On Mon, 1 Sep 1997, Andrew Helm wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 1997, Daniel Koepke wrote:
>
> > that adding challenges to your MUD
> > will cause your players to be somewhat disgruntled, whether or not it is
> > for the good of the mud, or otherwise.
>
> You're finally there! Welcome to one of my points. I'm glad we agree now. :)
> (And I hope you will no longer find it appropriate to call frustrating
> your players, but not to the point that they leave, the Art
> of Administration.)
I believe it also was Daniel's points. :)
> > In essence, you are
> > pissing-off your players for the good of the mud. But, you cannot make
> > the game more challenging to the point where players leave, or get really
> > pissed-off, because then you have imbalanced the mud.
>
> Oops, you took a wrong turn here. Good Administrators will know it's not
> their job to frustrate the players. Administrators who run their muds
> with the proper goal in mind, that is, to only present players with
> challenges that will make the players enjoy the mud even more, will not
> have to be careful how much they piss off the players, since they
> knows better than to take a hostile attitude towards the players as
> their job. Is it just playing with words, like you suggest? I think
> you'll find that behind most muds that die is an administrator who
> got caught up making life hard on his/her players while losing sight
> of the fact that when players don't enjoy themselves, the mud fails.
A good new challenge will often piss players off. If its a good
challenge, the players will probably fail thier first attempt at
overcoming that challenge. That only makes the final victory that more
sweet. The trick ofcourse is to make sure the victory will arrive before
the frustration levels climb to high.
[....]
> > This is what I have
> > been saying all along, if you cannot get past me using the words,
> > "pissed-off," then this entire thing is, as you said, meaningless.
>
> Yet I'm asking you to get past the words. Do you not understand? It
> doesn't matter how you phrase it, saying that your job is to make
> life hard on the players, but not past the point that they leave, is
> a player hostile attitude. It allows you to make decisions which
> frustrate the players but do not increase their enjoyment of the mud.
If life isn't hard on the mud, then whats the point? If its easy to get
levels, if there is no risk, then players will quickly bored. The
exception would be players are only interested bragging rights (i.e. "I
have a 157th level mage") Now there are sources of frustration that
won't improve the game, such has having an obtuse interface or
undocumented commands. But ofcourse those frustrations cannot be
overcome by the player.
In short, I believe the issue you are concerned with was a non-issue
until you brought it up. I can understand you feel this is an important
point to make, but it doesn't do your cause any good to ascribe the
opposing viewpoint to Daniel when he never supported it. It makes you
look like you are just looking for an argument.
-Hans H Hjort
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST