Playtests and other game comments ... (Was Re: PBM report)

From: "MindShift Design" <admin@mindshiftdesign.com>

Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0000

"MadCentral" <madcentral@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001015122541.04293.00002229@ng-ck1.aol.com...
> >> Giving away more or less free positions for the length of the playtest
would
> allow us to get access to the same kind of
> feedback open source software gets without opening up the code as open
> source.<<
>
> I never give away free positions in a playtest.  All our players pay to
> playtest (at a lower rate).  I would advise you to do the same, although
it
> might be harder for you to get paying players without the previous games
to
> offer as recommendations.  The whole 'paying to playtest' thing has been
> debated here a million times.  Our policy is to charge for big, exciting
> playtests, and we always fill (and overfill) them in very short order, so
the
> players are obviously more than happy with this too.

And as it's been debated before, I won't draw the NG into that "same old
argument" again. I can see the financial value in both charging and for not
charging for playtest positions. If we were to allow those playtest
positions to continue in the main games, then we would be charging for them.
However, we had always thought about running a private internal game for
playtesters only that would allow us to test new features before
implementing them in the real game world. That way we can continue to
develop the world and have regular players that will test those new
features/functions. The world would be different enough from the "real" game
that it would stop people using any knowledge of the playtest environment to
corrupt the real public environment.

> >> As much as I love and use open-source software I still perceive a
> need for proprietary software, especially in niche markets like PBM where
> commercial games take a lot of time and effort to develop and there should
> be recompense for it.<<
>
> I certainly agree.  I've never released any pBM code and I never plan to.
Its
> not the code thats valuable, so much as some of the ideas inside that
code.

I'd say so. The problem with programming is that there is more than one way
to have a function performed, and every programmer has a different way of
doing it. But some of the features that are in place in that programming
make it really important. That goes for our EDGE engine with acts as a
middleware layer that we can plug any gameworld into - it's the application
that handles the important character and plot threading that we boasted
about previously <g>.

> >>And I appreciate any suggestions I get from someone who is running a
company
> that not only spits out new games every time I blink, but manages to have
> great player retention, so feel free to "suggest". <<
>
> What I suggest is that next time you are in the UK you pop in to us.  I'll
show
> you what the system we have *does* and that might help you avoid various
> pitfalls that new games run into.

After talking things over with the wife and family it looks like we might be
over sometime in Febuary, but I'm not sure how flexible the visit will be.
At that point it will have been two years since we left Scotland and
there'll be a LOT of catching up to do. Would be nice to write off some of
the visit as a business expense though <g>. And I appreciate the offer and
may take you up on it.

> >>IIRC you guys use Macs don't you ? Just wondering if you've looked at OS
X
> and the new developer tools that are coming out for it ?<<
>
> We use Macs for the most part, but we dont ignore PCs. OS X, yes we've
looked,
> and it looks exciting.  But as with any new Mac system I'll wait and see.
Macs
> are nice machines, but they have a habit of messing up on new systems.

Sounds like Windows to me. Or Red Hat 7 which killed one of our fileservers
when we upgraded it.

> >> Madhouse are pretty
> prolific right now, but the tools seem to be something that would allow
you
> to be even more so, and do some really cool things in the future.<<
>
> We are already moving into new areas for the future.  We have an
'Everquest'
> type game at the design stage, with some very new ideas about multiplayer
> online games that haven't been tried before.

Excellent. I look forward to seeing more on that in the future. We flirted
with that idea, but for us it would be cool to do, but I don't want to take
1-2 years out of other things that we have planned. Though if some of our
financing efforts pull off in the future then there's a possibility of
something like that. But STSI and other things come first. I also think it's
important for companies to diversify in a couple of areas. And some games
don't lend themselves well to the PBM model of turn-play.

> If anything, we have more experience of how to keep long-term players
happy
> that the Ultima or Everquest guys do, they just have bigger budgets for
> graphics and sound.  (For instance, we dont have a PK problem in DW, and
theres
> no rules against it... how many of the online games can say *that*.)
Thats
> something we are tackling right now.  We also have some other projects
that are
> boiling under, not to mention 'Destiny' (our space opera) that may, or may
not,
> be out by the end of the year (depending on how much my brain melts before
> then.)

I've always felt that was one of the problems for games like EQ  - the
"newbie-killers". It's also one of the reasons I haven't played them yet
personally. I've got better things to do with my time and money than to get
into a game, find myself want to play it a lot, then after two weeks get
jumped on by a group of experience players who like nothing better than
squishing newbies. That's why one of the options we've enabled in STSI is
the "non-combatant" feature, where you can't attack or be attacked by other
player parties but can still attack and be attacked by creatures in the
game. This way players can play the game without fear of spending time,
effort and money on playing a game and lose it all because of a vindictive
or sadistic player or group of players. And if they do decide to attack
other parties, then they're equally as open to attack. They also can't
switch it on and off at will and attack a party one turn then switch on the
option to defend themselves. There's a minimum turn period it's on for,
which increases every time your party attacks another and reduces by one
turn for every turnt that goes by where you don't attack another party. This
places the player in the position where their aggresiveness can be very
detrimental. Add to that that other HK (hunter-killer) parties in the
surrounding area may get news of your attack from the local message tree or
passing travellers and that adds up to a lot of drawbacks to attacking other
parties - so you better be well armed and well prepared when you start to do
so. Of course for some elements of the game you need to have this feature
off, especially if you want to get involved in alliances and trying to
conquer and change the shape and face of the world. I'm not sure how many
other games do things like this, but it seemed to us to address some of
those elements that players were concerned about. It still allows them to
play in many other areas of the game world, such as trading, exploration and
roleplaying without the threat of being beat on because someone wants the
items or gold then have.

--
Jason Paul McCartan - jasonm@mindshiftdesign.com
CEO/President
MindShift Design LLC
http://www.mindshiftdesign.com

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

References

Re: PBM report
"MindShift Design" <teammsd@mindshiftdesign.com>
Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PBM report
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Sun, 15 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: PBM report
"MindShift Design" <teammsd@mindshiftdesign.com>
Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0000
Re: PBM report
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Sun, 15 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0000