World of Warcraft has made so many positive steps since I wrote the single most read article ever on gamasutra.com (literally). Most of my concerns in that article have been addressed. Back then, the PvP's honor system was so grueling that it actually endangered players' health. These days, you can create a level 70 character with any gear you want in fair competitive tournament setting. Impressive. Back then, "raid or die" with 40 people was the overriding design ethos. Today, there are no more 40-person raids and even the 25-person raids can all be done in 10-man versions.

You can hear some information about this in this video (which incidentally has less than a third of the views of my interview on the same site, sorry for the uncalled-for cheap shot).

Anyway, I just couldn't let this video go. I don't get why World of Warcraft has taken so many steps towards being reasonable and yet can't take the last, logical few. The key point here is that 10-man raids will get worse rewards (one tier lower in WoW-speak) than the 25-man versions of the same dungeons. Kaplan (lead designer) explains that 25-man raids are much harder to coordinate, have more logistics to worry about, and are more work. No argument there, I think we all agree with that. But this is the *reason* that they need to have better rewards, he says. That sounds a bit backwards.

To put this another way, there are two versions of each raid dungeon: the 10-man version and the less fun one. If they had the same rewards, not enough players would play the less fun one. So...why even have the less fun one? Shouldn't players be encouraged to play the content that is the most enjoyable to them, rather than encouraged to play content that is more logistically difficult to coordinate? (10-man versions can be tuned to take just as long, of course.)

Kaplan has moments of clarity in this video where he explains that both sizes of raids should have easy dungeons and hard dungeons. The size of the raid is not a judgment call on your worth, it's simply about how many people you feel socially comfortable hanging out with. Either one can be hard or easy, depending on the specific dungeon design. Yep! (And either can have the same rewards? No, apparently.)

Then in the same video Kaplan mentions that they considered solutions(?) like having the final 25-man raid on Arthas *unlock* the 10-man version. (What??) Or maybe when you get to the end of the 10-man version, Arthas just isn't there. Perhaps he left a note behind: "Hey guys, this is Arthas. I only value players who play in large groups and I'm a little grumpy about whole no-more-40-man-raids thing. I won't even fight second class citizens such as yourselves."

I think Kaplan knows on an intellectual level that 25 is not better than 10. (He flat out said it, in fact). He might also know that 10 is not better than 5, that 5 is not better than 2, and that 2 is not better than 1. They are just all different. Each one of those sizes can have tasks and challenges of extreme difficulty. Each one can have endless time-sinks. And yet the 40-man values of WoW's past still echo today. "Yeah, yeah we'll *have* 10-man raids, but they can't have equal loot!"

One last thing I'd like to point out is the years-old argument that players who enjoy large raids would enjoy them regardless of the loot. For the majority of raiders, this is false. I know it's false, you know it's false, and Blizzard definitely knows it's false. The last place I'd look to find people motivated by intrinsic rewards is a 40-man World of Warcraft raid. (Dear both of you who really do enjoy big raids for the own sake, even with no rewards. You are not like the others.) The actual case is that the vast majority are motivated by gear-rewards to spend time in dungeons that they would otherwise not choose to play in. If I'm right about this, why not let the rewards be equal so that they can play 10-man raids and have more fun? And if I'm wrong about this, why not still make the rewards equal? In that case, 25-man versions will be full to the brim anyway because raiders love the intrinsic rewards of completing a logistically difficult task, after all.

To summarize, challenge should lead to rewards. (A separate gate of time-spent can also lead to rewards since this is an MMO. I'm not ruling that out.) Challenge can come 25-man or 10-man. If you accept all that, the final step is that it's true for 5 man...and 2 man...and 1 man. You can have just as much challenge (and require just as much time spent, if you like) in any of those sizes. Different players will have a sweet spot group-size that they prefer, and no size is really second-class. The value judgment shouldn't be on group size, but rather that we judge inclusive design as better than exclusive design.

If there were challenging 2-person dungeons that I could play with my girlfriend, I'd still be playing World of Warcraft today. I get the feeling that if I made it past a gauntlet of virtually impossible monsters in a 2-person World of Warcraft dungeon that the final boss would disappear and say, "Sorry, but the princess is in another castle."

--Sirlin

I'd appreciate some help from any thoughtful people about my post here on virtual worlds and player rights. You can find the post here.

Basically, the most current virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft have medieval heirarchy, where players have nearly no rights at all. In 100 years, this type of online government will be a cute footnote. I'm outraged that you aren't outraged about this, as virtual worlds will become increasingly important in the future, for reasons that reach beyond games. I'd like to be part of the solution, so lend a hand. So far the three most important topics I can identify are

1) Freedom of speech
2) Privacy
3) Ownership of virtual items

The question isn't whether these things should be allowed. I consider it self-evident that they should be. The question is how to deal with the consequences, and what other important rights should be addressed along with these.

This particular topic is too important to be burried in my blog, and I think the discussion on the forums would be more long-lasting, so I request that you post there.

Thanks,
--Sirlin

PS -- At the top of this blog, there's now a link to the Atom feed.

http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/12/the_solution_to.html#more

Some people shut down the MMO Second Life by creating self-replicating objects with the in-game scripting system that replicated so much that they crashed the server. The CEO of Linden Labs (the game's publisher) turned over the names the griefers to the FBI.

I'm usually quick to point out the problems of banning people who perform legal in-game actions that have consequences that "you don't like." In almost all of these cases, good answers are "have the developer fix the problem in the code" or possibly "allow players a way of policing or otherwise sort out the problem themselves." This is an extreme case though, since these actions caused the entire server to crash, denying all other players the ability to play and the company the ability to make money. Perhaps in this extreme case, it *IS* correct for the developer to step in and ban, and call the authorities. Almost anything less than this probably does not warrant a ban or any penalty to the player from the developer.

In a Street Fighter tournament, if you do something that intentially crashes the game, you lose the round. Hypethetically, if you did something that somehow not only crashed the game, but stopped the entire tournament from happening, we would not hesitate to eject you from the building.

Meanwhile World of Warcraft will ban you for "playing too much," attacking Lord Kazzak in various unsanctioned ways, using a rogue/warlock combo to lure bosses too far from their spawn points, fighting on rooftops, entering unfinished areas (why are they accessible at all?), buying gold or items on ebay (eventually the courts will probably overrule them on this), collaborating with the other faction in battlegrounds, "using terrain exploits to your advantage," player-created casions (that merely use the in-game /random command), player-created bingo games, profanity (even though there is an in-game language filter, to say nothing of free speech), posting on forums about whether a guild is full of Blizzard employees, posting on the forums about why you were banned for posting about something seemingly constructive, having a name such as JustKidding, SergantTaco, TheAthiest, or roflcopter...and a whole lot more things, too.

Finall tally:
-----------
Linden Labs--Probably Justified
World of Warcraft--Apparently Fascist. :(

--Sirlin

I know I caused some trouble with this Puzzle Pirates thing, but it's a good case study. This post is long and rambling and unevenly written, so sorry about that.

Matthias really struck the heart of the matter when he said "The MMOG genre usually relies on the spirit of the game rule to ensure that as many people as possible have fun." This is where our difference in ideology lies, and everything is just a consequence of that.

Here's a random thought to chew on: "directly maximizing as many people's fun as possible is sometimes counter-productive." The CPL thinks you can maximize the spectator's experience by making rules about not hiding in corners in an fps game, but that will certainly lead to tournaments no one wants to play in or go to. "Maximizing the fun of as many people as possible" also smacks heavily of the "tyranny of the majority" concept. A majority might decide, for example, that Jewish people should be persecuted, that gay people should have fewer rights, and so on. Allowing those things would "satisfy the most number of people." (This is by definition, since in this hypethetical we're saying the majority wants these oppressive things.) So in the United States, we have rules to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority." There are some things that the majority doesn't get to push on other people, at least not so easily.

So does this system of rules we have in the US fail at "maximizing the fun/happiness of the majority"? After all, the majority might want to do something, and they can't. Yet...if they could, then the damage to the world or the society might be so great that no one would end up being happy.

Also note that "protecting the rights of the individual" are important in the above concept. Individuals have a few rights that are important enough that they can't be trodden upon just if the majority wants to. Also note that the things the majority can't do is a relatively small set. The majority is free to pass all sorts of laws about all sorts of things, as long as they don't violate the important, small set of "constitutional rules."

So now I offer you two possible systems of rules for MMOGs.

System 1: Sirlin's Pro-Individual Laws

A) The point of this system is to give the players as much freedom as possible. This system asserts that to do otherwise is counterproductive to creating a community. Players are free to pursue anything in the game they like, whether or not it was intended by any game designer, and whether or not anyone else thinks they should pursue them...as long as they act within the rules of the game.

B) The game creator asserts that there are a very few areas where the rights of the indivdual need to be secondary. Any behaviors that crash servers, for example, are not allowed, even if the method uses only "legal" moves. An exploit that produces or "duplicates" in-game money or very valuable items is also in this realm, as such a behavior leads to immediate, irreperable harm, even when done through "legal" moves. The game creator does have room for discression here, and the rules are on purpose somewhat nebulous. Stopping game-destroying bugs is more important than individual player's rights.

C) There is a large class of behaviors that seem "unfair" or "too good" and yet are technically legal and that do NOT fall under the above paragraph's "emergency powers." Examples from World of Warcraft would be a method of splitting linked monsters so they can be fought one at a time; the advantages of fighting on rooftops where city guards cannot reach you; using a warlock and rogue combo to pull a boss to an area where the fight is substantially easier; using the build-in macro system to backstab with a sword, even though the designers only intended backstabbing with daggers, and so on. These behaviors provide advantages to some individuals, but they are not world-shattering. They also make other players "unhappy" and sometimes feel "griefed." But that's the price everyone pays to play in a free system where seemingly arbitrary codes of conduct are not used.

D) When exploits are discovered, the game creator must decide whether they are "world-shattering" or not (ie, if they fall under paragraph B or C). If they are not world-shattering (and the overwhelming majority of all exploits are not), then the course of action should be to quietly fix the exploit. Players who use the exploit in the meantime are not punnished at all, as any such system of punishment creates too much burden on the behalf of players. Players should be allowed to use all legal moves available to them, as long as they do not violate paragraph B. If the game creator discovers a world-shattering exploit, then the course of action is to immediately announce that all users of this exploit will be warned in-game, then banned. In the meantime, the creator will fix the problem as soon as possible.

System 2: The Pro-Group Laws

A) The point of this system is to protect the "fun" of the largest number of people. A very few people always ruin the fun of the many, so the few should either stop doing that or be kicked out. It's impossible to list all ways that someone could make someone else unhappy so the rules are left intentionally vague. Note that this system is basically the same as System 1, except that Paragraph B) of System 1 is expanded to include almost everything.

B) If enough people are unhappy about a behavior and/or if the game creator is unhappy about a behavior, then the "spirit of the game" rule can be invoked at any time to legislate out otherwise legal moves. This means that these behaviors are still possible to do by using only legal game rules, but doing them is prohibited and leads to a warning, then a ban.

C) Somehow, the creator must maintain an even hand. There are so many gray areas that enforcing gray-rules fairly and evenly without discrimination or internal corruption becomes a major concern. Players are also faced with an artificial set of nebulous rules on top of the actual coded game rules. Even though Sirlin highly frowns on additional artificial rules of almost any kind, the creator feels negatives are outweighed by the positives of satisfying "the majority." Individual rights of players never existed in the first place since the creator owns the universe. If a minority enjoys riding the edge of rules but they are causing trouble, then there is no problem with banning them, as the majority is what matters.

What type of community will develop under each of these rulesets? Is one ruleset better than the other if you had to start a new government in a new country (and you weren't allowed to choose democracy)?

--Sirlin

Buying gold in MMOs such as World of Warcraft has been a hot topic for years. It's all over the forums on www.worldofwarcraft.com right now. One side thinks "I've worked so hard to earn my gold, why should someone with real-life money get to buy it?" The other side thinks, "I have a job and can't play 15 hours per day. Why should kiddies with more free time get to mindlessly grind gold? They have more time, but it's worth it to me to spend $1 to get over 10 gold, so I do." Neither side can seem to understand the other.

I'm not sure why one side sees grinding gold as some amazing accomplishment that they earned. Farming gold is just as retarded as buying it on ebay, really. A lot of these complaints are coming from the angle that buying gold makes the playfield uneven in the competitive game of World of Warcraft. Newsflash: World of Warcraft is not a real competitive game. I think I've covered that one. There is no beginning, middle and end to a game (except in CTF matches), and people don't come to the table with the same resources the way they do in chess or Street Fighter or tennis.

This is the part where some of you write me mail about how people don't come to the table with the same resources in those games either because some people bring skill and others don't. Or maybe you'll say some people have more time to practice tennis so they get to bring more skill. Surely you know how bankrupt those comments are. The whole point of competitive games is that skill is the one uneven thing you are allowed to bring into and otherwise even match. Some people need lots of time to develop skill, and others don't. But no one buys skill (directly).

Also don't write me about how tennis gear or Magic cards cost money, so people bring different things to the table based on money in those games. No they don't. If you are a real Magic tournament player, you can get any card you want by trading or buying. A certain amount of cash or connections is needed to even play for real. Similarly, tournament tennis matches don't happen between people with $9 gear and people with $9,000 gear. Tournament tennis players have access to reasonably similar amount of gear and get ot compete based on a combination of skill, strategy and stamina.

MMOs are inherently uneven playfields. Unemployed kiddies grinding for gold vs. wealthy professionals buying it only highlights this issue; it doesn't create it. I guess I'm saying you can't really complain about people bringing different amounts of resources into a game that's entirely based on uneven playfields in the first place.

You know who the real loser is? Blizzard. Why aren't they finding a way to make money off this? Sony is. They have new servers for EverQuest that are flat out labeled as 'gold buying' servers. You know going in that you can trade real money for in-game money, and so can everyone else. If you don't like it, go on another server (where it happens anyway, btw), but at least Sony gets to make some money off it.

If you're still upset over this issue, maybe take up a real competitive game such as chess, Street Fighter, counter-strike, Magic: The Gathering, or...I don't know...Scrabble. No one will ever trade US dollars for extra letter tiles against you.

--Sirlin