MMOGs Unfair!

http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2006/04/shades_of_collu.html

2006/04/10

Are MMOGs unfair to some players?

1. Talking about "fairness" requires asking the question: fairness to whom?

Around whose idea of fairness should a MMOG be designed? Should the game be structured to be fair to (i.e., to provide rewards to) the smart, persistent, socially connected player? Or should it be designed to be fair to the average, casual, independent player?

Political conservatives often feel that their liberal friends misunderstand the concept of fairness. Conservative theorists like to point out that there's a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. From their perspective, defining fairness as equality of opportunity is preferable because rewarding effort yields positive results for a society; defining fairness as equality of outcome damages a society because it devalues effort.

Following this philosophy, the optimal MMOG environment would have equality of opportunity for all players, but would not try to guarantee equality of outcome. Every player would have the same chances to create a "good" character, to fully explore the game's content, and to join a guild. And from those voluntary actions, players are free to reap the benefits of smart, persistent, and organized action. "Fairness" means that those who put in the effort get the most rewards.

Isn't this pretty much the situation we have now in most MMOGs?

I think a good argument could be made that it is. Although I'd discourage anyone from leaping into the Michael Moore fantasyland on this, I believe it's probably fair to conclude that the Pareto effect shows up many MMOGs with strong player economies because these game economies are designed around the conservative "equality of opportunity" philosophy of fairness.

MMOGs that embrace the conservative assumption that effort should be rewarded wind up with power law distributions of economic assets.

2. I think we should elect game developers into positions of political leadership. Especially over the economy.

Oh, dear God, no.

The reason we have questions of fairness coming up with respect to MMOGs is because the efforts at social engineering that constitute MMOG design are surprisingly short-sighted. The whole idea of MMOGs is that they're "massively multiplayer," but where's the testing that would reveal how a few smart, hard-working, and organized players can so quickly dominate an entire server's economy?

If a game's economy isn't consciously designed to produce equality of outcome, why should anyone be surprised when a relatively small number of players is able to dominate that economy? If there aren't features imposed that "punish" the hard-working players in order to flatten out the power curve, why be surprised that the average, casual, solo player complains that the game is "unfair?"

Those who practice social engineering in politics (whether from the Left or the Right) are very bad at it. But they're still demonstrably more effective than MMOG designers, who always seem startled when a few players take over a server.

The latter aren't people I want trying to impose social engineering on a grand scale, no.

3. How much of the dramatic shape of the power curve in MMOG economies is due primarily to their laser-like focus on Achiever gameplay?

When you design a game in which the most prevalent form of reward by far is "stuff" of one kind or another (XP, skill level or character level, money, loot, rank, badges, etc., etc.), you dramatically sharpen the shape of the power distribution curve.

If you build an accumulation game, the Achievers will come. And they will bring with them their certainty that fairness means equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, and you will get the Pareto effect in spades.

4. Well, what about actively trying to flatten the curve?

If designers placed caps on how much and how quickly rewards could accrue from effort, or defied convention by consciously offering social and exploratory gameplay comparable in power to commercial and combat gameplay, or offered few accumulatable rewards, would it work? Would it be a fun game?

Would it be a commercially successful game? Would hardcore players want to play a game where the "weak" are rewarded, where fairness is defined to be equality of outcome?

Is there a functional middle ground between equality of opportunity (power law) and equality of outcome (flip a coin)?