It is currently Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:47 am

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Do we want to attract new players to MOOS?
Poll ended at Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:48 pm
Do you want MOOS to attract new players? 66%  66%  [ 60 ]
You do NOT want to attract new players? 7%  7%  [ 6 ]
Do you NOT care either way? 25%  25%  [ 23 ]
Only matters if MOOS is not cheap to run? 2%  2%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 91
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:45 pm
Posts: 2553
I'd love to answer that poll, but the choices don't make sense...

But to answer the question "Do you want to attract new players?", I say yes. Part of a multiplayer game is having other people to play it with -- if we don't attract players we kind of lose that aspect.

That being said, I somewhat agree with what Christian Walther said in the post that you quoted; there is a limit to what you should do to attract players. For example, lots of people play World of Warcraft, but that doesn't mean we should make Uru into a WoW-style game because that will drive away people who like to play Uru because it's not like WoW. In our attempt to attract players we need a certain balance or limit to what we do.

_________________
Nothing to see here, move along.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:39 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 817
Location: Switzerland
Thanks for bringing this into its own thread, Nalates. You might be interested to know that you were one of the people I explicitly had in mind when I wrote "and others" to indicate that my response was not specifically directed at TOOO.

Very good discussion, and I'm happy to see that many people agree with me and even manage to put my opinion into words better than I ever could. Let me try to make myself clearer anyway.

The point I was trying to make is that to me, attracting people to Uru is no longer a goal in itself. It's actually a pretty simple selfish economical consideration: If we tweak variable x in Uru and that results in an increase in attractiveness to a hundred new players and in a decrease in attractiveness to me, then that may well be a great improvement to the overall success and popularity of Uru, but it would still be a loss to me, and therefore against my personal interest. If tweaking variable y results in higher attractiveness to the hundred new players and no change in attractiveness to me, then I don't care. If tweaking variable z results in higher attractiveness to me, then I'm in favor of it, no matter what it does to the hundred new players.

Another point is the community. I am a very solitary person at heart. The only reason why I play this multiplayer game and am active in this community at all is that I've found it to consist of a special kind of friendly and intelligent people that I get along with well and like to learn from. I'm all for attracting more people of that kind (and I do believe that there are more of them out there, that just haven't heard of Uru because it wasn't properly marketed to them). But if your goal is to attract more people of any kind, in particular the average gamer populace, then I fear that achievement of that goal might make me feel less at home here and reduce my enjoyment of multiplayer Uru, in the worst case to the point of driving me away from the community and back to playing single-player games.

I have not voted in this poll because none of the choices adequately express my opinion, as others have already observed. The closest one would be "Do you NOT care either way?". The opinion I meant to state with my initial post is:
  • My goal is not attracting people to Uru. My goal is improving Uru for ourselves, the current community (dare I say for myself?).
  • Attracting more people of our kind (the means to which may include making changes to Uru that are perceived as an improvement by the majority of the current community), while not my primary goal, is a goal I agree with.
  • Attracting people of more, additional kinds is a goal I strongly disagree with, because it is likely to reduce attractiveness to me.
  • I don't particularly care whether the community becomes bigger or smaller over time. I'm not worried about extinction - it only takes one dedicated person to run a server, a few dedicated people to write interesting new Ages, a few friends to play with. And even if the community does eventually fall apart, I don't see that as a bad thing that needs to be prevented at all cost. Other ways of passing my time will come after it, it will have been fun while it lasted.

Now as to my use of the word freed.

In the past, my enjoyment of Uru has been directly linked to Uru's ability to attract players, of any kind, because they paid the bills. When they weren't there, as happened twice, the servers were shut down, and my enjoyment of Uru forcibly dropped to zero*. Therefore, to prevent that, attractiveness at all cost was in my personal interest, to a certain degree.

With open source Uru, I firmly believe that this constraint, while not completely lifted (is that what you're getting at?), is strongly reduced. Freed might be too strong a word for a detailed treatment of the subject, but I do think it's the right word for summarizing it in one sentence. Reasons are:
  • Running servers that support a large number of players around the world will still cost money and that money will have to come from somewhere. But we're less reliant on sheer number of players because we have different avenues for raising that money than a commercial business had. A single patron or a small group might bring it up on their own. A shrinking population might be counteracted by increased contributions of individuals.
  • Servers for small groups of people will be run by dedicated individuals at minimal cost because the operators take advantage of capacities they already have.

I do think that Uru is being freed from a lot of economical constraints, the constraints that brought it down twice. I say "is being" and not "has been" because the code isn't out yet and we don't know yet how this is all going to turn out. Exciting times ahead!

* With "Uru" in the strict sense of "Uru the multiplayer online game", that is. In the broader sense of "Uru the community and everything that's going on around it", my enjoyment of Uru has been well in the positive range all over the past year. As I wrote elsewhere, "If these eight months away from Uru have taught me anything, it's that even without an online Uru running, there is absolutely no lack of Uru-related things to do".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:28 am
Posts: 687
Location: Bevin Field Office - KI: 01350736
I see two wholly distinct issues raised in the first post.

The one, which I assume Christian Walther was talking about, is the need to be " casual gamer-friendly" as opposed to providing the sort of experience that Uru should be (however you wish to define that). The usual hardcore-versus-casual argument seen on niche gaming message boards, for example.

The other question, which the topic author seems to be thinking about, is wholly different...sure, it'd be nice if people could run it on their laptops ( ;) ), but that's almost a separate architectural issue. I don't think that it's really appropriate to start retooling the game to look different than the original 2003-ish incarnation because there'll be jarring seams between new and old content. I'm assuming that's what's meant, since I can't imagine the people handing the source would want to ignore performance concerns or not implement better functions for the KI, Nexus, and other backend features.

There certainly is a devil-may-care undertone to the quoted post by Mr. Walther that I both agree with and don't agree with. Yes, Uru should be Uru, and Myst should be Myst. It shouldn't be bent into something else...but the whole nature of the game is an open question right now. Secondly, I also wouldn't want people to stop caring about usability issues and other things that will make the game more friendly to new explorers (I think most of those are techinical issues, though; the game design and usability is pretty stellar, and at worst outdated in others - like the KI).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 1814
Location: California
chucker wrote:
Your poll answers create a false dichotomy. Christian isn't saying that he wants to explicitly exclude new players; he's saying that we shouldn't bend Uru in order to make it more attractive.

I don’t think the poll creates the dichotomy… It is not about “what is” … it is about what do you think and want. Nor have I seen a feeling in the community by anyone that they think there should be exclusion.

MustardJeep wrote:
<Shocking> Uru needs more people playing it. If the community can't explore the possibilities trying new things that may interest people I'll eat my hat.

If it is a chocolate hat… I’ll help. Otherwise, nooooooooo, don’t do it.

Sophia wrote:
But but... isn't it expensive to attract more players? Think of the server(s) bandwidth(s) :shock: I say it is high time we kick some OUT so at least WE can play :lol: :lol: :lol: /runs!

You better run, Sophia … lol throws chocolate… :P
Marketing can be expensive. More people will create a need for more bandwidth. We don’t know if bandwidth cost is going to be a problem. In other threads these are good practical and technical reasons to consider and discuss. OpenUru.org has a thread on reducing lag, which could lead to a need for less bandwidth.

Neereus wrote:
Problem is you are equating changing Uru and attracting new players.

huh… no. I asked if people think Uru needed new players, which would sort of guide decisions on whether change may or may not be needed. And how does asking people what they think alienate one group or the other?

Emor D'ni Lap wrote:
This more-players-is-better thinking seems like a bit of a hangover from MO:UL days, or from Ubi days, when more players meant more income […snip…]
[…snip…]as Sophia has pointed out, more players may actually cost those volunteer server hosts having to pay for extra bandwidth and processing power.

[…snip…]Once we're satisfied that we have something to really be proud of, once we know our infrastructure is sound, then let's have a discussion about attracting as many players as we think we can handle!

I think I understand. The thing I diverge on is the server code, lag issues, client side UI changes, how game entry is handled (think multi-player starting Cleft) and bandwidth needs and the work that needs to be done now. I think the ‘attraction’ issue prioritizes that work and decisions. With limited resources I think having an idea of where we are going and why is way more efficient.

Christian Walther, your point in the original thread was a surprise to me and triggered my curiosity. Thanks. I rewrote the questions several times trying to get the tech parts and the how things would change issues out of it. I think I understand your sort of well if A then… type answers. I hoped most would see it as the social issue I was wondering about.

As to FREED… I think that is only a possibility for now, but a good word to have used. I hope we find out soon how free it has become.

The majority of the interested seem to think more new players is something they are for. Considering that only 35 of 465 reading the thread voted… I would say the ‘does not care’ population is way higher than shown.

_________________
Nalates - GoC - 418 - MOULa I: Nal KI#00 083 543, MOULa II: KI#00 583 875Nalates 111451 - Second Life: Nalates Urriah
Guild of Cartographers Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:42 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 817
Location: Switzerland
Ed Oscuro wrote:
There certainly is a devil-may-care undertone to the quoted post by Mr. Walther

:) You may call it devil-may-care, yes. I have no problem with that. Keep in mind that I'm only stating my own opinion, I'm not talking about what I think should be done at the end of the day or would be best for the community or the game at large. These are more complicated topics. Obviously other people have different opinions and a good solution should be a function of all opinions.

What prompted me to post in the first place was that the statement "We want to attract people, remember?" seemed to speak on behalf of the entire community (I don't even know if that was what TOOO intended), and I felt compelled to object to that, saying "No, we don't all explicitly want that, to some of us (example: me, here) it is merely a side effect."

Nalates wrote:
Neereus wrote:
Problem is you are equating changing Uru and attracting new players.

huh… no. I asked if people think Uru needed new players, which would sort of guide decisions on whether change may or may not be needed.

You're not doing it here in this thread, but you're doing it in general, in my perception. That is why I said I had your name in mind for the "and others". You may not be doing it consciously, and my perception may be unjustified. For example, you preach about Second Life and learning or borrowing features from it a lot. While I have nothing rational to say against these explanations, they still make me feel a bit uneasy, because Second Life is one of those places that I don't enjoy, and I wouldn't want Uru to become like Second Life.

Nalates wrote:
Christian Walther, your point in the original thread was a surprise to me and triggered my curiosity. Thanks. I rewrote the questions several times trying to get the tech parts and the how things would change issues out of it. I think I understand your sort of well if A then… type answers. I hoped most would see it as the social issue I was wondering about.

For that matter, my point was purely about the "how things would change" issues, if I'm understanding you correctly. But I'm not sure how those are different from the "social issue". Can you expand on that?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 1:04 am
Posts: 4134
Nalates wrote:
chucker wrote:
Your poll answers create a false dichotomy. Christian isn't saying that he wants to explicitly exclude new players; he's saying that we shouldn't bend Uru in order to make it more attractive.

I don’t think the poll creates the dichotomy… It is not about “what is” … it is about what do you think and want. Nor have I seen a feeling in the community by anyone that they think there should be exclusion.

Well, it's nice that you don't think it does... but it does. Particularly with your (rather antagonistic) post as well. Your post and the poll make it out to be either you want new people or you don't (or you don't care etc.).

Quote:
And how does asking people what they think alienate one group or the other?

Well let's use an example. Say I made a topic like "Does MOOS need Second Life?" In which I quoted you saying you liked what Second Life had to offer and think the new Uru gives an opportunity to use stuff from Second Life to improve Uru. And then imagine that I continue the post with something like this:

"The above sentiment surprised me. :shock:
It seems obvious, to me, that Uru is better off without adult areas and flying avatars, but many disagree. From the UU days it seems obvious, to me, that people like what I like, for many reasons. So, in my viewpoint, of course we need to ban flying avatars and any changes to Uru should be made with that in mind. But, is Nalates right that Uru must have the flying avviness? Do we want the flying avviness?

Standard disclaimer, all for entertainment purposes, etc. But the point is that you missed what Christian was saying. From my perspective, it seems like you were so quick to knock off a sensational bogeyman poll you didn't notice the actual point you were driving a bulldozer over (that actual point being talked about by pretty much everyone else here). That impression is simply from my opinion that no one would want to repel fans ("Nooo, go away evil people who might take an interest in this and support us. Nooooo"). I'm pretty much of the same opinion as the other posters here. That the point is that we are not changing Uru INTO other games to try and woo their fanbases. Nor to use their tools (weapons or killing as an example) to popularize Uru. Obviously if there's a set of code that will streamline Uru so it'll run faster/ allow for higher end graphics/ allow for dialup users who have been shut out of MOUL that will get implemented because that's an obvious enhancement.

Now, my impression of your post might be completely wrong (and I hope so). It just seemed like a tabloid headline. Right next to whether some celebrity is having a baby you have "DOES MOOS NEED NEW PLAYERS? SHOCKING QUOTE SHOWS SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT URU TO SUCCEED!"

Edit: Removed sensitive parts.

_________________
-Whilyam
Cavern Link:My IC Blog


Last edited by Whilyam on Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am
Posts: 510
Nalates wrote:
I don’t think the poll creates the dichotomy… It is not about “what is” … it is about what do you think and want. Nor have I seen a feeling in the community by anyone that they think there should be exclusion.

It does, you are trying to show that Uru needs players or new players for development of the game to take place.

Currently we have no code for the game to develop it; therefore we really don’t need developers until such a time as we have code.

So in such a point Uru, MOOS, what silly acronym are we using at the moment?*, definitely does not need to attract new players AT THE MOMENT.

While they are welcome, Uru will be no better off until such a time till we have a stable base to work from.

Attracting new players now will only hurt Uru in the long run, take a look at the publishers who have had Uru over the years for examples of why.

*btw did you know, people who use acronyms in crowded rooms are silly, they don’t understand what they are talking about?

Nalates wrote:
If it is a chocolate hat… I’ll help. Otherwise, nooooooooo, don’t do it.


Tracking back to the original comment, we need to explore the current possibilities first before with thinking about future ones.

Nalates wrote:
Marketing can be expensive. More people will create a need for more bandwidth. We don’t know if bandwidth cost is going to be a problem. In other threads these are good practical and technical reasons to consider and discuss. OpenUru.org has a thread on reducing lag, which could lead to a need for less bandwidth.

This is more technical than marketing. If cyan release the code and people take a look at it and decide that pulling oracle out is too much effort or we can’t do it because it’s tied into parts of the engine we can’t touch then this is a major issue.

Uru will need to find funding from somewhere; to take large donations (we are talking hundreds of dollars+ here) a committee will need to be set up, finances managed, software and servers leased or bought and borrowed where possible. We are talking serious business here if we have to do that.

The more players we get the more we have to consider that the project cannot be funded. So initially what we want to be looking at is providing shards for hundreds of people, instead of thousands.

Reducing lag usually never equates to less bandwidth as it’s still the same data been sent down the lines. So to reducing lag on internet systems you actually increase bandwidth to speed things up, hence more cost.

Nalates wrote:
The thing I diverge on is the server code, lag issues, client side UI changes, how game entry is handled (think multi-player starting Cleft) and bandwidth needs and the work that needs to be done now. I think the ‘attraction’ issue prioritizes that work and decisions. With limited resources I think having an idea of where we are going and why is way more efficient.


Nothing really needs to be done now, a lot of the communities already have the bases covered on issues you raise, and you can be guaranteed that when there is news, it will appear accordingly.

Do we have limited resources? For the moment no, because we have no game to run at the moment, until that time arrives will we really know what we need to do.

Just jumping into something that really we don’t actually have a lot of insight into is wasteful if we have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Nalates wrote:
As to FREED… I think that is only a possibility for now, but a good word to have used. I hope we find out soon how free it has become.


It won’t be as free as people believe; I’ll leave it up to everyone else to guess why.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 11:27 pm
Posts: 963
I think it's wholly irrelevant.

Until Uru was around for quite a bit of time, and it seems that the whole open-sourcing of Uru will retain some similarity to Until Uru. ...or so it seems.

If it's handled in such a way that the Explorer Client is easy to install and use, and logging in and all that is simple, and the cost is essentially free... I don't doubt new people will show up anyhow.


~Joey "Fungus" McToadstool

_________________
"What you still don't understand you have failed to hear or don't need to know..."~Yeesha


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:48 am
Posts: 201
Location: Oldwick, NJ
YES, I want to get a lot of people involve into Uru Live. In fact, we have a bank of fan videos on Youtube to show other people about this online game. I want Open Source Mstonline to be up for years to come.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:31 pm
Posts: 801
Location: Sweden
Hey, I care :)

I did not vote but I do think more players joining is a good thing.

_________________
--- I know what I like and I like what I know ---


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:53 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:31 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Somewhere... I'm always somewhere.
Nalates wrote:
Emor D'ni Lap wrote:
This more-players-is-better thinking seems like a bit of a hangover from MO:UL days, or from Ubi days, when more players meant more income […snip…]
[…snip…]as Sophia has pointed out, more players may actually cost those volunteer server hosts having to pay for extra bandwidth and processing power.

[…snip…]Once we're satisfied that we have something to really be proud of, once we know our infrastructure is sound, then let's have a discussion about attracting as many players as we think we can handle!

I picked this quote 'cause Nalates did a wonderful 'snip' job on Emor's thought.

As 'snip'ped, I really agree that the 'game' will prove itself by what is delivered to us and what we do with it over time. All of us that remain anywhere and anticipate re-entry into the cavern again, makes the 'game' a success' at least to us. The more we do to keep it alive, the more it remains a viable MMO, the more we do to help it grow will anchor it. Those that look, watch and report what Cyan has given and what we have done, will talk. The reports will be heard and read and talked about, by game enthusiasts.
I suspect, and hope, many will come to see and explore. Some few, I think, will always remain, and they will share their new found 'game' and more will come, and on and on.

The tree grows slowly, such that you can't see. It rains, gets warm, the wind blows and leaves fall, and winter slows it even further, but it grows nonetheless.

Nalates wrote:
The majority of the interested seem to think more new players is something they are for. Considering that only 35 of 465 reading the thread voted… I would say the ‘does not care’ population is way higher than shown.

That is also me. It doesn't really matter to me. I want the game for me and all of you my friends. I also have a miniscule part in the effort to keep what it is alive. The decision to let it live or die NEVER rested with us. Soon, or a little while after soon, new players or no new players, that decision will be FOREVER ours.

A

_________________
MOULagainKI# 00102324
'Only the way a man is when he is hidden, is how he is.'
MOULancientKI# 05969479 an old Unbound Heart


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 pm
Posts: 2598
Location: Israel
Uru doesn't NEED to attrect new players. However, if we find ways to improve it, so both new players AND us will enjoy, why not?

Of course, a thing I don't want to see is us changing the concept of the game (guns age?) for new players. But again, if we find anything everyone like, I have no problems.

_________________
Previously known as "The stranger"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:31 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:24 pm
Posts: 255
What we want to do in MOOS is continue creating the vision of Uru that Cyan gave us. Uru is not a slave to commercialism. However, Uru is a vibrant community, and so it will need growth.

In other words, while we should not throw away what Uru fundamentally is in order to attract new players (such as making it a violence or adult content filled game), we should not throw away growth for our own petty interests. We should NEVER throw away growth just to avoid growth.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:56 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 5:28 am
Posts: 2266
Uru needs players, enough players that it's enjoyable to be in the world. Without players, I might at well play the solo player version of Uru. I also think you will need players to support the shards, and to to support (not necessarily financially) the people making ages..

I suspect that we'll need some new players to make up for the number of players that drop out. So yes, Uru will need new players.

_________________
mszv, amarez in Uru, other online games, never use mszv anymore, would like to change it
Blog - http://www.amarez.com, Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/amareze


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:28 am
Posts: 687
Location: Bevin Field Office - KI: 01350736
Christian Walther wrote:
Ed Oscuro wrote:
There certainly is a devil-may-care undertone to the quoted post by Mr. Walther

:) You may call it devil-may-care, yes. I have no problem with that. Keep in mind that I'm only stating my own opinion, I'm not talking about what I think should be done at the end of the day or would be best for the community or the game at large.

If you can excuse some pointed language, consider this argument:

You are a part of the community.
Thus, you are an ambassador for your community.

Being a bad ambassador who uses langugage - however based in fact the opinions they express may be - which even give the appearance of not caring about playing well with others means that you are setting back the project. First off, you aren't improving the Uru experience of many people who are already here; we don't want that talk.

But on the question of more players: We can assume that more players is not a bad thing; after all, the design of Uru explicitly calls for more players than the game is getting right now, which is zero; or even the number who are active on these forums, which is only a few hundred at best. Perhaps more importantly, more players may bring more expertise, artistic and programming. I think it's fairly well established that there are going to be some fairly robust mechanisms in place (as proposed and explained by ddfreyne and SCGreyWolf, and others) to allow at least programming enhancements to take place and be rolled-in efficiently, and at the very least that would mean less bandwidth usage, which means you get a better ping.

Obviously, at the end of the day people need to feel they "were drawn here," to use Zandi's phrase, and we don't need to canvass neighborhoods for new players or hold parades. But clearly this doesn't mean using language that belittles the concerns of the new player, which, as I mention in my theory post about Uru's interfaces, is a core part of the Uru game experience: Uru explores the relationship between the player and an unfamiliar world in which we are (hopefully) constantly exploring and discovering ways in which we are indeed babes in the wild.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: