For over 20 years (Bartle 1990) it has been known that there are 4 types of players in any MMO and EVE Online is no different.
There are four main types of things that people enjoy doing in an online game and each reflects a different type of player.
Achievements - These can be killmails, accumulating a set number of millions of ISK, visiting every special sites, doing a Grand Tour of the Galaxy, etc..
Exploration - People like to find new things, find out where that Wormhole goes to, fly alone in nullsec, but also explore different skills combinations, discover new modules, etc..
Socialising - Self explanatory. Just look at the number of people in the help chat or E-UNI.
Imposition - Griefing, ganking, piration and pvp are popular activities.
A Graph can be constructed linking these types of players (in diagonals) and the type of game objective the company (like CCP) provides.
ACTING
Killers | Achievers
|
|
|
|
|
PLAYERS -------------------+------------------- WORLD
|
|
|
|
|
Socialisers | Explorers
INTERACTING
Making changes in the game rules and systems will push the system towards one or the other and favour these players more.
For example adding more interaction will please the Socialisers and Explorers but will attract the ire of the killers and achievers.
For a more complete explanation please read:
Richard Bartle - HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS
This is an old paper and the reference to MUD can easilly be replaced by the more modern term of MMO.
Towards the end Bartle argues that increasing or decreasing the number of one type of player has an effect of the total population. This is done by the company (CCP) by introducing new rules, mechanics and features.
For example the recent introduction of the 3D character portraits pleased the Socialisers greatly. The Sansha Incursions will favour the Achievers and some Explorers. etc..
Another example is the (in)famous Hulkagedon. The Miners (achievers) get griefed by the gankers (killers).
When CCP talks about "balancing" the game they must keep in mind that EVE Online must remain a Bartle's type 3 game:
Quote:
3) A MUD where all groups have a similar influence (although not necessarily similar numbers).
By nurturing explorers using software means (ie. giving the game great depth or "mystique", or encouraging non-explorers to dabble for a while by regularly adding new areas and features), the overall population of explorers will gradually rise, and the killer population will be held in check by them.
The killers who remain do exert an influence on the number of socialisers, sufficient to stop them from going into fast-breeder mode, but insufficient to initiate an exodus.
Achievers are set upon by killers often enough to feel that their achievements in the game have meaning.
This is perhaps the most balanced form of MUD, since players can change their position on the interest graph far more freely:
achievers can become explorers, explorers can become socialisers, socialisers can become achievers - all without sacrificing stability.
However, actually attaining that stability in the first place is very difficult indeed; it requires not only a level of game design beyond what most MUDs can draw on, but time and player management skills that aren't usually available to MUD administrators.
Furthermore, the administrators need to recognise that they are aiming for a player mix of this kind in advance, because the chances of its occurring accidentally are slim.
This was already known in the early 1990's. But some 22 years earlier (Hardin 1968) the Texan ecologist was writing "The Tragedy of the Commons"
Garrett Hardin - The Tragedy of the Commons
The simplified situation based on medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze.
In Hardin's example, it is in each herder's interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the quality of the common is temporarily or permanently damaged for all as a result, through over grazing.
The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group.
If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed to the detriment of all.
In EVE Online, the "Commons" can be the asteroid belts. Every new Hulk miner reduces the amount of ore available to all other miners. The Eve Commons are vast but with the increasing population (total number of accounts) a point will be reached when "The Tragedy of the Commons" will be felt.
And the Commons are not restricted to just Mineral resources. There are also other "Commons" to be found in Trade, Manufacture and even Pirating.
Let's imagine that EVE Online current 300,000+ population was to increase closer to the millions of accounts boasted by a mmo like Wow and assuming CCP has the technology to accomodate them on a single server... (the mind boggles)
There would be so many rookie pirates flying in squads of 100's of frigates. Travelling even in Hisec space would become almost certain suicide. But finding a prey would also become problematic for these huge numbers of pirates.
A Tragedy of the Commons.
Now the difference between EVE Online and Real Life Commons is that CCP can always add one more Blade in the server and add a few more Star Systems in the next expension. Therefore enlarging their Commons at will.
Hardin's First Law of Ecology, which states "You cannot do only one thing".
Garrett say hello to Richard.
No comments:
Post a Comment