In our continuing series of discussions about online games, Logan had a conversation with Dale 'WF_Jaruh' Garnier-Wells, Atriarch Community Liaison about the heart of AT, jailing, griefing and economics in Atriarch.

Disclaimer: "Atriarch's feature concepts are discussed through the interprative filter of the individual for the purposes of conversation. These features may or may not be present in the current beta environment or at initial release depending on factors outside the control of the individual and/or World Fusion."

Jaruh
Everyone in the community uses AT, though you're not alone in the spelling dept. Most people think it's a misspelling of patriarch or matriarch. When I read your initial set of questions it didn't seem to touch on anything meaningful to the heart of Atriarch--as the question focus expected combat to be the only meaningful immersion methodology.


Logan
I guess a good question would be 'What is the heart of AT'?

Jaruh
*rubs hands and steps up to the microphone*

What is the heart of AT?

One of Atriarch's founding design tenet is to give players the tools for interacting with and affecting the world through construction, politics, economy, quests, etc. In previous MMOG iterations, these tools are a patched afterthought and even then are not fully explored. By giving players opportunities to affect the world in different ways, we move away from the "treadmill" (kill-level-kill) design that other games have at their base.

Being an RPG-Strategy hybrid, Atriarch's design will satisfy every gamer-archetype. Within the Volcano engine, there aren't delimited "professions" (sometimes called classes in other games) so skill specialization and propensities will allow greater breadth in the professions players will be able to choose. You will not have to be combatative to be a good baker and vice versa! Everyone can be a "thief" or "explorer" or "baker" but those who specialize in certain skills will be better at it.

You raised the concern that griefers will find Atriarch easy to ruin due to a perception that the development team is lax in its policies. Learning from the successes and flaws in other games, Atriarch's design allows for better victim prevention and support.

Community management is a partnership between the developer and the community itself! World Fusion is committed to having great customer service support separate from the people who are offering RP-content (quests and other events). World Fusion makes a distinction between harassers, abusers and annoying game-choices. The first two problem-types will be swiftly removed from the world; the latter can be dealt with by the affected players.

The problem with "grief" is that it is personal and subjective. Therefore, the best way to deal with "grief" is to give the players the opportunity to deal with the situations themselves rather than always requiring an unbiased third-party for satisfaction.

The ubiquitous "/ignore" feature will exist as will channel-toggling.

Unlike other games, players have an opportunity to both build and set security features (ie. who has access) for their buildings either through natives or the buildings themselves. Players will have an impact on their social "laws" and be able to create/support those laws with action, such as being able to remove someone from their jurisdiction or jail them.

Since death is not the premise of the game, it is less likely that newbie-ganking will occur unless they (and not their aggressor) have done something extreme such that death is the only choice.

By only having a singular hard coded policy from the developers, you weaken the ability to effectively deal with subjective issues. There are counters (and possibilities for other problems) for every positive solution to "grief" and that is exactly why you want to empower the players as much as possible, so they can create their own solutions and outcomes!

Logan
Can you describe the step by step procedure needed to jail someone? Does the town council have to meet to vote on whether that person should be jailed or not? Is there a sheriff who is empowered to jail people by targeting them and typing /jail ?

Once we figure out that, my question would be: Once someone is in jail, are they just screwed or can they attempt to escape? How long are they stuck there? When their time expires to be in the jail, are they able to be immediately jailed again by the sheriff (et al) or do they spawn outside of the settlement? Is their spawn point (leaving jail to the outside world) fixed? Can they be off line while their character is serving jail time? Can they play another character while the one is stuck in jail?

The more exact procedure you give me, the more I can determine 'griefability'. I'd like to be able to see the players get the tools to deal with griefers in their hands but what will keep them from griefing with those tools?
I am interested only in those things that don't require a human CS person to deal with. I have found that CS folks a) have better things to do (like pull folks out from under the world) b) are human, therefore subjective and fallible c) usually so busy that even if someone reports something it could take them several hours if not several days to get back to a call should this game enjoy the success of any other MMOLG out there.
Those are some questions off of the top of my head and with less than one cup of tea in me. Sorry if they are less than coherent.

Jaruh
As for the "jail vs. grief" concept, I cannot go into as much detail as you want, which is a general issue regarding any game in beta and specific to Atriarch. However, here is the design concept (subject to change of course).

A preface: there are some people who won't be satisfied until every singular person can do everything, however, Atriarch isn't a single-player game so the dependence on others isn't a bad thing imho.

Atriarch allows for combat to end with a knockout rather than death. Upon knockout the player can then drag the offender (or use their native/animal beast of burden) back to the "jail". Unlike players, cities have levels; you won't be able to create a "jail" until you have created other buildings. The jail could be either player or native-run and buildings do not have "functionality" until you purchase such an upgrade. Its likely that the native-run function will have some expiration-time and recapture script but that's a supposition.

Suppose that someone gets jailed for griefing. A player is involved all the way through the process. If the jailers have taken the griefer but failed to provide proper "coverage" or if the person has "done their time" then the person has nothing stopping them from getting away. Remember that the code has no say as to who is in the right--its possible that "innocent" people could be captured and jailed.
Since everything is physical, if you can find a way out of the jail (or bribe your way out, there's no reason you can't leave. In other words, if the door is open, you could walk out. Also, with global telepathy (ie. global channels, tells), it is quite likely that you can contact your friends to attempt a jail break. If you can fight your way out then there's nothing hardcoded to inhibit that.

The self in jail would sit there until otherwise treated (released, freed, killed) so, since everything is persistent, if you have other characters, you could form your own group and come to your own rescue!
Your spawn point is set depending on where you complete your Lineage quest (we can discuss that in a different conversation if you want) so it is "static" in the sense that your current location doesn't affect it but keep in mind that death is hard to accomplish and there is not a /suicide command.


Logan
I think dependence on others is a bad thing. I think interdependence is a great thing. To illustrate my point: In Everquest, melee classes use to be completely dependent on casters to get 'bound' in a city. That was a bad thing. I'd perfer to have people be interdependant. For example, let's say you make swords. I am completely dependant on you to make me my sword. If you are completely dependant on me to supply the metal you use, we have achieved interdependence. Screwing over the other person would result in cutting your own throat.

I do like players being able to only have one sort of crafting skill period. In Dark Ages of Camelot, they attempted to create interdependence, but failed. For example, smiths were dependent upon tailors to supply high end leather gear (backings, etc) that went into some of the better player made armors. As tailors could develop a small amount of metal working, they were not at all dependant upon smiths. End result, dependence. I'd personally like it if every player had only one, or a small part of one, craft they could do. In other words, if a player could only tailor and never get any skill at metal working, pottery, etc, that is good. If a player could only tailor silk and never achieve any skill at any other type of cloth that would create a much more complex market - perhaps even unnecessarily so. My main point would be to prevent the medical doctors who also have a degree in law and physics as well as being able to pour concrete. It doesn't happen in real life, I would like for art to mirror life.

You mentioned that if someone knocks out their victim in AT, they can drag that person off. I am wondering if someone could 'grief' others by say walling their character into a thickly walled room (ala Edgar Allen Poe) or drag them into a volcano, etc.

You also mentioned that there was no /suicide command. I am wondering if it might be wise to allow that option after a certain length of time, just to let a character eventually be able to be played. Do you really want people to have to leave their characters to rot for a real life month? A real life year? I'm wondering what the repercussions to revenues would be. If the developers said "We don't believe anyone should be punished for more than two weeks (etc)" and had the possibility of suicide after that point, that could be a balance. Otherwise what would keep me from say building a house and entombing people in it forever? Not everyone has a lot of friends who can be counted on to break them out.

Jaruh
I believe there is a fine line between dependence, interdependence and a shared system. Also, what is played and what is intended are often quite different if all factors aren't considered before during and after implementation. In a system that requires classes or other regimented differentiation of people, its easier to fall into dependence issues. I don't want to spend too much time on it in this discussion but I disagree with your exclusionary craft system in a world-simulation because it only benefits the system and not the people (free-will maximizers) within said system. But then, I've always hated forced-path gaming.

You made another comment earlier that you preferred non-human CS intervention and I would argue that the more code-solutions you offer, the easier it is to grief since code has no real valuation system. So, I'd argue that the code should make the system easier for everyone to interact, but shouldn't replace the players. I've read your essays on the topic, but as you've said, I've yet to see a game that is truly anti-grief work. I think that giving useful player tools makes it easier to share the weight of the work though designer-policy decides whether it lives or dies.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I think that every design has to be careful not to give things away too easy (or conversely make them too difficult), and this is a perfect example of where it would be easy to give in.

Is it possible to create an abbattoir-esque system? I'm sure with ingenuity it would be possible though I doubt it would be easy to create or quick. Atriarch's building design will require you to gain skill to create buildings with nuances; it will require specific locations to ensure you can build, etc etc. In other words, the cost will probably ensure that not everyone will go to such an extent to grief. Oh, and don't forget that if you build through a creatures grazing grounds, you'll have to contend with that as well. Buildings aren't automatically safe, permanent or perfect. Atriarch supports construction and deconstruction skills as well as the old standard destruction method. Just as building takes time, so should the escape. Is that reasonable? To me, yes. Is it "fun"? Depends on the player, their style, goals and patience level. Is it grief? Again, depends on the perspective.

It wouldn't make sense for an auto-eject function from an abattoir (since magic doesn't exist in Atriarch) but I could see such a script on a native-patroled jail. However, I'd rather see some form of holistic solution (bribery, befriending, poor scheduling or building maintenance flaw) than have code exert extra-world determination on the code. Again, having "a lot of friends" doesn't stop you from gathering your own characters and some natives for some rescue work.

I agree that there are repercussions for any design, so both an inclusion or exclusion of a /suicide command would raise flags for people. If Atriarch were a single-slot game, I think such a command would make more sense than a multiple-slot persistent world. While I think that some variation of a /suicide command would have its place, I think that is not a solution unto itself. In other words, it should be as laden with context and cost rather than being a meta-command like /quit or /chat. Remember that Atriarch is persistent therefore there one's existence and/or demise impacts the rest of the world. Again, I believe that this topic is so steeped in issues and implications that it warrants its own discussion.

Logan
I think that the game (any MMOLG) evolves in ways unforeseen by it's creators. This is why companies like Verant can hit a lot of disconnects when trying to tap in to what the real issues for players are. I think that sort of thing happens when any game that is persistent and multiplayer - it evolves a life of its own. I would agree with you in that this can be reduced if a lot of factors are considered before and after implementation - unfortunately, it is almost impossible to consider all of the factors prior to release, and the scream of 'nerf!' is applied to almost any change post-release.

I think that in order to actually build an economy, you will have to set up various 'barriers to entry' on crafts. In a world where everyone can do everything you don't have any real economy set up. There is some economic theory (I forget what it is called) that states that if you produce A and I produce B, it must be cheaper/easier for you to produce a surplus of A to trade for my surplus of B for us to do business. If we can produce both A and B easily, why would we ever try to do business? If anyone can learn any skill, I'd have barriers to entry for getting into various crafts. For example, in AT you spoke of buildings actually serving a purpose (GOOD!). Lets pretend that I wanted to become a baker. Lets assume for a moment that the ONLY place I could practice baking was in a building (we'll call it a 'bakery'), as opposed to Everquest where you wander around with a cooking spit or use public ovens. That is one barrier to entry in that I actually have to buy the building, not just learn the skill. This also provides a nice side benefit that other players now know where to get baked goods.

Even if you were just making special food for your own characters, other players might stop in from time to time requesting to buy food. That leads to other factors, like location and reputation kicking in. You aren't really 'forcing' someone's development at that point - you are merely making it economically nonviable for them to 'do it all'.

I'd also have to agree with your assessment of 'the more code-solutions you offer, the easier it is to grief since code has no real valuation system.' I merely offer the automated 'kick them out of jail' as an emergency contingency code. I don't want someone to stop paying me $10+ per month because they can't get out of where ever you have stuck them to rot.

Jaruh
It is likely that we will disagree on the "how" but not the "why", as that seems to be the pattern. ;)

I agree that there need to be "barrier to entry" checks and balances especially in the skill section of design. In Atriarch there are different levels of crafting ranging from "practicing" to full-fledged use. I believe that location, cost and circumstance should all be factors, not just one aspect--being rich isn't enough.
A single person out of the gate (not a power leveled alternate) will not be able to afford constructing their own building. However, there will be "starter" cities (given that the civilizations have been around forever that players will be able to get their starts. I don't believe that the crafting-practice should be restricted to only x-locations unless the nature of the craft demands it. i.e. you need to be near a forge to practice with the forge, but you don't need to be in a building to whittle a piece of wood.

On the other hand, I would hate to see people locked to single locations due to external code rather than craft-requirements, city sprawl or faction allocation/distribution issues or other common sense issues that may arise with the specific craft/skill. As long as it is possible for people to create alternate locations (whatever the cost/timing of that would be) then its fair to have some location requirement.

No one should be hindered from being both a baker and a fletcher but they should not be able to necessarily bake in a fletcher "shop". Atriarch is not a class-based game so there may be more crossover than you are comfortable with. ;)

More discussions with Jaruh will follow shortly. This descussion and other interesting goodies can also be found on Logan's own site Recon! News.