Jeffrey Kesselman writes:
> On 6/25/07, John Buehler <johnbue@msn.com> wrote:
[snipped because Outlook is so pathetic at nesting quotes]
> 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.
I'm addressing one ill of MMOs - conflicting player agendas. That can be
true in any game with more than one player in it, so the size of the player
population isn't significant. What is significant is that the players who
can encounter each other are interested in the same entertainment
experience.
I've talked about Groups Online, but it's an over-application of the basic
notion that players with the same goals should be permitted to play
together, without interference from those uninterested in those goals. The
size of the group of players playing together could be two or two million.
Scale isn't significant; matched agendas is.
> 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.
Agreed.
> 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.)
I suspect that the idea of allocating resources to "niche" player agendas is
viewed as something of a novelty by publishers. Taking that notion
mainstream and making instances a standard part of online gameplay may
produce some interesting results. At the same time I think it's critical to
retain the arena in which players can virtually come together and do basic
things. Perhaps a Second Life experience that launches off to various
instances of entertainment that can be shared by like-minded groups of
players.
JB