[snip]
> I believe it also was Daniel's points. :)
No, the viewpoint did not distinguish between things
which made life hard on the players yet did not increase
their enjoyment in the end and things which were merely
hard on the players.
[snip]
> > 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.
Why is it so many people have trouble with my point? I agree
completely that you need to challenge players. I agree completely
that they need to fail a couple times before they succeed. Have
you not been listening? I said they would become frustrated with
the challenges, not the administration though. That's the sign
you're doing something right. It's when the administration takes
the player hostile attitufe, ie- the "us against them" kind of
attitude, that is at the heart of the idea that you have to
frustrate players, but not to the point that you make them
leave. I noticed you snipped that part out, and it was probably
the most important point. If you see the act of balancing a
mud as merely trying to approach the point where you've
frustrated the players enough to leave, then you've got a
player hostile attitude. It kills muds. (And note: the whole
time the administrator means well, even if he/she lost
sight of the fact that if the player's don't ultimately
enjoy themselves, the mud fails.)
> [....]
>
> > > 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.
*sigh* Of course life should be hard on the mud, but only insofar
as it increases player's enjoyment in the end. I don't think you
understand, something can be hard on the players but not contribute
to their enjoyment in the end. I keep trying to get this across, but
all I ever hear back is that you need to be hard on the players in
order to have a balanced mud. Duh, I've been saying you need to be
hard on them all along, but only insofar as you ultimately add
to their enjoyment when they do succeed (or while they're trying to
succeed, even.) It's more than some pedantic point or playing
with words. Administrators, for some reason, seem to quickly lose
sight of the fact that their player's enjoyment is what makes
the mud healthy.
[snip]
> 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.
If you feel it is a non issue, then you have not read carefully
enough. This is not just something with Daniel in particular, but
it's a general unhealthy attitude that goes around. Many
administrators directly equate being hard on their players with
increasing their players enjoyment, and such a thing is quite
silly since not everything which makes life harder on the players
will increase their overall satisfaction. Let me repeat that
again: Not everything which makes life harder on the players
will increase their overall satisfaction. It's such an easy
point, and so obvious! Yet, I have found it's one of the
hardest for people to realize. Why is that?
As for the idea that you make life hard on the players, but
not to the point that they leave.... well, that's flawed on
a basic level. If you see your job as approaching the point
where you make players leave (but not beyond), then you've
got the wrong goal in mind.
> It makes you
> look like you are just looking for an argument.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I have refrained from calling names
or responding to names I've been called. I've tried to make it
clear where I agree and where I disagree. In other words, I have
been trying my hardest to have a serious discussion.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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