Reading Week 8 - MUD's

Richard A. Bartle: Who suits MUD's players, who suit MUD's

HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS


MUD's are ditcher social of game like and the vast majority of MUD's are known as "games" by their players. MUD's can be of considerable value in non-game or serious applications. Could you put MUD under a pastime, sport, amusement and entertainment? Are MUD's games? MUD's are seen differently by players.


Absract 4
Achievers (diamonds) always trying to find goals and rewards. Players gives themselves related goals and sets out to achieve them They regard points gathering and rising in levels as their main goal.


Explorers (Spades) like to walk around and learn as much about the virtual environment as possible. They set out to explore new things and find bugs.


Socialisers (Hearts) are players that like playing a game because of it's social aspects such as chatting to friends over text or VOIP.


Killers (Clubs) set out in the gam to harm and cause distress to other people around them. They generally enjoyit the more distress they are causing.


If a game has too many of one of these it causes an unbalanced game.


Ways to emphasise


Players over world

• add more communication facilities.
• add more player-on-player commands.
• make communication facilities easy and intuitive.
• decrease the size of the world.
• increase the connectivity between rooms.
• maximise the number of simultaneous players.
• restrict building privileges to a select few.
• cut down on the number of mobiles.

World over players

• have only basic communication facilities. 
• have few ways that players can do things to other players. 
• make building facilities easy and intuitive. 
• maximise the size of the world (ie. add breadth).
•  use only “rational” room connections in most cases. grant building privileges to many. 
• have lots of mobiles.

Interacting over acting

• make help facilities produce vague information. 
• produce cryptic hints when players appear stuck. 
• maximise the effects of commands (ie. add depth). 
• lower the rewards for achievement. have only a shallow level/class system. 
• produce amusing responses for amusing commands. edit all room descriptions for consistent atmosphere. 
• limit the number of commands available in any one area. 
• have lots of small puzzles that can be solved easily. allow builders to add completely new commands.

Acting over interacting

• provide a game manual. 
• include auto-map facilities. 
• include auto-log facilities.
• raise the rewards for achievement. 
• have an extensive level/class system. 
• make commands be applicable wherever they might reasonably have meaning.
• have large puzzles, that take over an hour to complete. have many commands relating to fights.
• only allow building by top-quality builders.

The next part is a direct quote from the text.

Player interactions

Achievers V.

• ACHIEVERS: Achievers regard other achievers as competition to be beaten (although this is typically friendly in nature, rather than cut-throat). Respect is given to those other achievers who obviously are extraordinarily good, but typically achievers will cite bad luck or lack of time as reasons for not being as far advanced in the game as their contemporaries. Achievers do not need the presence of any other type of player in order to be encouraged to join a MUD: they would be quite happy if the game were empty but for them, assuming it remained a challenge Because of this, a MUD can’t have too many achievers, physical limitations excepted.
• EXPLORERS: Achievers tend to regard explorers as losers: people who have had to resort to tinkering with the game mechanics because they can’t cut it as a player. The overall number of explorers has only a marginal effect on the population of achievers. In essence, more explorers will mean that fewer of the really powerful objects will be around around for the achievers to use, the explorers having used their arcane skills to obtain them first so This can cause achievers to become frustrated, and leave. More importantly, perhaps, the number of explorers affects the rate of advancement of achievers, because it determines whether or not they have to work out all those tiresome puzzles themselves. 
• SOCIALISERS: Achievers merely tolerate socialisers. Although they are good sources of general hearsay on the comings and goings of competitors, they’re nevertheless pretty much a waste of space as far as achievers are concerned. Typically, achievers will regard socialisers with a mixture of contempt, disdain, irritation and pity, and will speak to them in either a sharp or patronising manner. 
• KILLERS: Achievers don’t particularly like killers. They realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to “lose” the game if any fool can “win” just by plodding slowly unchallenged), however they don’t pesonally like being attacked unless it’s obvious from the outset that they’ll win. 

Explorers V.

• ACHIEVERS: Explorers look on achievers as nascent explorers, who haven’t yet figuredout that there’s more to life than pursuing meaningless goals. They are therefore willing to furnish them with information, although, like all experts, they will rarely tell the full story when they can legitimately give cryptic clues instead. 
• EXPLORERS: Explorers hold good explorers in great respect, but are merciless to bad ones. One of the worst things a fellow explorer can do is to give out incorrect information, believing it to be true. Explorers enjoy the company of other explorers, and they will play more often if they have people around them to whom they can relate. Unfortunately, not many people have the type of personality which finds single-minded exploring a riveting subject, so numbers are notoriously difficult to increase. If you have explorers in a game, hold on to them!
• SOCIALISERS: Explorers consider socialisers to be people whom they can impress, but who are otherwise pretty well unimportant. 
• KILLERS: Explorers often have a grudging respect for killers, but they do find their behaviour wearisome. It’s just so annoying to be close to finishing setting up something when a killer comes along and attacks you. On the other hand, many killers do know their trade well, and are quite prepared to discuss the finer details of it with explorers. Sometimes, an explorer may try attacking other players as an exercise, and they can be extremely effective at it. 

Socialisers V.

• ACHIEVERS: Socialisers like achievers, because they provide the running soap opera about which the socialisers can converse. Without such a framework, there is no uniting cause to bring socialisers together. Note that socialisers don’t particularly enjoy talking to achievers they do, however, enjoy talking about them. Increasing the achiever/socialiser ratio has only a subtle effect: socialisers may come to feel that the MUD is “all about” scoring points and killing mobiles, and some of them may therefore leave before matters ”get worse”. 
• EXPLORERS: Socialisers generally consider explorers to be sad characters who are desperately in need of a life. Both groups like to talk, but rarely about the same things, and if they do get together it’s usually because the explorer wants to sound erudite and the socialiser has nothing better to do at the time.
• SOCIALISERS: A case of positive feedback: socialisers can talk to one another on any subject for hours on end, and come back later for more. The more socialisers there are in a game, the more new ones will be attracted to it.
• KILLERS: This is perhaps the most fractious relationship between player group types. the main reason that socialisers tend to despise killers is that they have completely antisocial motives, whereas socialisers have (or like to think they have) a much more friendly and helpful attitude to life. The fact that many socialisers take attacks on their personae personally only compounds their distaste for killers. Increasing the number of killers will decrease the number of socialisers by a much greater degree. Decreasing the number of killers will likewise greatly encourage (or, rather, fail to discourage) socialisers to play the MUD.

Killers V.

• ACHIEVERS: Killers regard achievers as their natural prey. Achievers are good fighters (because they’ve learned the necessary skills against mobiles), but they’re not quite as good as killers, who are more specialised. This gives the “thrill of the chase” which many killers enjoy – an achiever may actually be able to escape, but will usually succumb at some stage, assuming they don’t see sense and quit first. 
• EXPLORERS: Killers tend to leave explorers alone. Not only can explorers be formidable fighters (with many obscure, unexpected tactics at their disposal), but they often don’t fret about being attacked – a fact which is very frustrating for killers. Sometimes, particularly annoying explorers will simply ignore a killer’s attack, and make no attempt whatsoever to defend against it; this is the ultimate in cruelty to killers.
• SOCIALISERS: Killers regard socialisers with undisguised glee. It’s not that socialisers are in any way a challenge, as usually they will be pushovers in combat; rather, socialisers feel a dreadful hurt when attacked (especially if it results in the loss of their persona), and it is this which killers enjoy about it.
• KILLERS: Killers try not to cross the paths of other killers, except in pre-organised challenge matches. Part of the psychology of killers seems to be that they wish to be viewed as somehow superior to other players; being killed by a killer in open play would undermine their reputation, and therefore they avoid risking it Killers will occasionally work in teams, but only as a short-term exercise; they will usually revert to stalking their victims solo in the next session they play. The only effect that killers have on other killers is in reducing the number of potential victims available. This, in theory, should keep the number of killers down, however in practice killers will simply attack less attractive victims instead. It takes a very drastic reduction in the number of players before established killers will decide to stop playing a MUD and move elsewhere, by which time it is usually too late to save the MUD concerned.

Equilibrium

Changing the balance

• Increasing the number of achievers will, over time, increase the number of killers in a typically Malthusian fashion.
• More explorers will lead to a quicker rise through the ranks for achievers, which will tend to encourage them (if not overdone).
  Changing the number of socialisers in a MUD has no effect on the number of achievers.
• Increasing the number of killers will reduce the number of achievers; reducing the killer population will increase the achiever population
• Explorers’ numbers aren’t affected by the presence of achievers.
• The explorer population is not directly affected by the size of the socialiser population.
• The affect of killers on the explorer population is fairly muted, because most explorers don’t particularly care if they get killed (or at least they profess not not). However, if it happens too often then they will become disgruntled, and play less frequently.
• Decreasing it has little effect unless the number of active achievers drops to near zero, in which case new socialisers might find it difficult to break into established conversational groups, and thus decide to take their play elsewhere.
• The number of explorers in a MUD has no effect on the number of socialisers.
• Increasing the number of killers will decrease the number of socialisers by a much greater degree. Decreasing the number of killers will likewise greatly encourage (or, rather, fail to discourage) socialisers to play the MUD.
•  Increasing the number of explorers will slightly decrease the number of killers.
• Increasing the number of socialisers will increase the number of killers, although of course the number of socialisers wouldn’t remain increased for very long if that happened.
• 
  

To sum everything up then we know the reading was about 4 different styles of player which were all released in way to a deck of cards.

Achiever - Diamond, always making goals to rewards themselves with.

Explorer - Spade, exploring the world and finding out new and interesting things

Socialiser - Heart, makes friends and talks to them a lot in game

Killer - Club, purposive causes grief on people to annoy them.

He mentions about balance with these 4 categories, if one of these gets too popular or not popular enough then a game would become unbalanced but lowering the population of one could make another thrive.

Conclusion

While reading this it was easy to see how based around an RPG this was. A lot of the idea's seemed similar to World of Warcraft and I could easily picture what he mean't. I do think though some aspects have not been covered enough and I think there are more than just these 4 categories. 

Other than that I found this reading really useful and learn't much needed information.

Why is chance and skill important components in games and what tools does the designer have at their disposal to deploy these elements?

Notes from: Brenda Braithwaite & Ian Schreiber (2008) Challenges For Games Designers


Chance
Chance is very important in Games Design, designers always use it when developing games and you can find it almost anywhere. Chance is a random event, something as simple as a dice roll or picking a card. These random events create new levels of aesthetics to the game which the user must overcome to win. It gives a feeling of mystery to the game as the next steps are unknown and generally livens up the game. 


Chance adds a random element to the game, something which can not be learnt meaning that the game is a lot less solvable, this generally makes games more interesting as the user may not fully know their next step. Chance gives a much higher probability of a less experienced player winning because of the random events which a more experienced player cannot learn.


Games without chance normally begin the same each round, this ends up being very repetitive and boring because the user can learn the game and play the same each time, for example Tic Tac Toe and the fact it's almost impossible to lose. Adding in chance means that a user must constantly change their strategy to advance in the game, this then adds drama to the game and decisions will become very tense. It all effects the aesthetics of the game itself.


Mechancics of Chance
Dice:

• Many different types of dice with many amounts of numbers on them.
• Multiple dice mean the probability of higher and lower numbers are less common.
• No matter how many times you roll, future rolls will not be effected.

Cards:

• Can easily be shuffled to be randomized.
• Can be played privately so you hide your cards from other players.
• They can represent resources.

Pseudo-Random Number generator:

• Not actually random but generally works for most games.
• Must be careful when creating a game with one, must ensure not bias.

Skill

Strategic skills is very important for games. it enhances decisions and gives the player opportunity to master and develop strategies of the game. This isn't an accidental features the strategy development is something the designer intended. A good skill game will involve an interesting series of tough decisions which will cause the player to use and develop their skills frequently to discover more of the game and earn a big reward. When a player is constantly making these decisions, they enter a state that psychologists called "flow" which is described as an optimal play state which designers work hard to achieve.

Types of decisions

Obvious Decisions

• Can usually be made automatic by the design if it is obvious enough.
• Also, using an obvious decision but adding in time pressure, this changes it from a strategic decision to a test of dexterity

Meaningless Decision

• These are usually more frustrating and annoying than an obvious decisions.
• These decisions have absolutely no effect on the games outcome.

Blind Decisions

• For example, in Roulette, the user has a real decision of what number to bet on. 
• Decisions aren't obvious because players can't see ahead of time.
• More strategic games include these decisions as well.
• By adding more or less information, blind decisions can be changed into other decisions.

Trade-Offs

• Trade-offs occur when a user has depleted their resources and cannot complete their goal.
• None of the choices are clearly right or wrong

Dilemmas

• A dilemma is very similar to a trade-off but only occurs when all available choices will harm the player.
• A special case is the Prisoners Dilemma.

Overall this reading has really helped me understand and develop my ideas about chance and skill and how with a balanced mix you could create a really great working game. 

Group Project Update

This is the map and part of the GUI I have designed for the group project, the map is the first version and can probably be improved over time. The GUI I have gone with stylish bubble buttons which are appealing to the audience. The 4 dotted buttons will be the 4 towers which are available to place, the upgrade button is to upgrade each tower and the destroy button is to remove a tower.

I am now working on more GUI to add to the game, such as a timer, the next wave, health, and score.

MDA: Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics

"MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research" Robin Kunike, Marc LeBlanc, Robert Zubek


MDA has been described as a framework in which we can break down and design games. In the article it describes these tools in detail and how they effect the designers and the audience.

MDA stands for Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. These are 3 tools which are part of the structure of the game and heavily effect the designer and the audience of the game. In the order they come (MDA) they are looked at differently by designers and the audience.

The designers look at the mechanics of the game first which then leads to the dynamics, but the audience looks at the aesthetics of the game first, they look at how the game feels and what it's like to play. The designer will create and add the components of the game for examples the rules, they will add the representation of the player and a lot more, basically the game atoms. Then these mechanics will effect the dynamics of the game for example the tactical choices which need to be made to pass a certain point. These then create the aesthetics which make the game more real to the player. This is like the competitive urge the player gets or the happiness when the player wins.

With MDA the designer can easily change the aesthetics of the game simply by giving the player fewer choices. For example the game Amnesia: The Dark Decent the user is made to feel very afraid and helpless, mechanics such as using very small very low lit corridors, adding small things which would catch your eye and make you jump and of course the only defence being a sprint key. This all makes the game much more tactical because the user has a lot more chance or being killed, so the user needs to make the tactical choices under the conditions which brings a whole new feeling with the aesthetics.

Understanding the MDA framework I find will be extremely useful in the future, especially with the group project we are working on. We can use the MDA to fine tune the games we create and make them as good as they can get.

Group work with Rob: Batteships

Today with Rob we looked into the game Battleships. A very simple game in which you place ships on a grid and try to destroy your opponents ships. After playing one game we were told to then change the game in a single way by adding or removing a rule.

Our first change was that once you hit an enemy ship you received an extra turn. So if you hit a five block long ship you could possibly have 6 turns in a row. This helped speed the game up but it was still hard finding the ships with the amount of open water.

Next we added more ships in to try and fill the water but we found the game progressed to fast and was too easy to win. So we enlarged the grid to make it more open. This way we found that the bigger ships fitted in better and the game went at a steady pace. This could of just been luck obviously as there is no way of telling where other ships are.

Some of the other rules added by other ships I thought were very good. The idea of a “torpedo” which can take out a whole column or row I though was a brilliant idea and makes the game much more interesting. Also, having an “Admiral” which would be one block and once this was hit the person would win. This then helps if a person is losing badly then they could come back and win, unfortunately it raises the unlikely issue of playing a one shot game. This then could make the game frustrating for other players.

The images posted are mine and Joe’s first round games and the additional rules are written on the bottom.

Formal Abstract Design Tools.

"Formal Abstract Design Tools" By Doug Church from Gamasutra

Doug Church speaks heavily of making a vocabulary in which designers can talk to other designers when analysing and breaking down video games. He says that having a wider vocabulary will make analysing and testing games much easier than just saying "This was fun" or "This game isn't fun". He states tools in which designers can use and add to the language in which I personally think will help when analysing and finding out whether a game is fun or not.

He says that when breaking down games, you should look at a game you love but the bits in there which make you frustrated and annoyed, then use these mistakes as learning opportunities. He also states that you should only use the tools you need to use. Not all of the tools work well together; they can conflict and make a bad game. A good designer will take their time and look into what tools they need to use to make the game good. They don't rush into it and throw every tool they can into the game.

He says the way find the tools that designers use, we need to break down a game and find the "concrete aspects" of the game and then analyse them to find the Formal Abstract Design Tools. He then looks into tools which a lot of designers use.

Intention

"Making an implementable plan of one’s own creation in response to the current situation in the game world and ones understanding of the game play options."

Intention is put across as a really important tool in a game. Players make hundreds of subliminal plans to move forward in their games. If they do an action and it goes wrong then they are likely to realize and accept why it has gone wrong. Then they can rectify the problem to push the game forward. He then links intention with the next tool.

Perceivable Consequences

"A clear reaction from the game world to the action of the player."

This is basically saying that if the player does something in the game, then the game reacts clearly to tell them whether the interaction was successful or not and it can lead more into the story or more activities. The action in which the player does depends on what the consequence the player expects. There are games which have consequences in which the player cannot possibly expect and Church states that this can frustrate the player and then they can lose interest in the game.

Story

"The narrative thread, whether designer-driven or player-driven, that binds events together and drives the player forward toward completion of the game."

This is more about what brings the player to the next point whether it is player driven or designer driven story is a massive tool but can easily conflict with other tools. For example in Final Fantasy, the games are heavily story based but is almost completely designer-driven with the large cut scenes and the linear story line. But they give the player a lot more control by making the combat system completely player driven. They separate tools to make the game much more player driven. He says that it's like reading a book but to turn the page you must win in combat and by doing this you control the characters and items which you find through the story.

So from this I can see that certain tools are very important in games and that not all tools work well together. Also, I understand that this is just a scratch on the surface of the vocabulary meaning that I personally can expand the language and make a much better and more informative analysis of a game which I am looking into. From this now I can easily break down a game and look into the tools they have used and the tools which could make games better.

Design Methods.

During the design methods lecture today we had a tutorial on illustration and painting using Adobe Photoshop. Using a sketch of a Zombie like creature we were given, we were given instructions on hod to sketch this in Photoshop. Then we were instructed about how to paint the creature and use different effects on how to make it look realistic.

My illustration I used stereotypical colours which you would find on a zombie for example, green skin. I used the original outline with effects to make it stand out more as well as erasing bad area's and parts which needed improving. Then using the brush tools at various sizes and using multiple colours to make the skin and clothes look realistic and believable.

After this I added in the blood spatters and then added lighting effects to give it more of a 3D, less flat image of the skin. Then added a background texture to add some more subtle points of interest to the image.

There are some ways I would improve this. Using a better brush for the blood spatter, this could be made more believable and look a lot more appealing. Also, adding more detail for example the shoe laces or even adding a shadow just to give the picture more depth.

Other than the improvements I made I felt a lot was learnt from this tutorial by Phil and really enjoy drawing this up.