The Cesspit. - Home of the fool (on a hill)

PvP rule number one

Tue, 20 May 2008 15:46:07 -0700

Just to reiterate:

Systems like PvP escalate and specialize over time. This always means that it gets harder and harder for new players to breach in easily.

Veterans will find ways to stay IN the system, by consolidating their victory margins.

My point is: you need a PvP system that keeps entry costs low *for noobs*.

Where instead Eve-Online's PvP lowers costs for veterans and makes them higher for noobs (as you are "paid" only when you are moving toward a decent victory ratio).

You absolutely need, in order to make it viable, a system that leverages new players.

--
Discussing all this I think: why I have to repeat these basic lessons all over again? Because we've been through this.

Blizzard, with WoW, already put in practice that rule in a perfect way. PvP is accessible to everyone and maintains low entry costs. So we are already there.

But that's counterbalanced by the fact that WoW's PvP is shallow and lacking any depth due to the overall layer being completely absent. Not the meaningfulness of the death penalties, but that of the conquest system and overall cooperation toward communal goals and a degree of persistence.

WoW got one part. Eve-Online has the other.

We got 1 and 1 in two different games. And we need someone who can do a 1 + 1.

Warhammer?

PvP design philosophy

Mon, 19 May 2008 17:42:20 -0700

Discussing on the forums the Factional Warfare concept that I criticized here revealed something rather important: I'm ranting about a game that I don't play.

Moreover, I'm ranting simply because CCP design didn't follow my own expectations and desires. And obviously CCP isn't my property and what I personally think doesn't matter.

So: I'm ranting because an hardcore game is made for its audience, and not for me.

Sure. I anticipated this and explained my reasons on the first post I wrote recently. Where I wrote that my opinion is that Eve-Online has reached its critical mass and if they now want new players they need to start open up their systems. Bridging the early (and dull) game to the more deep stuff.

Factional Warfare isn't doing that, and I ranted.

This also raised again the idea of a PvP design philosophy. A concept that I would like to see in at least ONE game. But that right now is completely absent from the market.

Which would be then meaningful only if there would be a big market for it. I believe there is. And that it is commercially BIGGER than what we have currently (for PvP). So: design philosophy and personal opinions. Personal opinions that matter not because *I* write them, but because when I write them I also *motivate* them.

This PvP design philosophy is about the progression system. Every decent system needs a progression. And every decent progression needs to be accessible. So that everyone can move through. More slowly or faster, but still move through.

Translating this to PvP simply means: PvP will NEVER be accessible and widespread if it works at a loss. So this is how it should work: if you want a system where PvP is more frequent and fun, then you need a system where people can participate without losing more they can gain.

In a system where the experienced players are MUCH, MUCH powerful than new people who enter for the first time, you need some mechanic to leverage them. Especially in the longer term, when people who are already inside become more and more powerful and the wall to climb for the new players higher and higher. In Eve it doesn't matter if there's a corp who decides to take over, new players won't have a chance if they enter a system where EVERYONE is more powerful than they are.

For PvP to work and be popular and widespread entry costs need to stay low. As low as possible.

In Eve-Online and other "hardcore" PvP games the costs are instead higher to the lower end than the higher end, where you can develop a fair margin of wealth to stay safe. Noobs pay higher costs than veterans. And this creates a gap between players that is harder and harder to fill, in a similar fashion to what happens with PvE raiding endgame. The game becomes increasingly specialized and less and less appealing and accessible for new players. That for a MMO equals to a progressive, unavoidable decline.

So: a PvP system with very low entry costs and at a gain. Where you gain through participation. Progressively.

In EVERY game and PvP systems you die a lot when you enter for the first time. In Eve-Online not only you would die a lot, but you'll also PAY a lot. So a lot of players shy away because the game isn't for them, while a smaller subset cling to the mechanic and find an exponential success, because once you climb the wall you can look down at things from far above. And it is rewarding.

But it's also an overall mechanic that is divisive and that works only toward a minority. A minority that will be eroded over time.

This means it is a choice, and that there's nothing wrong to make a game that aims at a niche. But you also have to recognize and admit what you're doing.

I'm not fighting against the idea that hardcore players shouldn't have their game. But that PvP can be both deep and accessible. And I want to play that game. And I believe it would be extremely successful.

I don't like the idea that I have to grind boring PvE missions for a week so that I'm able to participate in PvP for an hour. PvE should never be a requirement so that you can enjoy some PvP. I want a PvP system where participation costs are LOWER than the rewards. So that I can stick to it and continue to play and have fun. Without punishing mechanics to push me to the lowest risks.

These are the points I've offered for Eve:
* Open/factional PvP should be limited to SPECIFIC battleground systems tagged for Factional Warfare. While secure space should stay secure even if you are signed in.
* Within these tagged systems NPC factions should provide you the "gear" to use. Gain ranks to get access to better gear/PvP sets. If you blow up, you get replacements. As long you fight for them. (free participation costs)
* Forbid players to bring NPC-rented equipment outside battleground systems. So that the gear you gain can only be used inside this system. (not disrupting the current game)
* Forbid you to swap sets. So that you are only able to fly in NPC-rent sets, and not bring a goddamned Titan to a noob battleground.

The last point would allow these battles to be accessible to everyone, both noobs and hardcore, and yet provide equal opportunities as no one gets access to more powerful stuff.

That's how you "train" people to PvP. By making it fun, accessible and frequent.

To these proposals some players replied that the PvP would lose all "meaningfulness" if you don't risk to lose anything anymore. To that I replied that for me "meaningful PvP" is about communal objectives. Conquering and holding public space, expanding the empire.

I don't intend and don't like "meaningful" as a personal cost.

With that, I hope the argument is exhausted in all its points.

- lowering entry costs
- provide plenty of targets
- create a convergence
- add a strategic communal layer (conquest mode)

Factional Warfare further down the drain

Mon, 19 May 2008 12:05:19 -0700

More dev blogs arrived and they didn't reassure of the situation, they made it, if possible, worse.

Factional Warfare is then nothing even close to make PvP more fun and accessible, it's a way to PRETEND to do it. It works when it will be time to spread around banner ads for the game.

I was worried that the system allowed gankers to finally be able to gank everywhere in space as long their targets were in one of the three enemy factions (which is confirmed), now we learn that not only by enlisting you sign the right to be ganked everywhere, but EVEN NPCs HUNT YOU.

You'll also find that, as a fully paid-up militia member, hostile factions won't like you all that much. If, as an Amarr Militia member, I venture into Rens, the Republic Navy is going to try its hardest to clear me out. Be aware though! The Navies have finally twigged that two frigates and a cruiser aren't really a significant threat these days, so they've upgraded their rapid response teams. Considerably. They won't scramble, but if you hang around expect to get hurt.

Expect to get hurt.

Because these days two frigates and a cruise are no threat within A FUCKING SYSTEM MEANT TO BE ACCESSIBLE.

What the fuck. Petition CCP to forbid them the right to be able to use the "accessible" word ever again. They can't fucking mean it.

And how they expect to protect the Factional Warfare system to fall in the hands of a dominating corp and use it to dominate the rest and destroy the fun for all other players? WITH A COCKBLOCK!

IMPRESSIVE GAME DESIGN MEDAL OF THE YEAR!

Alliances are not allowed to enlist, and neither are corporations in an alliance (or with an outstanding alliance application). There are a number of reasons for this, technical and otherwise, the most important of which is that we just don't want the major power blocs to descend en masse and take over everything. It's obviously not a hard limit on the players involved, but it's designed to encourage the idea that if you're a major player on the nullsec political scene you're already doing something incredibly worthwhile and shouldn't let yourself be distracted by the petty machinations of the Empires.

It reduces the likelihood of Factional Warfare being completely dominated by existing major players by forcing them to divide their characters and their focus if they want to participate without giving up their 0.0 holdings. We don't envision it being a "hard limit" on Alliance players (as distinct from characters), but more a social, logistical and organizational inconvenience which will at the very least reduce their effectiveness a little when deploying Factional Warfare enabled fleets.

So, since they fear that the system can be dominated by existing major players and so losing its (pretended) accessibility, they forbid all alliances to join.

Like if it would prevent anything. This is equal to hide a mammoth behind a blade of grass. But the real reason is that CCP knows well their game. Better than you expect. They know that there are very limited slots for characters and this choice is a brand new incentive to make alts, and so create double accounts. And so pay more. Money ahead of gameplay. First give us money, then we think about how to make a good game.

NOTHING, absolutely nothing, prevents players to organize and dominate the Factional Warfare system. And IT WILL HAPPEN with mathematical certainty. Either that, or the Factional System is so badly designed that no one even cares about it. But if people care about it then you can be sure that someone will try to take over it and damage the fun of others.

If you expect that it won't happen because you put there a minor cockblock then you are absolute fools who never observed dynamics in a MMORPG. Noobs.

I'll tell you how it works. You don't make a good game by limiting WHO can play it or access certain aspects. You make a good game by shaping HOW players interact with it and contribute.

Not who, but how. Anagrams.

CCP go back at fiddling with petty walking simulators and metallic-looking textures. It was better.

Books at my door (with gloating)

Fri, 16 May 2008 15:52:46 -0700

Not just a book, THE book:

It arrived here in very good condition and I'm happy of the purchase. Soooo pretty. And the best edition ever made.

I decided to get it as I didn't have an original copy of the book and because I found out it was available on Amazon relatively for cheap. Now that I have it in my hands I'm not worried anymore to publicize you can have it too for just $53.55 ;)

It IS cheap if you consider it launched at $100-120 and now sold at $85. There's also another 50 Anniversary edition in UK but it isn't as pretty 'n awesome.

This is the book exactly like Tolkien wanted it, one volume and with all the revisions to the text. Researched with extreme meticulosity.

The feature list says:
* Finest edition ever offered, complete in one volume
* Fully corrected, all new text setting
* Color insert showing leaves from the Book of Mazarbul (Tolkien's own painting, three pages)
* Deluxe leather binding with two-color foil stamping
* Gilded edges, ribbon bookmark
* Two foldout two-color maps (standard and Gondor)

To this I add there's a third map at the beginning of the book showing The Shire and the book has an index at the end with names and places similar to the one Tolkien wanted to add. There are also three different introductions, two explaining the various revisions to the text and the different editions, and one of Tolkien himself extremely interesting and explaining how the novel was conceived and its purpose.

Th prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, or deeply move them.

The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except oner that has been noted by others: the book is too short.

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of the readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

A few days before I also received a completely different book:

This came out a couple of weeks ago in the UK mass market edition, the one I got.

Can't read it yet since I've read it spoils some plots in Erikson's later novels I still have to read. 470 pages but it has just around 200 real ones as it's written huge like a book for kids. I would have liked it more in a smaller edition, odd choice they made. It also contains two maps, one of the Malaz city (already appeared in one of Erikson's books) and another I haven't seen before of the Malaz island.

While I can't read it yet I've skimmed it, especially because at the end there's the prologue and first chapter of "Return of the Crimson Guard", the first "serious" book written by Esslemont and with the ambition to rival Erikson in depth and complexity. I'm not sure I like the style, it's more plain compared to Erikson and with short phrases. But it seems evocative.

Next week Pat should write down the first review, so we'll have more clues about whether it is good or not. I really hope it is valid so I'll have more and more and more to read about a world that I truly like.

For now we are left with one liners:

I'm about 100 pages into it and I have to agree that ICE has matured as a writer. This one reads more easily than NoK.

For those who were disappointed by NoK, know that RofCG is as convoluted (so far) as any of SE's Malazan offerings.

220 pages into it, and it's pretty damn good so far!

Storywise, RotCG is on par with most Malazan books by SE. But though his writing style has improved, ICE's prose is not as fluid as SE.

Nevertheless, in terms of plotlines and such, this is a terrific book so far!

336 pages into it, and things have definitely started to heat up!

430 pages into it, and let me just tell you that TtH will have to be quite something to be the top Malazan...

The book will be published in UK in August.

I'm also eager to read the first impression of Toll the Hounds. Really, really hope it will be good.

Enthusiasm for Factional Warfare already smothered

Fri, 16 May 2008 12:08:59 -0700

Goodbye to the hopes that Eve-Online may become a game I like and decide to play.

Two short posts of a dev on a forum and all the nightmares are coming alive:

If you sign up for a faction you can be attacked by anyone in opposing factions anywhere. it is that in low-sec we have marked out control points which will bring the combat to them making it easier for you to find and take part in.

Attacked by anyone anywhere? Wow...

This means they are basically removing the whole concept of CONCORD polishing empire space. It's like in Ultima Online being ganked right next the bank in Britain because your guild declared war on another. Considering that there are four factions, it means that the number of targets in empire space will be still high, and that you won't be safe anymore ANYWHERE.

Or: this game isn't for noobs. Go away.

Then it gets worse:

This is something that should become clearer over the next few blogs, but for now let me just say that while there's no functional limitations on what you can do solo, you may want to try and find some ad-hoc FW-buddies to give you a bit of leverage

No functional limitations.

It basically means that in practice if you are solo you'll only be a bag of money for others, and there's no fucking possibility that you can compete if you don't have support of others. Or a lot of wealth to be ahead of others.

So the whole concept completely FUCKED. The accessibility of the system as the goal just completely gutted.

Instead of catering to those disorganized players who have difficulty to access the later part of the game, they make a system that is going to be used mainly and ONCE AGAIN by organized players who can take control of IT and farm the few noobs that are curious.

So what's the difference from before? License to kill.

If before the gankers and carebears sit in two different places of the game, this system offers the gankers the license to liberally kill EVERYWHERE.

I was a FOOL thinking that CCP would develop something for all players and not just the hardcore as always. A fool.

Question: Does it mean I can also attack the opposing faction anywhere? I mean let's take a stealth bomber to a newbie zone of the opposing empire and smoke some folks ... or camp Jita just for the fun of it?

Dev: You can not go killing noobs with impunity by signing up. You can go killing anyone signed up to an opposed faction.

You, whoever you are or whoever is behind this idea, are an idiot.

What is the fucking difference if first you make the system as a "gameplay bridge" to encourage noobs and disorganized players to engage in PvP, and then say that you can't kill noobs with impunity, because those noobs have just SIGNED to be killed with impunity.

This is simply a license to gank noobs who, like me, were fooled by CCP disguising a system as something accessible and made for everyone, when instead just feeding the hardcore with more targets.

Three quotes from Deadhouse Gates

Thu, 15 May 2008 17:12:18 -0700

The quarrel struck her forehead an inch above her left eye. The iron head shattered the bone, plunging inward a moment before the spring-driven barbs opened like a deadly flower inside her brain.

Maybe we didn't listen because none of us believed we would ever reach the coast. Maybe Heboric decided the same after that first meal. Only I wasn't thinking that far ahead, was I? No wise acceptance of the futility of all this. I mocked and ignored the advice out of spite, nothing more.

'Why did you leave the priesthood, Heboric? Skimmed the coffers, I suppose. So they cut your hands off, then tossed you onto the rubbish heap behind the temple. That's certainly enough to make anyone take up writing history as a profession.'

This book is wonderful.

Felisin is an incredible character, I'm amazed at what Erikson can do. He went deep and with a kind of realism that other fantasy writers not only can't do, but aren't even willingly to do.

While the first book lacked in characterization, this second improves and then goes beyond.

Eve-Online Trammel/Fellucca features, the good and the bad

Thu, 15 May 2008 11:29:19 -0700

They put online the expansion page, so we got also the features list.

The good:

* Factional Militias
Governments on every side of the war are eager to recruit pod pilots, and have set up factional militias as a means of bolstering their standing navies. Each faction has a corporation open to all pilots with the appropriate factional standing minimums. CEOs and directors are also encouraged to bring their entire corporations under the aegis of the militias, to better fund and coordinate the war effort. Regardless of corporation membership, all militia members will share a chat channel and read-only mailing list.

* Ranks
Each of the factions relies heavily upon the support of their militias, granting the privateers great political clout. Talented pilots dedicated to the cause can rise through the newly-created ranks, 10 for each faction, by increasing their standing with their chosen militia's corporation.

* Factional Warfare Agents
In order to handle the influx of mercenary pilots, each of the four militia corporations have hired new agents-over 320 in all. These new agents are specifically tasked with coordinating the activities of freelance pod pilots and assigning them missions inside territory held by enemy militias.

* Statistics
Due to the emphasis placed on the role of militias in the conflict, many stations now boast new Militia Offices. Pilots can track their own warfare victories and kill statistics, as well as those of their corporation and faction. Each pilot's map has also been upgraded to better accommodate the increased flow of logistics data. The galactic map can now be configured to show occupancy status of a system, as well as detecting the presence of hostile navy forces.

* World Shaping
The confines of settled space cannot contain a war of this scale, causing the fighting to spill over into a new region. Named "Black Rise," this new region contains 49 new star systems and nearly 40 stations, many of which are already sworn to one faction or another.

* System Occupancy
In light of the formal declaration of war, CONCORD is now recognizing a new level of system control beyond sovereignty: occupancy. Factions gain occupancy of a system by winning conflicts in contested complexes. When a militia accumulates a certain number of victories for its faction, it is authorized to assault the star's System Control Bunker within 24 hours. Should the bunker fall to the attacking militia, a cease-fire is called in the system's Factional Warfare Complexes, and that faction gains occupancy of the solar system.

This is looking very close to my expectations and original thoughts. Something linear like a military career with the goals and steps clearly defined.

The two important elements that are missing are about the faction itself providing directly the ship, modules and munition to fight. AND polish the combat zones so that same-rank players are equally matched and not wiped clean by someone who brought there a titan. Or insta-killed by a specialized corp that decided to take over a particular spot.

It's absolutely indispensable that everyone can jump in, and that the tasks and battlegrounds zones are dynamically tweaked to regulate the players power, number of players active in the system and the zones distribution.

The bad:

* Factional Warfare Complexes
As war rages across the stars of New Eden, a myriad of hidden deadspace complexes have taken on great strategic importance. Militia pilots that successfully scan for a complex and hold it uncontested for a set amount of time will claim it for their faction, and be rewarded with corporate standing-as well as more tangible benefits. But capturing these points of interest will not be easy, as they're guarded by rival naval forces. Speed and cunning are required to keep these important sites out of enemy hands, which is why microwarpdrives have been cleared for use in the complexes.

My fears is that instead of a dynamic mission system, they are using a fixed zone-based one.

Holding a complex uncontested may as well sound like sitting in one place for "x" hours doing nothing at all. This really needs to stay out of the game.

The system itself should record the number of active players that are taking part in this system, THEN matchmaking them on the fly, directing them to the active system, or spreading them, or tweaking the zones so that the players are sent to fight in their proper-rank zone.

Permanent complexes are a threat to the accessibility of this system if they aren't controlled and managed by the system. With the risk that once again new and unorganized players don't have the chance to participate and things fall again in the hands of a minority.

Factional Warfare finally not just vaporware? (Trammel/Fellucca)

Wed, 14 May 2008 17:30:25 -0700

I remember to have read not long ago, somewhere I can't track again, a critics about Eve-Online, saying that when you spent a year developing a graphical upgrade and now your bigger project is about an avatar system that is only going to be used for social purposes, then it's rather clear that your aim isn't to enhance the gameplay but just to make the dress prettier.

Now if someone can remember the source I would be immensely grateful, so I can quote it.

I was noticing that the launch of the graphical upgrade in December lead to a predictable behavior. If you look at the server activity you can notice that there was a bump up in the number of players that lasted about three months, and now the curve, for the first time in a long time, is seeing a consistent, progressive dip.

I have no idea what goes on inside the game and why the player activity is decreasing so sharply, but my guess is that this is the direct consequence of the game development strategy. Just working on the surface of the game (the graphic) means that you get good short term results, but once the novelty is over the players who came back (or joined) to check the shiney will just leave again. I am one of them.

Eve-Online didn't reach its maximum potential. But it did reach the topmost *exposition* it could aspire. What does this mean? That the game won't benefit anymore for a better presentations to lure in new players. Months and years ago the game needed all the exposition it could get, because there were a whole lot of players who didn't know the game and didn't know it was a good and special one, deserving consideration. But now the potential reach is tapped and if CCP wants to grab even more subscribers they have to change their strategy: no more trying to publicize their game and improve just its presentation, but trying to aim for those players that are warded off by Eve design, and who don't find the core of the game (the deeper layers and interactions between players) accessible. I'm again one of them.

I subscribed again in December to check the new shineys, and shortly after canceled again because the perspective of running again a bunch of dull, repetitive missions to grind money and standings didn't appeal me at all. It simply means that the kind of gameplay that I saw within my reach wasn't worth my time. And that I didn't have the concrete competence and expectation to move away from that dullness and toward more interesting and compelling game.

This is firstly and foremost my incompetence at getting hooked in the community and the deeper layers of the game. But it's also a flaw of the game that wasn't able to ferry me (or provide the means) to that part of the game. It left me alone, in space. In the absolute, frightening loneliness that the immense space represents. Alone and doing grindy, aimless missions dressed up as a pretty screensaver mixed with an Excel spreadsheet.

If this was just a personal case then it wouldn't be worth consideration, but my idea is that it's instead an enormously widespread situation that not only is relevant, but that I believe it's decisive to the future and growth of the game. And also with a higher, important task for the whole MMO development industry: demonstrate that PvP games with layers of complexity can be both extremely popular and accessible to the masses without sacrificing that complexity, but building on it and taking advantage of it.

The keys to all this lies in the "Factional Warfare". I discussed already at length the possibilities of this system and the important point is that it plugs in the game a junction ring between the dull PvE game all the players see when they begin playing, and the more complex PvP game and player-driven gameplay.

Eve-Online's future depends on that junction ring. The possibility to move players toward more interesting gameplay, to showcase better its qualities, to offer stronger hooks so that the players are motivated to stay and continue to p(l)ay. Something exciting. Goals to achieve.

Or: directed gameplay offering, but not forcing, patterns to follow inside a freeform game. It's not an easy task to achieve, but it is possible and, in particular, worth it. Both for the concrete success and long term profitability of the game AND showing the whole game industry that it can be done.

In my mind, concretely, this takes the shape (or the example of many possible shapes following a similar pattern or model) of a military career. Not anymore just disconnected, solo missions. But a more fleshed out system where you get medals, gain new ranks, get access to specific, "leased" equipment. Hooks, rewards. Something players can desire and look forward to. Both short and long term objectives that keep players hooked to the game.

My "ideal" game that I described in the past had a lot of this: from a side you have what Eve already has, a complex structure of player-driven organizations that take control and manage parts of the game and resources, from the other a system-driven factional structure that puts all the new players, RIGHT AWAY, together in an NPC/system driven faction (or factions as Eve already has four NPC empires).

This scares a lot of players and CCP itself because they fear that this major shift can destroy the first layer and lose many players that like the game as it is now. It's a well founded worry but that can be overcome if the system is well designed. The goal is to not introduce one layer at the expense of the other, but making the two interact, one orbiting around the other. And, in a later stage, when the new system is well-oiled, link directly the two so that the current corps can use the new possibilities within their own independent space.

Risky and ambitious, sure. But worth it if there's the possibility to advance the whole game industry and really innovate toward something valuable: accessibility and depth.

In short the Factional Warfare should provide an almost linear pattern that clueless players can follow. A "career" not in the sense of class, but a linear path with goals and rewards. Showing the players the path, leading them to the next step. Clearly defined so that you don't get lost. With an UI panel dedicate to it where you can track your own stats and progress clearly, showing what to do next.

So: a linear path very similar to those in other popular and simpler games, but then modular and hooked to the other layer: the factional warfare. Where the efforts of those players are collected and then have visible outcomes on the way the four NPC empires develop, expand or shrink. Dynamically. In the same way players and corps fight each other in zero security space, the NPC driven empires should battle each other and offer a similar, more directed, layer. With a mix of generated missions, both PvE and PvP, inside zones working like PvP battlegrounds, BUT PERSISTENT. And as controlled environments where those who enters share the same condition (a similar level of equipment that can be chosen between various possibilities/sets offered). So matching the fun and depth of factional PvP with the accessibility of the system that allows everyone to jump in and have fun.

The "sandbox" game shouldn't be the antithesis to the linear one. It should be instead a complex environment where both linear and freeform patterns can coexist. Helping the players to choose the one they like better, or move more easily from one to the other, and back again as they wish.

The risk isn't about removing parts of the game that the current players enjoy. The risk is about offering alternatives that some players may like better. This isn't a bad thing at all (but may bring back memories of the Fellucca/Trammel separation). It may change the way the game is shaped, but it's more important to rise the bar and do something ambitious (and motivated), than simply be conservative. Then observe what happens and, if things look too unbalanced, work to give the other part of the game new exciting tools and possibilities. Raising the bar, pushing things forward while paying attention and make the changes that are needed.

I talk about this because after a very, very long silence they are starting to talk about this again.

So, we have this expansion coming out this summer called Empyrean Age. It's going to be pretty neat, and it's going to include this thing called Factional Warfare, which is a feature we've been talking about for a fair while now and is generally regarded as something of a big deal. Over the course of the next week or so I'm going to thrash out the fundamentals of the entire design in a series of blogs, starting with this one.

This summer? I wouldn't count on it considering the past experiences.

Their goal is not far from the ones I've set a while ago while commenting the game and that I repeated here:

There are a lot of things that Factional Warfare could be. What it is, right now, is in its most basic form a gameplay bridge from high sec to null sec – from the safety of Empire to the wild lands of Alliance space. High sec and null sec have very differing communities of players with very divergent play styles, and while moving from one to the other is obviously possible, it's harder than it should be.

Factional Warfare provides a halfway house for players from Empire to get into the sandbox at the shallow end. It serves other functions too, for other types of player, but this is its primary function.

The core gameplay element of Factional Warfare is small-scale PvP combat. We believe that rounding up your posse, rolling out into contested space and having a healthy exchange of opinions and weapons fire with your sworn enemies is fun. Factional Warfare is designed to make this kind of experience accessible, with low entry requirements and a target-rich environment.

Underline mine, as I can't stress enough that a core concept of PvP is the convergence more than the open wide spaces. Players need to know clearly where to go, what their goals and rewards are, and be able to jump in at any time.

What I ask may sound like exact copy of WoW's PvP. The difference is that this system should fix the two parts that WoW fucked: social cooperation and persistence. So that those battles will be meaningful, so that the goals can be shared and players feel part of a greater cause, and so that they can organize together and see the outcome of their efforts.

Something that joins the complexity of Eve-Online, with accessibility and compelling gameplay.

Give us true battlegrounds and warfare, from small scale to epic. Not the fake paintball of WoW. One model doesn't necessarily contradicts the other, and it is possible to take the best from both.

And hire some designers and programmers, instead of just more and more artists.

The Shadow of the Torturer - Gene Wolfe

Wed, 07 May 2008 13:05:03 -0700

I'll start quoting another review:

An Earth of the far future; a post-technological society living on the ruins of the past; ancient guilds with arcane rituals and origins lost in antiquity; cold and casual depictions of torture... Gene Wolfe describes all of these things in magnificent and luscious detail. Unfortunately, this takes up so much space that there isn't room for a plot.

On a forum recently I wrote that I've never been so close to the end of a book without having a clear opinion about it. In fact I could write two reviews, one full of praises and another as harsh criticism. I still don't know whether I liked the book or not, but I can say I was intrigued.

In a way the impression it made on me is a mix of Lovecraft and Gaiman's Sandman. It's nowhere a classic fantasy setting, or even a classic tale. It is... weird, shady, full of convoluted, self-referential symbolism. I could say that the book builds a barrier between the fictional world and the reader. Either you are able to pass it, and get sucked in, or you bounce back, and you'll never understand what's so special about it. I somewhat sat on that edge and took a peek at what's beyond, but without really getting into it completely.

That quote from the review is symbolically important exactly because it underlines a main trait, and what I expect to be a typical reaction to the book. It is baffling because you pass time reading with the hope to find... something. A development, or a direction that turns what you read before into something meaningful. You read and expect a build-up. Toward something. But you keep reading, and waiting, this something never arrives. You turn the last page and you wonder: so what?

There's no resolution. This is just a first book in a series, so you don't even expect that kind of resolution, but at least you expect something, somewhere. A direction. A point. You expect a plot driven by something, but as that quote says, you keep reading and you don't find anything. So is this book completely empty of meaning?

Nope, on the contrary. But that meaning isn't where you usually look for it. There's no plot, no direction, no resolution. Characters are ghosts, the events are entirely disconnected and improbable, there's no logic sense or flow whatsoever. Yet the book is full of meaning. It just isn't where you are looking. It's not in what is written, the black of the text. It's instead in the white between the lines. The place where you don't usually look for things.

The content in the book will be only accessible if you got a key to decipher it. Many readers, with typical expectations, will glide over this kind of book and find nothing. They aren't to blame as the writer surely didn't care about them, and didn't try to make his book accessible. In my case I fell in the first group, keep on reading with the hope of finding a key somewhere, then started reading forums and websites and finally got some clues about where to look.

That's the risk with this book, that you read it without knowing where to look, or expecting something that never arrives. So what is this all about? It is about the two levels. One is the surface, the denotative level. What things are explicitly. So the plot, what happens, the dialogues, the descriptions. And then there's the symbolic level. What things represent. This book is filled with this kind of superstructure. It's weighed by it and, in fact, it's not an easy read. It's terribly twisted, convoluted and alien. It is not simple because you have to move there and understand a way of thinking that may be so far from yours.

Where the book becomes extraordinary is in its internal consistency. This book isn't a tale. It represents instead the head of its narrator. It's written in first person and it is the mind of Severian of the Torturers. In order to read it you have to enter his mind. And his mind doesn't work as common minds. Everything you "see" is filtered through Severian eyes. You don't see the world in its "correct" representation, but as personal interpretation.

And here comes the main theme of the book: deception. The writer, the god of this world, making things as he wants, lies. So you have to look past this curtain. You have to look between the lines. From a side you have to understand the wicked mind of Severian, his twisted, paradoxical way of thinking, enter into it, from the other side you have to tear it apart to understand the blind point. Where he is lying. Where he is moving the pieces and for what kind of reason.

This is why most of the book come as an enlightenment. As an epiphany. You read dumbly and somewhere you see glimpses of light. How often depends on your affinity with the writer, because as I said Gene Wolfe doesn't really care whether you get it or not. He isn't writing for you, he is writing for his kinds.

It's also no wonder that this book generated so much speculation. It lives past the text as what makes it unique is what beyond the text. Your own (and other readers) speculations. What makes interesting discuss the book instead of simply reading it as a direct experience. So you enjoy it with this kind of delay.

Even in this case what makes it great is the internal consistency and hidden layers that make it deep and complex. That is typical of this kinds of "worlds". That go past the medium itself. The mythos. This book generated its own mythos that survives the book itself and that is as deep as you decide to dig.

You decide whether you want to lose yourself into it, or if this kind of commitment isn't for you. Sure is that Wolfe requires a kind of total attention that no other entertainment medium requires today. It will remain in history as one of those things that less and less people manage to understand and love, but with an heart special and unrepeatable.

A little gem that will be often mistaken as colored glass.

P.S.
I contributed with one slight speculation here.

Who wants the Arenas

Thu, 01 May 2008 11:05:19 -0700

Taking a cue from D-One who pointed to a counter-rant of a moderator against those who hate the Arenas in WoW.

The truth is that anyone saying "arenas suck!" doesn't actually think they suck, they're either just trolling, or they have a specific and related issue/problem. I think we're able to break those reasons out though, filter everything down and get to what the issues actually are, see what may need to change or be fixed, and get down to it. If they're not the right kind of PvP for you, fine, hopefully we can address that by giving you more PvP in other places, if you don't like PvP at all and are afraid they're taking time away from the content you do enjoy - don't worry, they aren't, if you want to like the arenas but feel there are inherent issues with them, we hope to address those as well.

Well, the truth is in that my own case I DO think Arenas suck and SHOULD be entirely removed from the game.

Not because every aspect of the game I don't like shouldn't be liked by anyone else, but because the gameplay concept behind the Arenas is inappropriate for WoW. A mmorpg based on some degree of persistence and, in particular, on character progression, doesn't fit with a *good* arena game that is more aimed at competitive, and balanced gameplay and no real "RPG".

My suggestion:
- Strip the Arenas part from WoW. Make it an entirely different game. Make it accessible through the same client, Make it even playable as standalone paying a 1-2 dollars subscription for those who just want these arenas. Then add a tiered system where each tier gives you the choice between same-value armor sets, so that you can combine the pieces freely while also keeping the players in the same tier balanced. And then keep a sense of progression by putting better equipment in higher tiers, but without letting players in different tier compete between each other. Make it that you can even export your WoW-normal character, getting evaluated by a system and then put in the proper tier to compete fairly.

That would please everyone. Those who don't like the arenas, and those who like them and would like a more fair environment in which to compete.

It wouldn't work, though. Because what I think is when the players bought the game, they wanted to play a MMORPG. Not eSport.

The Death of the New Gods

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:28:37 -0700

If you read comics maybe you know that the DC is doing another Crisis and that the deus ex machina this time will be Grant Morrison, with art done by one of the best DC has, J.G. Jones (who made also the 52 covers for "52").

The whole thing starts this 28 May, with an introduction that set the basis, written by Morrison and the Bendis of DC (Geoff Johns) that is out in a few days. I wonder if any of this will make into the story...

Since I never read a lot of DC I made a grand plan of following the whole story since the first Crisis. Then go through Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis and finally to this Final Crisis, to be published soon. A whole lot of reading that I never did. I'm still stuck at about issue 10 or 11 of the original Crisis. Very fine story, though, that didn't feel stale at all.

Recently I stumbled into this one series "The Death of the New Gods", 8 issues all already out with story and art by Jim Starlin, who is part of the old guard and made a lot of those epic, cosmic crossovers for Marvel. I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect the plot of this series is also the premise of the Final Crisis. Something about the new-new gods and Darkseid.

What I didn't know is that this segment of the DC universe, known as the Fourth World, was built by The King, Jack Kirby. And in fact in that cover you can see his typical insane heroes. Squint enough and you can see one in the background flying on skis. When is the last time you saw a so large groups of ridiculous heroes? Well, I couldn't miss the opportunity.

In fact it is a wonderful series. Perfectly old-style but with a surprisingly good (and cosmic) story. There's all the naiveté of the Kirbian age, but the author doesn't take it too seriously and there are plenty of inside jokes about the cliches. The first issues are complex and confusing as they introduce so many heroes I've never seen and tie them back to years of continuity. But I love this old style stuff and the story is really intriguing, setting a number of mysteries that will keep you reading to discover them. Toward the end it loses a bit of quality as the story seems to slow down and you just get through a series of pompous fight scenes and info-dumps, but as a whole it's a really interesting read that makes you look at these classic style stories with nostalgia.

A better introduction is written by Dan DiDio himself. So read it if you are interested. And then read all the eight issues as the series is a little gem of perfectly preserved classic.

Kalgan has sense of humor

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:35:09 -0700

Player: Please, please, please release a Season 4 Arena and don't introduce ANY new gear.

Then I think you will have a VERY good indication how popular the Arena is on its own merits.

Kalgan: About as popular as a Sunwell without any loot in it?

P.S. I was right again

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:58:28 -0700

After this I'm done commenting mmorpgs for a while, because as I already explained it only leads to more and more. And I don't intend to waste my time.

I was reading some news about WoW's arena's system. And those news fit exactly the model I anticipated and that I summarized with this lame image:

Now it all looks obvious, but at the time it was pure guesswork as we were five months before the release of the expansion and the PvP revamp. Everything I wrote in that long post was quite correct and I remember on the forums I had to fight a battle because everyone continued to repeat that Blizzard learned from mistakes and that you could save up arena's points, and so, ideally save up enough of them to buy the best rewards.

While I was saying that no, Blizzard didn't learn a damn thing and that no matter what people expect, the arenas system was made by Kalgan for his need of being l33t. And so they were going to add some kind of reset system to make Arena's reward truly l33t, either by resetting your points after each arena season, or by adding rank requirements.

My point: nothing is going to change. They are maintaining the status quo where a small subset of players have access to the best gear, while the majority sits at the bottom of the pyramid. So making the elite stronger, and the noobs noober(?).

And now I read of the two upcoming changes:
1- They are rising rank requirements for arena loot
2- They are stopping powerlevelling

I never participated in a single arena's match, but I'm sad to see I was right. From what I read you can't purchase arena's loot with points, but you also have to maintain a certain rank. EXACTLY LIKE IN THE OLD HONOR SYSTEM.

From Tobold's blog comments:

This will remove most people below 1500 now from the arena, creating a whole new playing field. And arena ratings on honor gear? Ridiculous.

It seems to me like the Arena has turned into what the honor system was at it's launch. Something for the hardcore players. And of course as usual, the casuals will be steamrolled even if they've got a set two seasons below the current.

It seems that with patch 2.4 and this PvP announcement that Blizzard is returning to the WoW 1.0 model of hiding gear and patterns in inaccessible raid dungeons and behind PvP rating/ranking obstacles.

There will always be teams who win against better geared opponents because they outplay them. But this will get harder and harder. Just think about how much damage a S4 warrior will do to a S2 equipped cloth or leather wearer. With an equipment spiral like that, skill matters less and less.

And I'm writing this because I'd really want to see in the face those that FOR MONTHS argued with me. And then make fun of me if I point out to them that once again I was right.

The morale is in the article:

Saving your points (or even your honor) for Season 4 may not be as effective anymore though, if you can't also muster up the ratings to purchase the gear.

Last Kalgan's move to catassing. You know he is l33t. And you know where he's heading with all this.

Then there's the powerlevelling. Every idiot playing a MMO knows that it would be stupid to let a level 1 player group with a level 60 player and gain the level 60 player's experience.

Apparently, considering they are fixing it now, Kalgan didn't think of this:

Together, these rules (which Tom Chilton alluded to but did not reveal in a recent interview) should mean that a person cannot simply ride a high rating team to victory, but will instead need to fight their way up the ladder to gain points regardless of what team they join.

Because before you could group with the l33t and get their points/ranks. Which created the perfect opportunity to offer RMT to be up there for one turn, grab the loot, and leave.

And with this Kalgan made the last move to make arenas exactly the same of the past honor (catass) system.

Congratulations. You are back home.

Old summary:
- The Honor system is pure catass, players complain for two years
- Blizzard gives up and transforms Honor points into currency
- But doing that then every player will be able to eventually get the best rewards! *SHOCK!*
- So they nudge back the Honor system in the food chain
- And add on top an Arena system that is more Hardcore than ever and whose rewards dwarf everything that was in the game till that point

WoW's secret sauce: tools

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:01:58 -0700

This has been my theory since the first hours I've seen WoW's client with my eyes. I was discussing this on the forum today, so I will repeat here the concept, also because I think it's one of the most important aspects that made the game successful and that I've NEVER seen commented.

Outside of Dave Rickey, who wrote in his blog about the importance of tools and how always the worst programmers are put to develop tools, as it is not fun or really gratifying. Can't post the link because it was swallowed by the internet along with the blog.

So look at this sample picture that was posted.

It is nothing crazy, but it explains my idea. See all those tiny hills that make the mountains in the background? Now, do you think that a designer modeled and textured every one, one by one?

So here I repeat my theory.

--
I believe that a lot of WoW's beauty comes from ground textures and terrain modeling.

My controversial opinion is that it isn't about good art, but good TECH.

If you notice WoW's terrain is modeled in a way that is easily recognizable and every zone has the same rounded style. What I think is that Blizzard is using an editor that with a few clicks of your mouse creates pretty terrain while also placing textures on the fly, depending on the height and slopes.

Not only it allows them to keep that style consistent, but I also think they can make the terrain very quickly (and a new zone is just a set palette of new textures). Even the grass placeable are probably added by the editor itself.

What I'm saying is that this editor must have some preset brushes that do everything on their own (mostly). You give a general direction, a few mouse clicks and the terrain comes to life with all the textures placed and blended following a precise formula. That ALSO makes all the game, everywhere, look consistent (because they turned textures and modeling conventions into RULES, then applied by the editor itself).

Even *YOU* can make a pretty zone in a very short time, if you had the right tools.

--
You can import WoW's textures even in NWN2, so what?

I'm talking about tools that let you manipulate objects. Not the objects themselves. You can let someone make a picture pixel by pixel, or you can give him some broader tools. What you are saying here is that MS Paint is the exact same program of Photoshop.

SURE IS.

But can't you see that doing what Photoshop does into MS Paint would require years of work?

Tools.

So: try to use NWN2 editor to make a small zone with the terrain that look similar to WoW. Even use an existing zone as a model. I'm sure it will pass six months and you are still tweaking things.

And I'm sure it would only take a few hours to make a good looking zone with the editor Blizzard is using and that is giving that consistent look to ALL the terrain in ALL their zones.

You think this is the result of awesomely awesome art direction, or that maybe there's one slave who's doing all the terrain in all WoW. I say it's because a multitude of designers are using the same tools, so producing similar results.

And I know this because I did use tools in various games, and I know that the most difficult thing is to actually make things look DIFFERENT from everything else in the same game and produced by the same tools.

--
In short: WoW's designers are using Photoshop-level tools, all other designers doing other MMOs are using MS Paint-level tools.

Generalizing and simplifying a lot, that's why everyone else is behind.

--
Follow up here. In the same way Warcraft 3's editor as the "apply cliff" tool, WoW likely has an "apply rounded hill" kind of tool that automatically shapes the terrain AND applies appropriate textures. With no effort at all.

The Road - Cormac McCarthy

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:38:53 -0700

This book wasn't part of my reading queue, but my dad bought it and I decided to read it as well as it is rather short with its 200 pages written large.

It's a famous book, from a respectable author, and won the Pulitzer in 2007. The theme isn't even too far from the genre, as it describes a post-apocalyptic world. Maybe it would qualify as sci-fi, but it becomes instead a good argument to discuss what separates mainstream (and recognized) literature, from the specific genres that are often disregarded.

As the world where the novel is set is barren, so is the prose and the plot. Think about an hybrid between the "Fallout" games and "I am Legend". But here things are much more penetrating. What you see written in the first page is the same you’ll see through the rest of the book. There’s nowhere to go. But the father and son, protagonists of the novel, move forth. Clinging desperately to an empty hope that is directly felt by the reader.

This is a world made of ash. There are no oasis. The lack of frills and decorations in the prose help the effects the book wants to convey. The more the prose and plot are naked, the more you see the life, in its most encompassing meaning, to the bone. It doesn’t cover, doesn’t veil, doesn’t distract. Naked. And it’s frightening, lacerating, but transmitting a sense of vulnerability and preciousness.

At its core the book describes the relationship between a father and son. The apocalyptic setting may appear as a distraction, but it becomes the opposite. It is a way to strip that relationship from all the worthless parts, and go to the heart. Since there’s no real plot, the 200 pages become a meticulous description of survival. It is so precise that you are brought there and there is no possible way to read the book while keeping a detached mood. Again since there’s no plot, you, reader, become the protagonist. The father and son move forth, walking step by step across the world, heading south to survive the winter. With this lacerating hope to survive just a little longer and find a better world, accompanied by the certainty that there aren’t any chances. So the reader moves through the book, and what is left to do is simply reaching the end of the book and find out what happens to the characters, expecting the worst. Because here reading is like a torture and you have to work hard to keep going, as oppressive as it feels.

That meticulousness of descriptions becomes, in a way, obsessive. The difficulty of survival isn’t simply about the concrete aspects, but also of the mind accepting what is going on without shattering. It’s unsustainable. There isn’t anything to cling to, no gods, but the direct demonstration than no god can actually exist. So what’s the sense?

I have my own interpretation of the novel. You may think it’s extreme, you may close the book and think that it passed like a bad dream, that you saw the worst, but it wasn’t real. My interpretation is that what is in the book isn’t distant from real life. That those nightmares are concrete. The form of those nightmares may be different, but their substance is in our everyday life, and the distance we feel from that world and ours, the same distance that allows us to stay sane, is just illusion. It is hope. It is a lie we believe in. It is a way to keep the eyes shut and repeat endlessly that everything is going well.

This brought up something I was thinking about before even starting to read the book. What should we teach to our children? Do you protect them, put an hand on their eyes, make them have a life of happiness, of positive dreams, keep them playing, smiling, oblivious? Or do you prepare them to the real world, and so stripped of all the frills, as dramatic at it can be, with that sense of being completely alone, and feel that oppression? Reassured or awakened? Comedy or tragedy?

What is this world? Why do we live? To pretend we’re blind? Or to forget we can see?

I’m sure out there are more people dying than people reading books, playing games, watching movies. So what is real? The illusions we use as shrouds to stay blind and flee for the reality that the mind can’t understand or tolerate? We hide from the view those who suffer, those who are ill. We reject those thoughts and pretend they don’t exist. We have a representation of society that just follows the successful types and makes them a standard. Is all this just so we can bear the weight no one can bear?

This book goes through that. It shows the worst the life has to offer and makes no attempt to hide how terrible it is. It slaps it in your face. At the same time there’s a “fire”. The hope you still have to cling to, something that tells you that you aren’t simply made of flesh, to become ash.

At the end I think the feel is reassuring. That what is in the book isn’t alien, but something we know. It tells the story of a father and his son, and that relationship is as true as what we live. It is the same story that goes on between every father and every son.

It doesn’t show the worst, but the best we are.