On 6/25/07, John Buehler <johnbue@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > * Original Poster: Brian "Ayavaron" Ross
>
> > I just finished reading an issue of Escapist Magazine
> > (
http://www.theescapistmagazine.com/) that dealt with the topic of
> > griefers. The topic was thoroughly analyzed and explored throughout
> > the article, but it leaves one with the question, "What do you do
> > about it?"
>
> Designers have attempted to create rule sets for gameplay that are as
> general as possible. They've tried to create as large a playground as
> possible, with as much variety in it as possible. Ultima Online was a great
> example of this; folks could behave just like ordinary people. The problem
> with that approach was that the players were on such long leashes that they
> figured out how to hang each other with them.
>
> More recent games have put players on a much shorter leash because griefers
> are so good at making hangman's knots.
>
> Most recently, we've seen instancing. I believe that instancing holds a
> solution to griefing.
SO I agree with your first contention and disagree with your second.
Instancing is effectively making the MMO a small group game again. If
thats *really* your solution then it seems to me to be be admission that
MMO is a just plain bad idea.
However there is the kernel of something within the idea of instancing
that I think has merit.
Part of it is to reach beyond the behavior and ask what the underlying
social causes might be. MMOs throw all kinds of players together.
Anyone who has been part of large gaming group knows that doesn't
necessarily work. Different players come to RPGs with different goals
and different levels of maturity. The most successful groups Ive ever
seen self-filter into sub groups who have similar play styles, maturity
levels and goals.
WHat is needed, IMHO is less dictum by the system and more freedom for
the players to create and control the experience of who they play with.
We've already seen the most primative attempts by this by communities
who will chose one shard and declare it "the RP shard". We've also seen
it from the operator side in PvP/non-PvP shards.
These have all helped somewhat but they are, in the end, either too
broad a grouping or not well enforced. (The former in the PvP case,
both in the RP case.)
So let me start by suggesting a simple idea, and then move to a more
complex one. The simple idea is allowing the player to control their
environment more. We've seen PvP/non-PvP flags. We've seen /ignore
commands. What if it went further? what if I could set a flag that
says "this person does not exist in my personal view of the game. I
cannot see, hear or effect them and they cannot see hear or effect me?"
The usual time controls I think maybe could prevent this from being
abused (you can only change another's status in relation to you once a
month. You can't change it for a month for anyone you took an action
on.)
Going back to your instance idea, I am actually going to suggest that
something *like* that might work, but it needs to be broader then just
instanced missions for a single team.
Imagine a system where, at anuy time, any player can make a clone of the
entire game. They control that clone of the game and can invite people
into it and kick people from it. Characters can move freely between
this parallel worlds so being kicked just puts you back in the "open"
world. These parallel worlds are each complete world with state and
history unlike the "instances" of missions which exist today which are
transitory and non-persistant.
Effectively, everyone can create their own "gaming table" with their own
rules about usage.
Now today that is very hard to implement due to the fixed area to server
way of allocating servers, but at risk of slipping ina plug of my own
project, Darkstar changes all that. With Darkstar this could be
implemented as efficiently as any other sever architecture.