So a smart guy named Stephen Zepp landed on F13 forums after they have been linked on /.

The discussion is interesting:

Stehpen Zepp:
(speaking about massive non-instanced game spaces)
It’s not a matter of “can” anymore, it’s a matter of “want to”.

Even though on the surface it sounds cool as a marketing ploy, there just isn’t that many reasons to want that many players on a single world, and several to not want it:

–content distribution: to have 15,000 players in a single world, you have to have somewhere to put them all, much less keep them busy

–performance: it’s simply easier on the hardware (primarily the db server clusters) to parallel your critical performance paths instead of serialize them (and yes, I know that there are several mechanisms and schemas for optimizing that many users–but those are in business related db models that have been optimized over 20+ years in some cases, for very specific task structures. MMO databases don’t have classes that teach any Joe Schmoe the umpteenth iteration of db structures and optimization for the tasks required)

–sociological research: there are quite a few sociological and anthropological studies that report the max “efficient” community size is somewhere between 200-350. After that, instead of a single community, it becomes a set of sub-communities. From a gameplay perspective, since most MMOG’s that bother doing research are trying to enhance their “communities”, they sometimes take things like this to heart.

–based on the relative success of MMOG’s that use instancing in some form or another, less appears to be more to the current market, not the reverse. Players want their own little areas and worlds with only their friends, not tens of thousands of others (Personally, I think this is an artifact, not a true demographical observation of the MMOG market, but I seem to be in the minority on that).

I remember Jeff Freeman commenting along these lines on MUD-Dev. I find interesting, instead, this line: “After that, instead of a single community, it becomes a set of sub-communities”. That sounds like something extremely interesting to have, imho. It’s not a case that my idea of “dream mmorpg” tries hard to both mantain the “universe” feel and at the same time offers the tools to toy with smaller communities where the single players and the guilds gain a personality and an identity, becoming well known and generating politics and gameplay themselves.

What he says is true to consider and develop better structures inside the game but it isn’t enough to ditch the idea of a “massive world”. At least not when you are using the strength of it and not just its weaknesses.

Then he moves on a different topic (or the same, depending on the point of view):

Stephen Zepp:
It’s been debated back and forth a lot in the forums in other threads, but I have to admit I don’t understand the rationale of turning a “Massively Multiplayer” game into a “Minimally Multiplayer” game by creating separate zones/areas/worlds/whatever you want to call them for very small subsets of a world’s population to play in.

What the popularity of instancing games tells me is that the draw of a MMOG is not the same for all players in the target market, and in many ways people actually don’t want a Massively Multiplayer experience, what they really want is a decent quality game to play with a small selection of friends.

That’s not a bad thing at all, but I think the huge subscription numbers WoW sees, and all the other top end MMOG’s are seeing is a consolidated result of much more than just the game’s quality and it’s MMOG nature–in many ways it’s because the Minimally Multiplayer genre doesn’t have enough members for them to be satisfied.

Which, in turn, implies that there is an “undiscovered market” of Minimally Multiplayer purchasers out there that hasn’t been tapped yet, and ultimately will drive the subscription numbers of current MMOGs down by an undetermined amount when that genre is tapped.

I understood and agreed till the end of the second paragraph, then I lost track of the logic. But let’s continue:

Stephen Zepp:
–I should been more clear in my question: If what you want to provide to your customer base is a Minimally Multiplayer experience, why in the hell are you building a Massively Multiplayer (and all the infrastructure upkeep that entails) in the first place? Build a Minimially Multiplayer game from the get-go.

1) Ahh, but that right there describes why it’s not “immersive” to me at all. How in the hell can you be immersed in a persistent world when the same arch villians have to be killed over and over and over and over again (or even can be killed in that manner). If Captain Super did win the day, then dammit, the world should know about it…not let me go ahead and win the day against the same opponents as well, just cause.

2) Bingo. Respawn is such a huge kludge, and completely destroys immersion of any sort whatsoever. Even with your difference of “CoH, they never respawned for me, while WoW they even respawned for me”, you still are respawning..and therefore the player’s actions are not interactively persistent. No matter what anyone does, Mob X is still gonna be hanging out next week waiting for someone to come kill him again. Instancing compounds this lack of interactive persistence in it’s attempt to fix other issues.

Instancing IMHO is putting a bandaid on the symptom, instead of diagnosing the disease and curing it.

The last line is the key, imho. Quoting myself:

Instancing is a profitable workaround but isn’t about addressing the real problem to move further.

More reiterations:

Stephen Zepp:
I’m not being clear then. My point is that if a game developer plans to give his players a “Minimally Multiplayer” game by using instances, then they should design the game as a Minimally Multipayer game from the beginning, instead of wrapping their real game presentation (1-20 players in an instanced zone) with a massively multiplayer design (and all it’s inherent limitations), infrastructure, and marketing scheme. What is happening right now commercially IMHO is companies building a mercedes benz using a touring bus as the blueprint, and marketing it as an 18 wheeler.

If the companies would actually design a Minimally Multiplayer game instead of doing what I describe above, you would get more features, functionality, and awesome game play than you do now, not less.

[answering a comment]
No, not at all. In fact, the entire purpose of this model is that the world itself becomes the content, not static “expansion zones” that have to be released month after month to keep things new and fresh. By nature of the combined models (interactive persistence and hybrid genres) it’s the players and the world itself that are generating the new and fresh environment.

I don’t quote further because he basically explains one of those ideas I’ve continued to tinker with till now. What Dave called “Interlocking Game System”. Exactly my plan on my dream mmorpg. Adding aspects coming from different genres: FPS, RTS and wargames. Everything put together in a cohesive way and not just independent layers (a similar debate that rised when commenting the “space addition” to SWG).

So I discover again that my ideas are nowhere new. But why I feel them so interesting? Why noone with the resources I’ll never have isn’t trying to go toward that?

This is a continuation of the last reiteration about the instances.

—

Darniaq:
While I wouldn’t advocate an NWN-level of tools in a pocket space (since design and fun are hard and what-not), *some* control over content within a pocket space may be extremely compelling. It could be as simple as controlling the spawn of an area based on what a guild builds there. SWG does this, though player structures seem to affect mob spawn trigger locations rather than their changes of occuring at all.

Finally!

That’s my point as well. And it’s linked to what Ubiq wrote recently.

Things like controlling spawn points are exactly “toys”. What I underlined here is that, in this case, we loose the whole potential if this is instanced and limited to PvE. Playing with toys is way, way more fun (but also harder to design) in a PvP environment.

This BEGS to be used in the world. Not the instance. And this for the simple reason that:
PvE -> instance -> single player
PvP -> world -> cooperative

I also underline that, in my definition, PvP is cooperative, not competitive. All the cooperative activities, also when NOT involving combat, are PvP.

This is a comment I wrote to an article on Terra Nova, signed by Big Bartle.

At the same time I mirrored on the forum an old thread on F13 where I explained my point of view on this system. What it is, when to use it and how. Or why not.

—
In my ravings around May, after CoH was launched, I was one of the few strongly criticizing the use of instances. But this specific to a point of view: virtual words Vs an arcade single/cooperative approach.

My point is that this approach isn’t wrong if you deliberately choose *that* strategy and *that* path. I believe that PvE (in its broader meaning) is strictly single/cooperative play. Today we have a market that is considered to lean strongly toward PvE.

Now these facts all produce together the same result: strongly instanced (PvE) games are successful because they know perfectly what they are. Their nature. They are bringing back their gameplay where it belongs -> to a single player/cooperative experience. So they work.

As I wrote long ago these strongly instanced games are good and successful because they are NOT mmorpgs. They know this and they do not “pretend” to be something else and offer gameplay outside of its proper space.

Because, again, PvE (from my point of view) intersects with single player/cooperative gameplay. They are a single entity that simply doesn’t work if you try to separate the two parts.

Now, my point of view is that it is never “wrong” to use something. It depends on how you use tools, like instancing. In this case I believe that we can lean toward trying to add more experiences to a mmorpg. So that we have a complex world, a meaningful implementation of PvP AND also a PvE part, where instancing can be used to deliver the best quality possible.

What I mean is that instancing “delivers a lot” in PvE exactly because it’s a “going back where it belongs”. What can be a choice is about integrating this part (PvE) with something else that incentivates what makes this genre different. Adding different possibilities, so that instancing becomes a way to offer what is pertinent to it, leaving another part of the VW to work under different rules and strategies.

Now all this is weakly tied to what you write here but it’s my way to explain what instancing is and how it can be used. In particular your last example seems near what already happens in Neverwinter Nights. And it’s here that what I write plugs in the discussion.

P.S.
From a design point of view I also believe that the “resets” aren’t the main strength of this technique. What is relevant is that you can choose and fix a range of levels (power) or a number of players, so that you are able to (finally) offer a challenge. Where, instead, the current mmorpgs trivialize every attempt at delivering a decent PvE exactly because you can rip off the starting conditions, bringing to the encounter more players or letting in a strong character that powerlevels everyone else. Instancing simply adds *more control* in the hands of the creator. This means that we are less “sandbox” and a lot more content-driven experience.

And it’s here again that we discover what instancing is and how it should be used.

P.P.S.
Instead what you write about using instancing to produce a more interesting world (and more control again, but to create something that can be more dynamic and more original). That’s a particular kind of potential that I wouldn’t limit to PvE. It’s something that can be used for PvP and so completely unrelated to instancing.

This is a spin-off to the previous article I pasted on the forum.

—

Raguel:
PvP builds community.

It’s not just that. The PvE how is structured in WoW helps to build the social aspect a lot. The level differences produce smaller groups of players sharing a location (zone) and a problem (quest). So you can meet in places and group with other players because you share the goal.

Open ended games like UO, SWG and Eve-Online don’t have the focus of WoW. It’s harder to find a common shared purpose and it’s harder to get together.

As I wrote many times those games are designed for the socialization. But socialization in groups that existed before the game itself. It’s not easy to play together with peoples that you haven’t met before.

And this is something that WoW does very well.

Raph commented that this type of socialization is about “weak-ties”, because you can meet, group for a few minutes, reach the goal and disband. This is true but I strongly disagree with his conclusion.

It isn’t the game to transform a weak-tie in a strong-tie. That’s something that is about the player and his choice. It’s not something that needs to be designed. So the result is that WoW “does it right”. It makes creating the “weak-ties” easy and common. Peoples don’t glare at you if you offer your help or ask to group. Then it’s up to you (if you want) to transform those weak-ties into something more stable.

The point is that there’s an even better way to deal with all this. The design actually can improve over WoW’s model but without forcing the socialization by exploiting gameplay limits (like SWG). And this (better) model is about creating goals that are shared between different players.

My idea is to detach the goal from the character. In WoW the goal is in common because you have groups of players about the same level that need to gain experience. I want to bring the achievement *outside* the character and into the world. A good and deep PvP system does this when you don’t kill opponents for Realm Points, but you do that to build a domain, defend your territory, gain control. On a level trascending your single character.

Yes, this builds ties. And it’s the better you can aspire to reach and develop. It has breadth. But an healthy type of breadth that doesn’t mess or loose the other important elements.

In the past I strogly criticized how Raph defines the “socialization”:

Raph Koster:
Civilization exists for egoistic goals.

For him you’ll socialize only when you are forced in a dependence. So you want to be a crafter but you’ll need to socialize and get your tools from other players, or you won’t go anywhere.

This is *horrible*, imho. An horrible model and ideal of “civilization” and cold and boring to play.

This is what I answered:

This because you didn’t get the real difference between my idea and those you list.

EQ raids are communal goals but to reach egocentric purposes (loot). Perhaps there are a lot of players doing that just because it’s cool but the mechanic of the loot is still *strongly* deep-rooted in a personal-only purpose. THIS is what I criticize: this isn’t a real communal goal. This is an egoistic goal with a COMMUNAL PROCESS.

What I imagined is a game with communal goals and communal/singular processes. In my example of “building a town” the goal is obviously communal. The process may vary because if “wood” is a requirement a single player could go alone to gather it.

You see? EQ raids are egoistic goals and communal processes.
What I suggest is communal goals and processes that may be both communal and singular.

It’s the exact opposite.

About the rest:
– Guilds aren’t purposes, they are structures needing “content”. I don’t fit them as a communal goal easily

– Business is the exact example I criticized. The fact that you need to depend on others only fakes this communal aspect. The world is kept together on forced restrictions. It’s not “healthily” commonal, it’s a dependence process that you have to suffer to go anywhere. The goal is still completely egoistic but you are forced to interact to reach it. I consider this plainly wrong and negative.

About the title of the thread we go off topic, it isn’t about games and I’ll write about it soon (perhaps).

This morning I found the Amazon’s package with Raph’s book into it. I’m quite happy. It’s actually the first book I buy and read in english aside some school-related stuff. But what is important is that it’s a real book, it is solid. All this time I passed discussing and playing online games is simply virtual. It’s a virtual life that right now is near the totality of my life. It’s like a dream, I really wake up in the real world and I can assume nothing I do exists. Instead this book is solid, like a sign that the dream was somewhat real. It’s a proof.

So the book has an “horizontal” shape, 240 or so pages. I like having it in my hands, it’s well organized. On the left page there’s what Raph wrotes, organized in paragraphs and with an easily readable font. On the right there’s what Raph draws, with the role to illustrate a concept.

The concept he used is rather good. It’s not an “hard to understand” book, that requires you an effort of concentration just to grasp the logic sense. Instead it lures you in, it is pleasant so you go after it. Accepting the ride directly as a fun ride. The language is simple and essential and it mirrors directly the approach: reaveal the simplicity as something where the secrets are held.

From the other side it’s still a solid (in the material sense) book, as I said. This time we aren’t on a message board with a shifty attention span and active filtration and selection. A book, even when simple, still requires some dedication, you have to allow it to lead you in, with its own time and rules. So here Raph has a new advantage. Writing book is surely about having a power. This just to explain that I’ll need to give it its time before I’m able to finish it, digest it and perhaps comment. But I’m really happy to have this possibility and I’ll surely have fun. Having the book in my hands made me notice how much I like this sort of studies and activities. Like something I’d really like to do. Fascinating in a personal way. I love it.

For now I just skimmed it, read something here and there, looking at some of the comics. I also started to glance at the first pages, but I did that in front of a window, standing still. I only read books while I’m sitting, so I’ll surely go back and start again from the first word.

Just a few considerations about what I read in a few minutes that could be completely off-track but I still want to archive.

—
Back at the end of the last May we were already discussing “fun” in games in a thread at Corpnews. After some posts I wrote my own, simple idea:

Learning is the key of the whole process:

+ We have fun when we are able to learn.
+ We are frustrated when the learning process is hard or forbidden.
+ We are bored when the learning process is missing.

So I identified three different statuses, plus I focused on the learning process as the core of the “fun”.

This isn’t different from Raph’s approach. He also focuses on the learning process and he starts to deal about the language and the cognitive studies. But before starting the real considerations he still feels the need to define what is a “game”. With my superficial attitude on the issue I never felt the need to properly define what a game is. So before reading further I stopped a second and asked myself how I would define it.

For me a game is always a “let’s pretend”. It’s a “what if”, a simulation. Something like a legend, with a tie to the reality about an aspect. Then moving to the essence of that aspect. Like linking a symbol to a meaning. A game has always a system of rules that is set, big or small but always “finite”. Then there’s a goal. Within this environment there’s a path to follow, or to discover that brings you to accomplish the goal.

These are more or less my own considerations about the definition. A simulation within a closed rulesystem with a goal and possible paths to reach it. At this point I continued to read and I was happy to discover that various “high-profile” academic guys more or less underlined the same idea, like:
Sid Meier – “A series of meaningful choices.”
Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings – “One or more casually linked series of challenges in a simulated environment”
Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman – “A system in which players engage in an artificial conflict,defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome”

Not far from my concept. The difference is that I still (once again since I criticized Raph on this many times) link the simulation with the reality as something important. It is a formal system, like Will Wright says, but it’s still linked outside the formal aspect. Raph starts to talk a lot about tic-tac-toe but this is not only a “dumb” game, as he defines it, it is also too abstracts to be enjoyed. As a kid I didn’t like these kind of games too much. Kids in general like a lot more to use the body, do sports, challange each other, roleplay TV movie or comics and all the rest. What I mean is that the “formal” aspect is indeed an aspect, but there’s also the roleplay, the simulation as something tied with a reality that is still meaningful aside a “formal theory of fun”. If you describe the cross and the circle signs in the tic-tac-toe game as knights fighting for a kingdom (just to explain.. not a great example), the kids are way, way more interested, because aside the formal system there’s the culture with its myths having a strong role in the dynamic known as “fun”.

But this was a side thought that popped in my head and following various critiques I wrote in the last months, against Raph, against Big Bartle. Instead Raph continues the ride focusing on “patterns”. This is interesting because it links to the idea of fun I wrote and pasted here above. I’m always superficial but I wasn’t wrong. I link the “fun” with the frustration and boringness. Like three possible statuses depending on the learning process. If you can learn and it’s viable you are having fun, if you cannot learn because it’s too hard you are frustrated and if you’ve learnt already everything you are bored. Raph descibes the same attitude melting my boringness and frustration together. When he plays a game that is too hard he is still bored:
“That’s not just me saying, “I can’t cut it in Internet play! Damn 14-year-old kids.” My reaction isn’t mere frustration; it’s also got a tinge of boredom. I look at the problem and say, “Well, I could take on the Sysyphean task of trying to match these guys. but frankly, repeated failure is a predictable cycle, and rather boring. I have better things to do with my time.”

This is interesting because it leads directly to go a bit deeper in what I only scratched with my own idea. It’s not just an homogeneous, indistinct (and undefined) “leaning process”. As I said I’m lazy and superficial. Raph analyzes better and focuses the attention on the “patterns”. At this point we can go back and consider what a game is. Again I define it like a medal with two sides that (must) melt together. There’s a context (that is too much ignored and trivialized) about the simulation itself, the myths, the culture. And there’s the algorithm. The solution of the puzzle, the “series of meaningful choices”. It’s this that Raph defines as “patterns”. And it’s the relationship of peoples with these patterns that regulates my frustration/boringness/fun distinction more or less accepted by Raph.

And that was all I was able to read and consider in a small span of time. Perhaps I’m already completely off-track but as I said I didn’t even really started to read the book. That’s something that will require a different attitude. And I’m really looking forward to sit down on a comfy armchair, with a pencil, and start reading with lot of time ahead :)

This isn’t Daver Rickey ;p
Just a scheme I want to save. Perhaps I’ll write something about it in the future:

World of Warcraft seems to do well on the first line, that’s why some say that it won’t be a huge hit in the long run.