like me - to try to make this game better. Where am I going with all this? Exactly where I started: expect change. It's going to happen. And it's good. It might be shocking sometimes, but trust me - we do our homework.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)