Game Design
Submitted by Abalieno on November 20, 2009 - 05:50.
On Twitter I said that the RPS review of Modern Warfare 2 is one of the best reviews I've ever read. Precise, insightful and to the point. Instead I disagree with the sort of rant that Kieron Gillen wrote today about the particular level. So here is what I think about it:
Modern Warfare 2 never intended nor was expected to be a realistic simulator. It's not Arma 2 or Operation Flashpoint. It's instead a bombastic, gratuitous and exploitative Hollywood experience. It wants to be cool without being smart. So, as with everything, the point is to criticize it for what it wants to be. What this game wants is to sell copies and be hugely profitable, shatter records. And it seems that it is doing just that. What it is interesting is to understand why it happens and why this game sells so much and is so much successful.
It's successful because it arrogantly boasts how rich it is. In your face. That level is no exception compared to the others. It's lush. The shock value is secondary to the visual, and even in that level the gameplay is gold. Many people this week go to see that awful movie that is 2012. In a very vaguely similar way Stephen King wrote a book where he traps a small town within a dome. To observe people get pushed to the limit and see how they react. That level in the game doesn't need to be realistic. The RPS article says: "As others have noted, the most disturbing part of No Russian is its context. A few seconds previously you’re involved in a high-speed James Bond chase involving snowmobiles. A few seconds later, you’re mowing down civilians. That tonal shift isn’t brutal. It’s laughable." There's no brutal transition instead. The whole game is like that. In the same way the snowmobiles chase was so utterly unrealistic and bombastic, so is what follows. The game wants to resemble reality, pretend to be recognizable and familiar enough to be fun. So what they do in that level is putting a lot of work in the animations and scripting to the extremes and polish and detail. Make an airport and make it good to watch and play in. Make it lavish. Tons of stuff goes on and everything is very nicely done and resembling reality enough to feel somewhat unsettling. What works here is not the moral dilemma, it's just that kind of open massacre that, justified or plausible or not, stays in the mind of the people. In the same way you could have set it in a school or some other densely populated place (a church, a mall, whatever). It works.
They could do it, so why not? It's cool in a stupid way. The plot doesn't make sense but it never wanted to. It's a joke, an excuse to be spectacular. I suspect that even the purple prose about war is just there as a parody and the fake pretense to make it "serious". Bombastic drama. But not serious in the sense that it has (or wants to have) an actual depth, it only needs to give an excuse to explore the possibilities that are "cool" to see and play, and that are vaguely connected with a common idea of "modern" warfare. A massacre in an airport is cool to see and play. The russian invasion is cool to see and play, so is the snowmobile chase. These are all silly excuses to "enable" and pack together the most disparate experiences I've seen in a shooter. If you strip that level of its story elements you get a very fun shooting sequence. You can replay it various times and always find something new you didn't notice. The first part starts in black, hearing just sounds, then a terse dialogue that builds the tension, then the opening that is rather spectacular and sudden. From that point onward the experience is mostly visual and well crafted. The music is right, the extremely slow speed mimics in a way how you are trapped in a role, forced into a role. This slowness also makes everything kind of detached, yet deliberate and unavoidable. It doesn't want to really make sense, it just sets a mood. Then there's the sequence where you fight the cops. Again wonderfully executed. You can blow up the airplane engines, you can shoot at the helicopters and make them explode, lots of stuff going on and a rather fun shooting sequence with lush graphic everywhere. No other shooter out there is so well realized and filled with details. Beautiful to watch, fun to play.
This controversial level in the end won't produce any important debate, or make people think. It doesn't want. It wants to be cool and spectacular. In the end that level sells copies, and it probably sells more copies than if it wasn't there. People talk about the game, it draws the attention even from those that wouldn't look at it otherwise. In the end people don't buy it because the plot gave them deep thoughts, but because the game is lush, rich, fun to play, varied, spectacular.
The story stays stupid enough to not get in the way of the shooting. This sells copies. There is no over exposition or dense stuff that would turn people off. It's what Entertainment wants to be. Accessible and straightforward and without any other pretense than selling copies without scruples. It's the simple and cynical and deliberate and lucid commercial success, done the way it has to be done. The writers that worked on Modern Warfare knew what their role was and didn't pretend to act as protagonists. They knew very well the story is very secondary, only "enabling" the shooting to happen and weakly link together the most disparate and edgy shooting scenes.
Submitted by Abalieno on March 30, 2009 - 17:55.
1- Blizzard has no competition and they don't need to try anymore to stay ahead. There isn't any need to fight even on the last thousands of players. They win, everyone else lost. Game over.
The patches are getting slower and more insubstantial, filled with pages of convoluted class changes. It's quite obvious that the there's no creative push behind this and that they are only trying to please the current many subscribers, especially the ones still heavily invested in the game. There is no attempt to reach further.
It's also quite obvious that resources are being moved. A while ago Blizzard was only working on WoW. Now they have WoW, Starcraft, Diablo and another MMO project. They were never able to do more than one thing at once and now the focus will start to shift. As always in this industry you only see the effect of what happens behind the scenes a few years later. It starts now, the effect will come later.
The lead designer, Jeff Kaplan, left WoW to move on the new project. We know only of the public figures but it is obvious that he is followed by many more that work in the back.
WoW is now in the (un)capable hands of Kalgan. Have fun.
2- Lum quoted various pieces from a conference (where industry people only go to feel proud, boast their cultivated shortsightedness, feel validated among equals, avoid challenges, avoid reality, shake hands, and whose game design relevance is a negative number) where Jeff Kaplan talks about quest design. Jeff Kaplan is in my "good guys book" and I'm not entirely sure if he was mocking the audience thinking that they would only grasp the superficial level anyway, and so talk in a language they could understand.
It's not the specific of what he says to be wrong, it's the overall sense. I only read Lum quotes but those ideas were considered good ideas "on paper" that revealed to be poor in practice. Bottom line: these ideas should be avoided.
That's a wrong conclusion. Wrong interpretation. It's about trying to understand aspects of the game with only one rigid model. That's the inner flaw. It's not in the quest ideas, it's in the approach.
Everyone of those examples isn't just a "good idea on paper". Gone bad in practice. Why? Because it obviously was a bad idea even in paper? Nope. It was a possibly good idea with an inappropriate execution.
That's the point: good ideas with bad execution. All of them.
Take the example of the quest in Stranglethorn. The idea is cool. It is also not an obligatory quest, so if you don't like the added layers you can always skip it. Where's the big flaw of that quest? Not in the concept. It's in the limits of the inventory. So. You may solve the problem by erasing the quest entirely. Or you may fix the one problem. In this case you could create a container object that takes 1 slot in the inventory and that can contain all the parts that can be then taken and sold in the auction, traded or whatever.
"For a single quest to consume 19 spaces in your bags is just ridiculous."
That's right. That's why you solve the one problem, as the cool concept behind the quest wasn't to consume all those spaces, but to create an economy and add a new layer.
Now this is an example, but every one else following is the seed of the same consideration: inappropriate quest concepts because they don't fit the standard framework. Not BAD quest concepts. Just quest concepts that step out of the limited tools given.
Problem is the framework, not the material. The problem is execution, not quest concepts. Given that implementation, the quest didn't work. But this doesn't make it an universally bad quest that wouldn't or can't work in other cases.
The "quest chains" aren't bad because of what they are. They are bad because the quest UI is standardized and doesn't support them properly (in fact the only way to see even a short chain quest is to use MODs like Wowhead). It's again a flaw in the framework. You are bringing creative ideas to a framework that doesn't support them. Either you dump all creative quest concepts, or you invest in programmers that expand the framework to support new quest types properly. But, again, the rigidness of a framework is the real true cause of a good or bad idea applied to it. Its context.
So enjoy your GDC. Either I'm overestimating Kaplan, or he was there just to deceive you with apparent sincerity. He keeps the good lessons (solutions) for himself.
P.S.
Ubiq on this as well. That would lead to think that he doesn't get it either, but look further, deeper. That's the hidden war he's doing to Bioware. His purpose is there. Nowadays when devs have an hard time to impose themselves internally, they rant externally.
Submitted by Abalieno on December 12, 2008 - 04:41.
Had to be expected. After the gold bags at keeps encouraged avoidance instead of conflict (keep trading) now there's the new influence system that takes player kills in very little consideration while it hugely rewards keeps takeovers.
Result: another incentive to avoid a fight and cooperate with the enemy faction. You trade keeps and maximize the rewards. Before it was gold bags for gear, now it is gold bags + influence. I also note that now there are three overlapping systems just in ORvR that provide gear: gold bags, renown vendors and influence system. How many broken systems you are going to pile up before you start to make work what's already in the game?
This is a perfect example of Mythic not understanding the basic of game design. Not only they made the mistake with the gold bags, but instead of recognizing it, they make it worse.
Official response from a CM:
James Nichols: Unfortunately the path of least resistance is also tempting,
Nope, it's not tempting. It's the way the game is designed. Doing quests in WoW isn't "tempting" it's the way the game was designed.
Simply put: You continue to design RvR so it promotes avoidance. You got many occasion to correct this, instead you make it worse.
James Nichols: rest assured though we'll continue to improve RvR to make it so that conflict is a common occurrence as best we can,
How? Does your team even recognize how game design works? Because with every step they are making things worse.
James Nichols: but players adjust to massive RvR may still have yet to learn that a lot of the fun of RvR has to do with what you make of it.
It's hard to be fun in a game when bad game design is an obstacle. Blaming the players because they don't know how to have fun is blaming them for your very own faults and failures.
James Nichols: We expect to see players naturally migrate towards conflict as the initial influence frenzy calms down.
After the players understand even better than avoidance maximizes the reward? I don't know what trends you see in games, but over time things get "gamed" more and more. If players pursue the path of least resistance NOW, in a week or a month they'll do it even more.
Making mistakes is one thing, but making them over, and over, and over... well, there are no excuses for that. See below, Warhammer had its chances. It wasted them all.
Submitted by Abalieno on December 11, 2008 - 07:22.
But at least there's no hate nor arguing.
There are two other frequent and well known problems in Warhammer Online that I think my old proposal would address nicely.
Problem 1: Warbands camping Warcamps
This is a frequent situation that players should be accustomed to. Beside trading keeps to quickly collect loot, the other popular form of RvR is "sieging" the enemy warcamp while staying outside the range of the guards. This because the respawn timers are short and so they provide a continuous stream of enemies to kill, so points. The situation partially bandaided with diminishing returns (making recently killed players worth fewer points).
Problem 2: Players throwing themselves at the enemy and respawning over and over
This is a similar problem to the once above, but from a different perspective. The players are disappointed because with constantly respawning enemy players it is kind of pointless to kill them and battles become simply a matter of attrition. This situation makes players suggest all kinds of foul solutions, like longer travel times or respawn timers. In DAoC one example of these foul solutions was to make players wait for 20 minutes on a pad waiting for a port to the frontier zones.
How to solve or at least improve Open RvR in these situations? Long term this can be done with a strategic layer to the battle that is currently missing from the game (making players care more about the campaign than the single skirmish), but since this is a complex solution and the game is nowhere close to make it possible, I'll go with the simpler fixes.
The first problem is entirely solvable by rewarding players to fight around the objectives. If these rewards existed then it wouldn't be convenient for anyone to siege the spawn points. the players would stay around BOs and Keeps and fight there. More details about this idea can be found again here.
The second problem can be consistently reduced, without doing more damage, by using another of my old proposals. You revert the approach. Instead of punishing players if they die, you reward those who survive. You make a new rule so that the more players you kill without dying, the more points you earn, increasing a bonus.
At the same time you also make these "hero" players who survive for long like "preys". In the same way they build a bonus for killing players, they also start to be worth more points progressively, so becoming very enticing targets for the enemy. There should also be some kind of visual recognition so that enemy players would spot easily these "special" players and hunt them. The details of this kind of "visual cues" should be discussed with Mythic's art team.
This is what I'd do.
P.S.
While I think those two changes alone would be enough to make a much better game, there's also one other aspect that should go in:
- Make BOs linked to the keeps, so that the more BOs you have under your faction control, the weaker are the defenses of the keep and much easier the siege. Keeps should be very hard to conquer if the enemy doesn't hold any BO, and very easy if it holds them all before the siege to the keep. This would also start to shape some kind of strategical layer.
Submitted by Abalieno on October 22, 2008 - 17:36.
For two days I debated with myself whether to write this or not, as I want to cut down considerably the number of posts about games and Warhammer especially.
Since no one is giving this aspect the relevance it deserves, I'll do it here. This is a quote from Mark Jacobs recent outburst on F13:
Here's one damn thing I would change, I would make this game have 70 levels and keep dinging all the way, all the time. I do think that some of the problem is the fact that people think 40 < 60 when it comes to levels and that the grinding seems worse because you have only 40 levels to go to max out.
Imho, that's one huge misunderstanding of the way game design works.
What's wrong is in the line that follows:
I've played a ton of MMOs and, at least according to the spreadsheet the time to solo most toons is faster here (on paper, I know) than EQ, DAoC, WoW when they launched.
See, it's rather evident if you read the many posts Mark wrote on this, that they tweaked and balanced Warhammer's leveling curve not basing it ON THEIR GAME. But on the other popular MMOs out there.
Mark says that Warhammer should be well paced and not-a-grind because it's faster to level there than in other games. So, the players cannot realistically complain the leveling is slow, IT CAN'T BE. And it can't be because he has spreadsheets in his hands that state this with mathematical certainty.
What is wrong in that reasoning is that "grind" is not a finite, absolute, portable concept. The feeling of "grind" is relative to the content. A game can feel grindy if it has 100 levels the same way it has 10. It's not an abstract number, it's not about an ideal time span between level to level. It's simply about the novelty of the experience.
Blizzard, for the nearly full year the open beta went on, tweaked continuously the leveling curve. But they adjusted it accordingly to the content in the game. It's the amount of fun content you have in the game that DICTATES the leveling curve. NOT a spreadsheet that compares leveling speeds of all other games.
You are looking cross-eyed at things that don't matter. Your game matters. Stop looking at WoW.
It's rather obvious to me that Mythic's devs overestimated their content. Especially the novelty of it. If I'm dead bored of Morkain Temple after I've done it 50 times I won't feel ANY BETTER if you put 80 levels in the game instead of 40, and so make me run Mourakin Temple for 20 levels instead of 10.
Players are just monkeys, you can't fool them with these sophisticate shufflings and deceits. Whether 40 or 80 levels: IT'S THE SAME GODDAMN GAME.
Does this reminds you of something? Yes, it reminds me of D&D Online. Same level of "insight". They were scared that 10 levels in the game weren't enough.
This is what happens when a genre becomes so self-referential and unable to see outside the box that all the rules have no real foundation and the game consequently falls apart.
Why Warhammer feels like a grind, or boring for many, many players who are expressing this one way or another (including Tobold, Krones or Cuppy just no name a few)?
Because it's relying on Scenarios as the dominant aspect of the game. Often on just one scenario for each tier. You are relying on the most repetitive and boring system (the Scenarios) as the main drive through the levels. No surprise that the players are bored.
I'll repeat that the same happened in DAoC with the task dungeons: best rewards (leveling speed) coming from the worst of the game. Its most redundant, repetitive aspect. Under these conditions you can't be surprised that the players are bored. You already shrunk the content down to almost nothing. And in particular to just one scenarios for each tier, hence the most repetitive activity there's in the game.
Scenarios/BGs are awfully boring even in WoW, do not doubt. But at least WoW offers a whole lot more beside them. While Warhammer is becoming a game shrunk to one aspect, and even the least interesting.
It's not a matter of "Ding!", "Grats!". It's a matter of what you put between them.
There are just two ways here. Either you believe "us" and think the game has a lot of potential that needs to come out. Or you just accept that the game has nothing to offer beside scenarios, and so you just watch the game going on on whatever path it has taken.
From my point of view the game is showing its worst, and players are forming a strong idea about it that will be very hard to dismantle later.
Taking out that potential isn't simple at all and needs a lot of work. It's not just about encouraging ORVR as much as Scenarios because ORVR has its own issues (and fighting in a keep is unfun because of the cramped and unlit space, and path rubberbanding of the guards). At the very least it requires the team to be heading in the right direction, and that's my main doubt.
They do not "read" their game correctly, and so their solutions risk to be inadequate, late, or totally missing the point.
Submitted by Abalieno on October 15, 2008 - 21:56.
I don't need to wait Friday to read Mark Jacobs' own.
Putting aside client performance and stability for once, even if it should remain the very first-priority effort, I'll focus on the gameplay. Class balance is also an argument on its own that I won't comment here.
I said before, and repeat again, that Warhammer's biggest strength is in the variety of gameplay it offers. This variety comes in four different flavours: straight PvE quests, Public Quests, Scenarios and Open RvR.
The game is in the best shape when these four systems are always accessible and equally rewarding (or comparably rewarding). All four of them.
Removing Scenarios doesn't make a better game, it's the wrong solution to a problem. Reducing the number of scenarios also doesn't make a better game since it reduces once again the variety. The main reason why everyone says the game is an awful grind is because the game entered a dead end where there's scenarios and just scenarios. It's repetitive, and repetitive is "grind". And grind means that you worship your exp bar. And worshiping your exp bar means that you aren't having fun and just hope to reach the "promise of a different end-game".
This is the state of the four gameplay paths coming from my personal experience in the game and what I read in other players' feedback:
- PvE Quests yield crap experience, especially in Tier 3 and 4 (or so I read)
- PQs don't have enough players and bag loot should be improved
- Scenarios outbalance everything else, but should be balanced between each other to be more equal in rewards
- Open PvP is non existent and with piss poor rewards
PvE Quests
I don't have the data, but I think that the experience curve throughout all the levels should be improved. Things should scale more uniformly and quests, scenarios, PQs, direct kills, these all should scale with the levels following a smooth, predictable curve. Instead I read reports that quests yield less and less experience and something similar happens for scenarios too. The escalation of level requirements isn't perceived as smooth, and I'm willingly to trust the feedback I read on this.
I don't have any experience in Tier 3 so I can't comment the details. For sure the solution is NOT to add repeatable quests to fill the gaps. If the are gaps they need to be removed entirely, not just bridged with fluff. In any case it's a problem of boosting or decreasing the xp rewards so that even the normal quests make your experience bar move perceptibly.
Public Quests
Big issue. Problems coming from different aspects that aren't easily fixable without significant coding efforts. Difficulty scaling, to begin with.
The real reason why Mythic is scared about making leveling faster is because the faster the players move to the cap, the quicker the tiers will depopulate. The quicker the tiers depopulate, the less fun the experience for new players. The less fun the experience of new players, the smaller the influx of new subscriptions to the game. With less players sticking, the game has no future.
Right now for Mythic is crucial that the first tiers are vibrant with activity. The band-aid they have for this is to keep the leveling so slow that people "pool" in the tiers for longer, maybe even encouraging them to create alts more than pushing to the cap.
The real problem is that no matter how slow the leveling speed, these problems will arise anyway. The depopulation of the tiers is the big thorn in the game's side. It WILL happen. Ignoring it now will just make things worse later. It starts affecting mostly the PQs, but later will even affect Scenarios. It's a game-breaking problem.
There's only one effective solution, and I'll point where I discussed it.
Scenarios
I believe that the Scenarios should be reworked even in level design, but I won't go in the details. For sure they need to add lightmaps and avoid fights in the dark. Not fun, especially when it's so easy to get stuck everywhere. For this kind of gameplay the zone design shouldn't get in the way, it should ease the fight. Less stupid obstacles and more visibility, thanks.
Secondly, all the Scenarios in a tier need to be equally rewarding. Make an average of time each required, then compensate the differences through bigger or smaller rewards for completing one.
Open RvR
To begin with: travel sucks. Travel time-sinks have to go completely. Every hub, big or small, should have all the necessary NPCs. Then I'd add at least two flight masters for each zone, one closer to a PvE hub, the other to the RvR Lake warcamp.
Once travel between PvE and RvR Lakes is simpler, I'd go with the following plan:
- Players take a Battlefield Objective (or keep) and cap it (worth nothing for now). Guilds can put a banner on the BO and stack benefits.
- For the time the BO is being actively defended (meaning there are real players in its proximity) it "blinks" on the map for all the players in the zone, for both factions. So that all players know that there's activity there.
- All the kills (both defenders and attackers) that happen within a decently wide radius from the BO starts to be worth more points (XP, renown). A bonus that should be slightly higher for defenders, to encourage defense.
- For all the kills that defenders manage, some points go into a "bounty pool" in the BO. The more kills, the more this pool increases. I'd also make the BO generate some of these points even if no one is around, so that if left untouched for a lot of hours it actually start to be worth something anyway.
- This means that the longer it takes to conquer the BO, the biggest is going to be the reward, as it increases with the time and makes the prize progressively juicier.
- In order to "collect" these points the attackers need to conquer the objective themselves and "cash" the reward.
This has mainly three effects:
1- The BO works like a magnet, like a natural convergence since the direct kills are worth a lot more when they are closer to the objective. This makes the players know where to go and the action is focused on a smaller area (those who played Planetside know what I mean). This reduces the problem of RvR lakes being too dispersive.
2- The bounty points increase over time, so growing to a level that will likely motivate the other faction to take action. It will also move the "hot" RvR area around instead of repeating what happened with "Emain" in DAoC. It puts variety in the system.
3- It avoids exploits and disruptive behaviors. Points in this system come from direct kills. Handing out a lot of points for just conquering a keep, instead, encourages the factions to just trade the objective instead of fighting for it. It teaches them to AVOID the fight to maximize the reward (we saw some of this in WoW). My system instead focuses on the fight itself. It motivates it and makes sure it is rewarding since it promotes and rewards the activity.
This is how I would fix Open RvR. Some of those mechanics existed in some form in DAoC, but were never implemented in a way they mattered.
Mark Jacobs says:
Look, it's really very simple and I've said this more than once. This is not 2001 and we are not going to blithely make changes to our game just because some people think that we are wrong before they even get a chance to see the changes in action or worse, just because we are getting yelled at by a very vocal minority. We'll gather the data, look at all the feedback and then make a decision. If we're wrong, we'll correct the decision but at least this time we have all the data we need to make the right call and we are not getting swayed either by just the loud voices or a few wrong-headed individuals. So, if you feel the need to talk about canceling in these threads, of course you have that right. Just don't think that we are going to react to it the same way we might have at times back in 2001, we need to be smarter and react more carefully than that.
Mark Jacobs apparently believes that these complaints about Open RvR are due to "loud voices or a few wrong-headed individuals".
To what did they overreact in 2001 that made them so scared today? Class issues, maybe. Doing nothing in regards to huge unbalances for a long time, keeping specs completely broken. And then suddenly turning things on their heads. This happened. Right now there are no signs of change. Class issues are still unaddressed and no one knows if when the changes will come they will be searing.
Class issues aside, what I remember from Mythic is not overreacting, but doing very little, too late and never at the root of the problem. How is this different today? As with ToA, they risk to fix things when it's too late, or never in a radical way. Even at that time Mythic believed that the complaints against ToA came from a "vocal minority" and it take them a long time to acknowledge that this "vocal minority" spoke in regards of the majority. When they did, it was too late.
History repeats, no matter how hard they try to persuade players of the contrary. No matter how much I hope something really changed.
DAoC with the time became more and more a game just about specialized 8vs8 or arranged matches between guilds. The keep battles and sieges became a rarity. For a very long time I was part of the "vocal minority" who pleaded Mythic to bring the "real" RvR back to when the realm was fighting together and the battles pivoted around keeps instead of away from them to avoid interferences.
They did nothing for a long time and when they started adding some rewards to conquering a keep, these rewards were ridiculously low. Does it sound familiar? This is way too similar to what is happening now in regards to Scenarios and Open RvR.
The same happened again with the "Catacombs" expansion. They added private instances that were merely a corridor populated with a row of skeletons. It was STUPID. Ridiculously pointless and dull.
But everyone continued to do them and just them. Over and over and over. Why? Because they gave by far the most experience points.
Mythic had other instanced dungeons that provided a lot more variety and depth of gameplay, also more linked to the various zones. They were completely deserted. No players at all. Why? Because they couldn't even compare to the fast rewards of the private instances. For a long time I tried to persuade Mythic to make these other dungeons comparably attractive. They never did.
History repeats.
I know I sound like the stereotypical soured player, but I've seen these things happening. Over and over. And now I don't see any sign that they actually learned from mistakes. They say they did, but this isn't reflected by their actions. I continue to see the same mistakes repeated. The exact same mistakes.
I remember reading an old post from Ubiq who described similar patterns:
In Star Wars Galaxies, I remember, the rewards for killing the flying bat things were better than for everything else (probably had something to do with me being a Master Armorsmith). So because I could choose my own randomly generated quests, I chose the flying bat thing quests every time. Man, I got so sick of killing those, but all of the other content may as well not have existed.
It bears pointing out that most MMOs, rather inadvertently, end up shrinking their own content down in some way. Players are incredibly efficient at finding the fastest way to advance, and designers sometimes accidentally make design and balance decisions that help this along.
What Ubiq describes here is what it happens with Warhammer today. Players do scenarios and just scenarios, everything else may as well not exist at all. They shrunk their game to just repetitive deathmatches. This is what originated the "grind" the players are feeling. The repetition. The dullness.
Bringing back the variety I talked at the beginning would already help to substantially reduce the "grind" even without touching the levelling curve. But Mythic is scared even to touch the smallest thing, because their "metrics" tell them how much fun players are having in Scenarios. The same metrics that told them how fun were the 8vs8 matches or those stupid task dungeons in DAoC.
Mark Jacobs continues to repeat that they'll only listen their metrics and not those "loud voices and few wrong-headed individuals" I'm sure he would put me in.
The metrics on my account will tell Mythic that when I log in I sit in a warcamp and do exclusively Scenarios. But those metrics don't know that I'm PISSED, DEAD BORED about them. Mythic instead will take those metrics and see the evidence of how much I obviously love Scenarios since all my play time goes there.
How much I love Mourkain Temple, especially, since I do mostly that one. But those metrics don't know that I think that whoever designed the Scenario terrain should better move on another job. Plenty of time I get stuck somewhere while moving, the textures are so dark that I see jack shit, and there's a total absence of lightmaps that makes all this even worse. It's terrible, but I continue to do it because it's the most rewarding.
Metrics are dumb. Their "evidence" is a lie.
So I really don't know what message I should send Mythic instead. Because if I play Scenarios they'll think I love Scenarios. If I do Open RvR they'll think it's ok that Open RvR yields no rewards. Next time they'll write that they see some more activity in the RvR Lakes because some idiots are trying desperately even if the system is so punishing. Do I boycott them? Do I cancel my account? Canceling my account would tell them that I don't believe in Mythic, the potential of the game, or that a PvP MMO could be successful. Whatever I do sends the wrong message.
Whatever I do sends the wrong message because on the other side there should be a game designer that UNDERSTANDS players. That is in touch with them. That plays the game himself and sees where the problems are. That plans and fix things for the long term, and not through band-aids. At the root of the problems, and not inadequately.
Instead we rely on "metrics" and whatever twisted, biased use is made of them. To prove "evidence" where there's only wronged partiality.
Submitted by Abalieno on October 6, 2008 - 02:21.
This is not backpedaling, actually it's realizing how significant are becoming the potential flaws I was pointing out.
I've been playing some more these days and experienced concretely those problems. And I think these problems are crippling. I said long term, now I think I was optimistic.
My "fun" has been spotty. The game has a HUGE potential, as the huge potential was always there if PvP was done right. In Warhammer it is done right, but only occasionally realized and well executed. Too many variables affecting the fun, and this means that it's not consistent and most time the game isn't fun at all.
1- The client doesn't have a good performance. It has serious problems with memory management, and even more in video memory management and caching. On new systems these flaws are much less noticeable and the gameplay is smooth, but over a number of different configurations there are PLENTY of players who report a lot of problems. This doesn't seem a priority issue, but it is. Mass market means that your game HAS to work flawlessly on a wide range of configurations. Conservative graphic doesn't guarantee good performance. It helps, but the really high number of little and major problems in the game client risks to cripple the sales and subscriptions in a substantial way. Those who can't play well rarely spend weeks hunting for "magic" trick on the forums or sending feedback, they go back to play WoW, where technical execution comes above everything else.
2- Terrible flow. This basically summarizes all kind of critical problems. The fact that the "fun" is spotty. The zones have too much wasted space. Too much traveling without shortcuts. The death penalty may be trivial but here there are HUGE downtimes due to traveling, waiting for scenarios to pop or running aimlessly for half an hour or more around huge open PvP areas without meeting a single other player. In the last days I've been having serious problems to find even ONE open party for Public Quests. Even during prime time. This also gives a very bad perception. I have no idea how successful is the game, but the world feels empty and lonely as if I joined two years after launch. Instead how long is it? Two weeks? It's all wasted, all those open PvP areas with all sort of objectives. Carefully designed to hold zerg of players. And there's NO ONE. If you are lucky you see a tumbleweed in the distance. Developer time completely WASTED. Money wasted. And fun crippled.
So what were Warhammer strengths? The variety of gameplay alternatives it offered: normal questing, PQs, Scenarios and open RvR.
Pragmatically, which one of these alternatives are really viable if I decide to log in now? Normal questing and Scenarios when they pop. Sometimes, if I'm lucky, a PQ party that holds for ten minutes only to be wiped at the third phase because it was badly designed and it's not doable with a single group, escalating difficulty in the worst way possible (from trivial but slow -kill 120 level 10 zombies- to impossible -five linked level 12 heroes-).
I don't like PvE questing much. So what? Just scenarios, and they grow old after a while, same as WoW.
So that's the downward spiral. Some deathmatches for shit and giggles and some boring PvE to slog through. Not exactly a masterpiece of game. Not even the WAAAAGH they were claiming it was going to be. You read on the forum a lot of similar feedback, players that try to explain how great was the battle they had yesterday. Sure, it was, but it's inconstant. You have fun once every few days, when all the celestial bodies align properly. And Mythic's design doesn't help it.
I'm back feeling like when I was playing DAoC. Feeling bad because the game is THIS close to *be* a masterpiece.
What if?
What if Mythic planned the server structure form the start not as this prehistoric shard/server division, but a dynamical system where characters are an autonomous entity and where a new zone instance is only spawned when the previous reaches the cap? Think if, no matter when you decide to log in, no matter the server you picked, the zones always had players running around, with lots of activity, where all the PQs have players, where instances pop frequently and where open RvR is active at all time, where faction and population balance are more even than how they are currently. Utopia? Not. It's vision, careful observation and experience. It's knowing the right thing to do. It's about knowing what the game needs to work well and to plan ahead with that in mind. It was possible by just planning the server structure in the way I was suggesting.
What if they actually designed the zones so that the three campaigns had ONE open PvP area for each tier (excluding endgame), like a convergence, instead all that ridiculous wasted space?
What if there was a de-levelling system so that all those PvP spaces were more consistently alive, and more consistently counted in the overall campaign? While also allowing PvE junkies to hunt down their Tome of Knowledge tricks without the fear of outlevelling the zones.
Well, it's useless to repeat it again, but I was pointing all this out years ago when Warhammer didn't even exist as a project. Trying to be as loud as possible but obtaining once again no result beside the evidence I was right.
I don't fucking care if I was right. If it does not make a difference, it's of no use to be right.
So, since I'm powerless, someone out there PLEASE WAKE UP.
But instead I'm talking to a deaf wall. No matter if I'm loud or not, in the best case I'm seen just as an arrogant idiot, or a troll, or a fraud who is accused of re-dating and rewriting his posts to claim undeserved wit.
I repeat myself I can't start another of those useless crusades, no matter how much I think I'm right. Maybe I'm not? They say I'm not. So I wait the probable: Mythic to repeat the same mistakes, announcing soon all kind of fancy bonuses to encourage players to reroll on specific servers, obtaining no tangible difference, and later an expansion with some new classes, races and brand new zones to dilute what is already too diluted and wasted.
'No, it comes with living long enough to appreciate the value of the time you've got left. Long enough to recognize the fallacy of a crusade when you're called to one. Hoiran's teeth, Gil, you're the last person I should need to be telling this to. Have you forgotten what they did with your victory?'
P.S.
I truly admire who did art direction for Warhammer. Stylistically I love it, more than WoW. But what the fuck was he thinking about all those white, textureless cloaks? Or the utter lack of variety in the graphic of items?
Of course with the time these issues will vanish, but probably only at the level cap as more shit is added. And this doesn't make a good game at all. It just leaves a sour taste.
Submitted by Abalieno on October 3, 2008 - 01:50.
When I first read about this issue I misunderstood it and thought was related to arenas items requiring a certain rating to be used and not just to be earned, which was discussed months ago. Then the second time I got it right: they were putting arena rating requirements EVEN on battlegrounds/honor items.
It was so utterly stupid that I thought right away that it was some unintended beta transition. No way it could make into release.
Instead it's deliberate.
What a fucking rambling idiot. He was always, but he's now surpassing every record and even PRETENSE of plausibility. Who the fuck runs Blizzard to allow that this jerk is still around AND a senior designer who continues to fuck and ruin the PvP in every way possible? How it's possible that most of the rest of the design is so brilliant while this guy can still do as he pleases? Where is the rest of the team? Why no one says anything?
The reason behind the retarded change is summarized this way:
However for now, we don't have a way to measure "skill" in a battleground in a way that getting the "best" items in the game through battlegrounds would feel equitable when compared to what is required as far as co-ordination and success in pve to get items of equivalent power.
it's more of a natural consequence of the fact that because we have a way to measure success that feels reasonably balanced against pve, we're able to put high-end items there, which on its own creates the focus of importance.
They want a "morally right" game where rewards come for "skill" and not for sinking time.
Since in PvE endgame the rewards only come if you "win" the l33t raid game, and if you keep failing you get nothing, they wanted this even on PvP and thought that rewards should only come from "winning" and not for trying, or participating. They don't want to reward persistence, they want to reward success. You have to be worthy.
Now, as a principle, the idea is even plausible even if unacceptable for a *game*, since players are supposed to have fun no matter of their limits. You know, the best game is the one that makes you think you are very good, not the game that slaps you in the face and laughs every time you fail and makes you feel like you are the very bottom of the food chain.
But let's put this concern aside for a second. Rewarding "skill" as opposed to time sinks and grinds. Sounds palatable. And maybe it is, if it wasn't for the fact that the principle of rewarding "skill" through "power-ups" is one HUGE CONTRADICTION. It's just plain stupid. Unmotivated.
What if for next Olympiads Usain Bolt starts 20m ahead of everyone else since he won this past edition? But, oh, Kalgan replied to that argument:
Of course, I realize that the subject of "skill" is another topic of debate on its own, with many players citing gear quality and team comps as factors in determining the outcome (some seem to go as far as to imply that it's all that matters). Clearly, those factors do influence the outcome, but not in a way that makes skill irrelevant. If that were the case, it wouldn't be very hard to step onto the stage with some of the pro-gamers in the tournament and take them down in a match of even gear and comps. However, I can assure you that while I consider myself (for example) a pretty respectable player when it comes to arenas, I and a pair of similarly skilled teammates probably wouldn't win more than 1 in every 100 games against the top players despite using identical gear and comps. Like it or not, that's skill.
First. The case of competing with identical gear is not a playable case. It doesn't happen. And what happens isn't that players who wear crap are "bolstered" to the item quality of "top-players". What happens is that those top-players HAVE A FUCKING ADVANTAGE OVER PLAYERS WITH LESS SKILL *AND* LESS POWERFUL.
It's not equal footing and it's not even weaker players brought to the level of stronger ones. It's just giving advantages to who is already ahead, so that this relative situation is preserved.
Second. The implication that there's skill in the game doesn't justify in ANY way that those who have the skill must have artificial advantages added on top of that skill. QUITE THE CONTRARY.
Sure there's skill. Usain Bolt may as well win even if *I* start 20m ahead of him. But this doesn't fucking justify the fact that HE has the right start 20m ahead *of me* simply because he has that skill. QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
So it's really a matter of plausibility, not game design. We are far away from any possible game consideration. This is plain obvious: you just CAN'T justify an irritating change in the game as a moral principle. Because the premises of that principle are, as demonstrated, completely wrong and unacceptable. So that justification doesn't work.
The true reasons why this is happening are twofold. The first well explained on Q23:
A lot of players have simply given up on the arena due to the fact that they don't find it fun getting pounded 10 times for a meager amount of points. Unfortunately, those lower-tier players are needed to keep the arena ladder functioning properly, since somebody has to have a shitty rating in an ELO system. Instead of finding a creative or rewarding way of luring players back into the arena, Blizzard is simply requiring them to come back in because they can't get battleground PvP gear otherwise.
The other reason is Tom Chilton and his e-peen.
It's all about the rewards, and these rules are made SOLELY so that these rewards stay "secured" in the hands of a selected few.
And then I thought it was genius.
Politically it's the metaphor of capitalism. The concentrated power and wealth in the hands of some limited few and wasted mindlessly, while the rest of humanity has nothing and is treated like garbage. And the "righteousness" of it all.
The game is the celebration of that. The self-preservation of power through rules made by those who exercise that power and self-made morals to justify it. Selfish and blind.
You can't learn anything more useful than that.
P.S.
Feedback starts from here.
Submitted by Abalieno on September 2, 2008 - 18:32.
Submitted by Abalieno on May 20, 2008 - 23:46.
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?
Submitted by Abalieno on May 20, 2008 - 01:42.
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)
Submitted by Abalieno on May 1, 2007 - 23:07.
It's since 2004 that I push for this term and used it not parsimoniously a zillion of times. Probably the most used term on this site along with "accessibility barriers", "permeable barriers", "gated content" and others I used to use.
Accessibility. When WoW launch everyone was ascribing its worth to another term: polish. The word was that WoW was a "polished" game, with a good UI and had a good launch (if you exclude the growing pains). And while everyone was agreeing on the polish I was trying to criticize that term. I remember especially a discussion on Dave Rickey's blog that I'd link if the blog still existed.
If you call it "polish" you aren't wrong, but you fail to underline the distinctive trait and the reason why it is so much important. Polish just means it's glossy, appealing. A good presentation. That's important, but not fundamental. What I was explaining is that polish is a subset of accessibility, but it's the accessibility itself being the key.
And accessibility is a broader term that includes many different aspects, all absolutely relevant and important. Why WoW won? Hardware requirements to begin with, but also game design. I complained many times about WoW's raiding endgame. Everyone out there agrees that while WoW did a wonderful work by removing so many enrooted bad habits in the genre while distilling all that is relevant and fun, it still wasn't able to do the same with the endgame, both raiding and PvP. With the problem of raiding being, guess what? Accessibility barriers.
The game that will SURPASS WoW will be the one game that removes those accessibility barriers that are still left. I repeated this ad nauseam.
And yes, accessibility barriers are everywhere. On game design and technology. Even bandwidth, stable connections, low ping. One of the reason why MMOFPS are problematic is because of connection issues. They require very fast and reliable connections. They require servers geographically near you. They even require very smooth framerates. Today game designers completely underestimate fundamental parts of the code like the bandwidth requirements. They care if the server overloads, or their own bandwidth costs, but they rarely think about the player's end.
Voice chat, just as another example, is another fucking huge accessibility barrier.
So "accessibility" is an important term because it goes straight to isolate those problems that are usually underestimated and that instead are the most important. Slash commands, another "first generation" MMO bad habit are another accessibility barrier. I don't know how many times I ranted against DAoC and its frequent introduction of mechanics only accessible through slash commands. It's not just because you have to memorize them. The problem is that before you can memorize them, you have to be *aware* of them. You cannot pretend players to read the patch notes to be aware of a new function or possibility. Nor you can pretend that players retroactively remember all that was added along the months. To not even say that these commands are also poorly documented.
Take Guild Wars and the most recent dev quotes:
According to the team, the problem with high-end PvP is the learning curve. With so many skilled players, there's no way in Guild Wars to gently introduce players to the concept of PvP. Newbies can be brutalized by the experience of letting teammates down as they develop the skills to be competitive in PvP.
Yeah, accessibility barrier. And even GW's PvP sucks for that reason. It's not a small problem.
The fact that it's so hard to meet other players in these games that you meet for example on a forum. Because there are so many servers and you cannot move your character freely to meet other friends you make. This isn't an accessibility barrier, but it's still a barrier and one of the most important in the whole genre. One that NO ONE IN THIS INDUSTRY seem to care about.
Levels are another fucking barrier. No one is touching it either.
I described the current situation as an iceberg because the MMO market IS submerged for the most part. Guild Wars MAIN principle was to let players play without the monthly fee. And it's again an aspect of accessibility. So if you want to reach that large market, you have to envision that part of the iceberg that is still submerged. You have to provide solutions to the problems that ALL the mmorpgs out there are clearly exposing. Instead of perpetuating them to maintain the status quo.
I said it:
The future of the genre is to make these world even more accessible and immersive. Working on the qualities that we already discovered and going to tap that potential that is still dormant. The future of the genre will be about offering *solid answers* to the problems that are now dodged or dismissed. It will be about games that bring the players together instead of apart and that will continue to appeal to casual players, without imposing them unacceptable strains and dependencies. Games that will let you contribute to the "world" without the need to schedule your life around it. Games that are accessible and don't separate the players in social classes of uberness
Now both Lum and Ubiq returned on the topic about accessibility. Finally admitting it IS accessibility and recognizing its importance (Ubiq by calling it for what it is and Lum indirectly: "you have to have as few roadblocks as possible").
With both of them I disagree on two points. With Ubiq about the "Uncanny Valley". There was a long thread on Q23 where I managed to demonstrate better the point. The point was that the problem of the "uncanny valley" is used inappropriately in gaming. There are no games so realistic to fall in that case, while the "uncanny valley" is mostly an excuse to disguise poor art quality.
Instead with Lum I disagree, again, when he says that "bad launches kill games". This is yet again the wrong perspective, exactly as when you use polish in place of accessibility. It's not wrong, but it's the least significant conclusion, the one that doesn't let you identify what's important.
I don't see launches being important. They are "moments of truth". But I don't know any game that I think should deserve substantially more or less subscribers than what it has (eastern market aside). That's it. Take Eve-Online. It is doing fairly well, but I don't think it deserves more than what it has currently, moreover, I don't think it deserved more than 20-30k it had at launch, because the game was quite terrible.
So what's the point here? The point is that a launch is the moment where all the empty promises fall down and the boxes have to be on the shelves. There's not anymore hype or rumor control. If the game is good, it will succeed, if it sucks, everyone will see that. That's why a launch is so important. Facts replace words.
Secondarily it's true that "bad launches kill games" because if a game is terrible at launch, then it means that it will likely suck one year later. More on this: Lum says Eve is the exception, so not a meaningful example of a viable strategy. I say that Eve IS an exception because I haven't seen ANY other mmorpg evolving and growing that much. And I don't mean growing subscriptions, I mean growing quality.
So, considering that with a launch the players finally see the game for what it is, and not for what it was hyped, and considering that once released a game usually doesn't really move anymore in any substantial way, yeah, bad launches can kill games. But the reason why that game dies is much deeper than "bad timing". Where "bad timing" is just the ready excuse that devs provide to avoid admitting they did a poor job. You gotta be sympathetic toward them.
Bad launches also put a huge mortgage on the possibility to improve the game and gather more resources, while good launches give that possibility, even if those resources are almost always moved to other projects and only for a small part reinvested to improve the original product.
Now "accessibility" has finally became the hot word. I guess I'll have to thank Vanguard to have revealed again how a good client is important. Finally people are starting to agree with me. On Terra Nova they argue about the term itself. Too generic? Too vague? Doh. You know... Fruit. Apple. Apple is a fruit, one term includes the other. One is specific, the other more generic. Do you really need a linguistic lesson? Terms have distinctive traits. Terms come out of an "use". So we have a term when we also have an use for it. There are Native American tribes that have more than ten different terms used to define the color "red". For us it's just red, but for them those are ten completely different colors. Why? I don't remember exactly but they had an use for them, while they clumped other colors into one because they weren't as relevant for them. You see distinctions where you have an use for them.
So "accessibility" is useful and relevant exactly because it encompasses so many fundamental aspects. With all having that distinctive trait in common that I consider next to the "barriers".
And here we come to the conclusion that leads back to the start.
Why ultimately "accessibility" is this important? Because there *is* a bottom line that excuses the importance of this term.
This bottom line is once again about "learning". Games are about learning. The three cases. Accessibility is the possibility to be let in. To what extent the lesson is accessible for you. To what extent you are included in the group, or excluded. Winner or loser. To what extent you are in, or out.
Accessibility isn't a vague definition of a mechanic. Accessibility is the one, only value: the vocation of gaming.
To reach as many people as possible, immerse them, let them be part of something.
Look at the bottom of this post. What you see on top of that list?
Submitted by Abalieno on April 6, 2007 - 01:15.
Related to the discussion about how to make hopeless PvP defenses a bit more epic and fun.
Music
- Develop a system similar to Lucasarts' iMuse (music tunes dynamically adapting to the situation in the game). The zerg approaches and you are outnumbered, and a special epic badass music starts to play.
War skills
- The Horn
Mechanic: This is a commander skill. It can only be used when the team in a zone is outnumbered. When used it works like a simple trigger, enabling the "Braveheart" skill on all the players in the same team and in the zone. The horn is also a huge physical object that cannot be transported, so a commander must reside at a castle in order to use it.
Metaphor: The horn is played and its deep sound will be heard through the valley. You hear the sound, your realm is calling you. Fight for your realm!
- Braveheart
Mechanic: after you hear "The Horn" your "Braveheart" skill lights up ready to be used. When pressed your character is locked into place, building up a morale boost that enhances your stats. If you are hit in combat you'll be interrupted. This "buff" has a cap, so once filled it won't pass that limit (you get the visual cue of a bar filling up, so you always know the status of this buff). Around five seconds to go from zero to cap. Your morale will then slowly decay over time and go down every time you deal damage, proportionally to the damage you deal.
Metaphor: You hear the calling, your realm is calling everyone to arms. Your character rises his fist into the air (animation) and SCREAMS THE HELL OUT OF HIS LUNGS (sound). You are answering the calling. In a castle "The Horn" is played and all defenders answer the call by screaming at unison.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 5, 2007 - 23:32.
Taking from a thread on F13, mine and someone else's quotes.
This addresses "the problem that isn't a problem", meaning the population unbalance in persistent PvP.
--
People fail to understand that population IS PART of this type gameplay. Those unbalances are part of the system because they ARE the system. We are simulating the "struggle of nations" and even in real history those unbalances existed. History would SUCK if every battle was fought by the exact number of people. Taking all your people into RvR to defend your realm was THE game. This social aspect was THE game. A real motivation: fight for your realm or watch it fall. The realm NEEDS YOU.
The second you have EXACT numbers on either side, this kind of real RvR is over. "Numbers" are the heart of this kind of gameplay, not something to eradicate. The second you decide to lock numbers on either side you don't have anymore real warfare, you have something else.
So look at this from the other perspective: instead of locking numbers to erase this unbalance, why instead not trying to make the game fun and exciting when you are outnumbered?
This can be done by making correspond to asymmetric numbers also asymmetric objectives. So that these objectives (and victory points you earn) are measured on your *current* condition, and not on the unfair premise that everyone has an equal chance. We *know* that it's improbable to obtain equal footing in real persistent PvP so we don't make a game assuming that, we make a game anticipating those problems and around those conditions.
Mythic's big mistake was to design RvR ideally assuming that the three realms were always symmetric. They are not. The game rules should anticipate and be based on this.
--
tazelbain: Now with Scenarios giving the most VP, teams with best PvP teams controls the zone. This is a preferable situation because individual players have a better chance of overcome a teamwork gap than the numbers gap.
Nope because this is exclusive PvP. And exclusive PvP means that it's selective. And selective means that some players get in while other players are left out.
A successful mmorpg must promote inclusion, not exclusion. Battles, the real medieval battles were about inclusion and numbers. Grab a pitchfork and join to fight. But we all also just saw "300". And we know that a good team CAN overcome numbers. Or at least that's the myth that games should make us live, because that's what makes games feel cool and involving. Giving us myths.
The problem of zerg vs zerg must be solved elsewhere. I always said that the game must provide paths (through directed/objective based PvP) so that the game is fun and exciting even and IN PARTICULAR when you are outnumbered, because there's the potential for something truly "heroic" that the players would love (see 300 again). While it's dead boring if you know you are winning and the victory doesn't require any effort.
How to achieve this? Instead of locking the number of players who participate in a defense/attack (which negates the immersion and the WHOLE POINT of the warfare), you give teams different objectives that are balanced for that specific situation.
A concrete example for a taste of what I mean: the team with the large zerg will have the objective (and related victory points) to conquer a castle. The outnumbered defenders will have the objective to defend it *as long as possible*. The more they resist, the more points they earn, and the more they are outnumbered the more the points they earn over time scale up.
Asymmetric/immersive warfare is the whole point of RvR. You just need to make it correspond adaptive/reactive objectives that are balanced to the current status of the realm.
--
And to precise better: are the game rules to lead the players around and determine what they'll do and what they'll avoid. Carrots on a stick, goals, power-ups. That's what the game is about and what the players chase. They simply go where the best points to be made are.
What's bad in PvP when you are outnumbered is that you only waste time feeding enemies points without getting anything back. So it's often better to just /quit.
If this is seen as a problem then you can use the rules to encourage and motivate players to defend. What I mean is that this is ENTIRELY a problem of game rules.
It's about time that game design starts to "legislate" on this, start working on models, interactions. Because till now RvR was just a big zone with a keep in the middle, with some bleached, gimmick features tacked on it. Not much development went into the actual RvR and warfare, and that's the main reason why all that potential is untapped.
Just think to what we could have now if RvR had received in the years the same focus and numbers of reiterations that went into PvE.
That's what I'm saying. RvR is still a closed door. The first step.
--
eldaec:
On the first question, is open RvR ever going to have mass appeal? I don't know. Indications from daoc were that it's worth a try, the casual players genuinely liked 100 v 100 face offs at keeps. The hardcore liked the open aspect of RvR much less, because it diluted their individual advantages. Certainly RvR is the only major thing that is unique to Mythic and WAR - and it's the only mechanism I've seen for having hardcore and casual players interact constructively - so it seems nuts to focus instead on something that is already the focus of games like GW. At the end of the day, what we do know is that meaningful sport pvp is an unlikely premise for a mass appeal game, while RvR is at least unknown.
First off, prep-work. The beauty of RvR prep work was that the double mega hardcore did (and enjoyed) the prep work for the casual masses. Casual players did not have to do prep work for RvR, but double mega hardcore players who wanted to get shit done in RvR had to communicate that prep work to the casuals, it wasn't perfect, but I have yet to see a better MMOG model for getting hardcores to talk to casuals. Plus prep work was only necessary at all for the very largest RvR events, on your average night of RvR you just use the realm war map to go find the action.
Open RvR remains untested in the market since daoc. And that was pretty much a stealth product by recent standards, I don't think you can automatically draw conclusions about how an RvR game would do today.
There is significant evidence that meaningful (as opposed to diversionary) sport pvp is hard to sustain in a typical mmog setting because it dramatically emphasizes differences in player skill, at the same time as limiting community size and so forcing the uber up against the noob too often.
But at the same time, the best you can say for RvR is that people who tried it usually liked it.
In daoc, assuming you survive to level 50 rr4 or so (ie. rvr viable, and yes, that needs to come sooner in WAR), your realm is, in effect, a form of guild.
But in a normal guild, the guild community can form around social links, and so it is naturally cohesive. In a realm on the other hand, the game has to build a community around the arbitary membership of the realm.
If people (scrubs included) don't care that scrub participation in sport pvp hurts the realm, that means you didn't set up an environment which builds the community right, and as such you already failed the most important precondition to make RvR work.
This is really key, if you make everyone believe they are involved in a genuinely realm versus realm competition, and believe that they can contribute, and believe that the rest of the realm is on their side; then tbh most other stuff falls into place by itself. DAOC was built entirely on that principle, in that game pve was ostensibly about building community, and open-RvR was how the community entertained itself on an open-ended basis.
Submitted by Abalieno on March 4, 2007 - 08:17.
This is the result of twenty minutes of "logic" brainstorming.
Logic brainstorming because I didn't start from an inspiration I got. I just started to think about the nature of the project, its restrictions and then figuring out a scheme that could fit that project well.
I'm referring to that Dave Perry's Top Secret project that I'm still skeptical about but that still keeps teasing me for obvious reasons. On F13 I posted that it could be fun to participate as a group as we are somewhat that part of the MMO world who has always had gripes and knows EXACTLY what is wrong. So it could be interesting to have that solid foundation: even if the project sucks, we aren't naive and we know the genre and the industry well enough to cut the superfluous and talk about what matters. So whatever we achieve would be still respectable.
Then I started to think on my own about the project itself and what kind of casual game could be appropriate for it. Finding a set of features that must be respected and that are common to all game concepts possible within those restrictions. From there I tried then to deduce a specific idea about a possible game.
Here the skeleton of the project:
1- This is supposed to be a smallish project as they said it must be completed in about a year and will be one of those "free" games. So nothing ambitious like a complex sandbox, a virtual living world or a massive-scale game.
2- It should work on current or easy-to-make technology. So you cannot focus on something innovative or not already proven from the technology side.
3- Low production value. You cannot expect large and immersive worlds, with impressive vistas and focus on the exploration. Nor the "epic campaign" or hundreds of hours of character development. It's a good idea to build a thing that can work with a limited group of art assets, easily expandable, and where things can be reused. Mudflation or leveled content should be banished from this project.
Considering these points I guess the best choice is for a game easily accessible, with a shallow power curve, small download, that you can get, log in and have some cheap fun within a couple of minutes. Since the "scope" cannot be the goal I guess the focus to realize a decent, interesting game should be on a core gameplay that is easy to get and fun. Nothing with multiple systems stacked on top of each other. Something simple but that can be also be mixed and freeform to hook the attention of the player in the longer term, while on the other side not losing the accessibility and fun.
One idea I had was for a Macross/Battletech/Gundam hybrid with simplistic RTS elements. Something like Planetside, but more RPG-paced. The fact that art assets should be reused makes a good idea to lean toward PvP. It could work through a short PvE introduction, with simple missions to complete, either online with mates, or offline. Completely skippable.
Then you reach the "end" game. A set of "maps" that may be linked by goals and purposes. PvP/conquest maps as well PvE cooperative mission maps. Either path (PvP or PvE) viable without forcing players one way or the other. You get points more or less like DAoC or WoW PvP. Then use these points to buy new mech parts.
The "core feature" of the game could be the freedom on how you build your mechs, so that you can put together and rig all sort of crazy, custom mechs. You build for the game a basic infrastructure, like a "grammar", then let the player recombine mech parts for a near-limitless number of combinations. Studying a system so that the final stats and capabilities of the mech fall within a directed "balance"... Maybe you can take inspiration from Magic, the card game, where each "map" has also set "requirements" (like Magic's tournaments where some cards are banished), so that the mechs must meet those requirements in order to participate. Or like in Gran Turismo (the racing game) where you have to have the right type of car to access set competitions. For example through a system where your final mech is automatically "tiered" or "ranked", defining the kinds of missions it can enter.
You can then have "practice" maps where you can go to test and fine-tune your mech, or just play for fun, on your own, without any restriction at all. Just being wild with your mech design. Think to something like X-men "Danger room".
Gameplay-wise it shouldn't be twitch (twitch games need EXCELLENT execution and it's not a luxury you can aspire to have in such a project). I would use the same system I imagined for my Fallout concept: playable with a gamepad (and ready to port on consoles if you want), using a single key to automatically target what's in front of you, or switching targets with buttons for automated weapons. Maybe different mech parts could be linked to different control methods. For example you could drive a mech with "legs" with the analog stick, while a mech on "tracks" could use acceleration and deceleration keys.
It would feel fresh enough to draw the attention of the players, while being at the same time "sticky" with the mech customization and unlocking of new parts, along with the variety of mission maps available.
Another main goal is that this game structure is also easily expandable. You can freely add new mech parts and even completely new missions and brand new gameplay. As each map has its requirements you can easily add all sort of stuff without worrying to keep everything balanced for all the rest of the game. It's so open that you could easily build whole new games within.
+ The game concept makes it also easy exportable to the large eastern market.
EDIT: I got an idea for the first "expansion": Super Robots!
I was thinking to that japanese RTS game, Super Robot Wars. Instead of toying around with anonymous mech parts, you could do what City of Heroes did to comics. Use mech parts inspired to Mazinger, Gundam, Daitarn and the like. Then have "invasion" mission types where you take your Super Robot and invade metropolis like Tokyo, Los Angeles, New York. Stomp over fleeing people, take building parts and toss them around, take down aircrafts with your lasers, blow things up, destroy everything on sight and even fight Godzilla, Gamera, King Kong -like creatures and all sort of cool, weird stuff. Like those wonderful classic Japanese movies. Okay, maybe this goes a bit beyond the reasonable scope, but it would be one hell of fun :)
EDIT2: To who thought "where is the multiplayer" about the idea above...
Super Robots Arenas! Think something inspired to WoW's arenas. 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3 or 5vs5. Ranked or unranked. The metropolises of the idea above would be the "ring". How cool it would be? And in ranked matches, as it happens in Magic, the winner loots one random mech part from the loser ;)
P.S.
Considering that this MMO won't run on a monthly subscription but will be "free", I fear that it's almost obligatory to support RMT, whether you want or not. Considering the structure of my idea (unblocking and modding mech parts) I believe it wouldn't be all that hard to put RMT on top of it. Even if I'd despise it...
You purchase new mech parts, new missions, and you may even purchase more "mech slots" to store in your "garage". So that you have more mechs ready and set up for all the different kinds of maps. Instead of having to dismantle and rebuild your current ones every time.
You can even add "durability" to the mech parts, so that you may have to repair or repurchase broken parts.
P.P.S.
This project is "gated content" certified (all content always accessible, with no "endgame" separation or drifts from solo -> groups -> raids. All modes always available right away) and "permeable barriers" certified (mechs can be dismantled and rebuilt freely, no character locked into classes or one-way choices to make). So it respects all the principles I laid down in regards of MMO game design during the latest years. And it may be the proof that they are valid :)
Submitted by Abalieno on February 21, 2007 - 01:23.
First post Lum wrote about game design since... forever. But he is well justified.
It's also about a theme so dear to me that I discussed many times in the past. I usually presented it in the form of "personal Vs communal objectives" and here instead Lum does what he does best: being much more clear and straight to the point.
I agree with everything he wrote, both on principles and analysis. I'm also waiting for a game that goes in that precise direction. That's my "dream game" and that kind of innovation I'd like to see. Whether it is really innovation or just incremental progress or evolution.
I always said that I don't care much how something is delivered, but I care that specific goals are set and specific problems are recognized and addressed. So thanks to Lum to give this theme some legitimation. My effort in the past was to persuade people of the potential of that direction.
What lessons would YOU add to make a PvP game more of a struggle of nations and less of a gangbang?
Acknowledging that the "struggle of nation" is desired or even preferable to the gangbang already wins me as a supporter. Recognizing that point and setting that goal is already much, much more than what happened in the WHOLE industry till today. So I somewhat agree with Sinij, that's exactly the heart of the discussion. Because before figuring out how to encourage and support the "struggle of nation" you have to have the desire to have it in the game and motivate this choice. Instead of going with the beaten path of the classic gang wars.
The next problem is the "scope". This isn't just one of the goals. This becomes the basic structure of the whole game, so it is tied with every other part and it's actually very hard to make general considerations. In the past I suggested many ideas to address many of the problems that come up with the system (Ubiq in the comments brings up one: "The losers of any fight will only take being a loser for so long before they leave (either go to another server, or leave the game entirely). It’s imperative to give them a way back into the fight." And a problem that is also somewhat near to an article from Gamasutra) the problem here is that it all depends on the actual structure of the game. What I mean is that you cannot abstract too much here, you have to go deal with the practice of the system. You have to have referents. Then you can prospect solutions and delve in every particular issue that comes up.
But that's also what Lum demonstrated in the specifics. By providing well-known referents ("lessons" learned from past games) it's much easier for people to follow what you write and understand the point. The problem is when you try to leave current games behind to suggest new solutions.
The simplification in "Gang wars Vs struggle of nations" is still already a lot. Partly because it gives legitimation to that goal, as I wrote above, and partly because it's clear to the point. It sets two trends one against the other.
About the "lessons" I agree with each Lum pointed. In particular the last, that isn't a "lesson" as it wasn't actually learned, is something I'd STRONGLY support. And if I'd have to bring a concrete example about it I'd bring up what I wrote long ago about the early implementation of PvP in WoW. If systems are well put and coherent, then players comply to the context in a natural way. To the point that they don't even notice this "transition". But when the context is CONTRADICTORY, as it happens in WoW's PvP where to get more points you avoid the fight (or jump between BGs looking for a more favorable situation), then all the context you are going to develop, no matter how much polish you put on it, will always get ignored.
The lesson here is "mandatory" to make Lum's last lesson possible, like a postulate: develop systems so that they are faithful to the context. Or better, develop games systems starting from the context, to "realize" it.
Why this is a lesson? Because the reason why contexts till today didn't work is that they were "tacked-on". Added later. And not instead the *premise* from where you start to build the game systems coherently.
This is similar to the critics I had made to Raph about SWG. You should design a game "from the inside". The game design should be a "simulation" of the setting and context. And not the setting and context "tacked-on" an arbitrary game system. "Metaphor" and "mechanics" ARE NOT independent.
That was one of my crusades and one lesson I'd suggest.
Instead I have some objections about the first lesson. I don't think that the first lesson is absolute, but then, thinking more about it, it's just that I would disagree on the implementation.
I don't like the economy to have a strong impact on the game because it deteriorates other aspects and makes them overall less accessible and fun. Economy creates barriers. But I agree that the "economy" can be the fabric of the conflict. Going back to my ideas and notes on the "dream mmorg" I separated these two same-layers. From a side the personal economy, from the other the world economy. Usually in games these two blend. The same money you spend on your own items and other personal services is the same money your realm uses as greater motivation. In Eve (as Eve was the example) the money you use to buy your ship and modules is the same money involved in the warfare. What changes is the scale.
As I repeated a million of times I dislike this. I dislike the shortcomings that economic system bring and all the negative effects on the fun and accessibility.
So here I somewhat disagree on the goal and would look into possibly better alternatives. One specific idea I wrote about was about that separation. Personal from a side and communal from the other. For example everything belonging to your character would be "safe". There should be the possibility to store your belongings so that you are sure that when you'll log back in the game everything is still there. All this "layer" that concerns the "personal" sphere should be excluded from PvP and the level of the economy.
Then we have the other layer and that can be an element of the conflict. So I want resource systems, points of control and all similar structures. But I would keep all these on this specific layer. It means that their *purpose* in the game never coincides with the one of the single player. So if you get resources used on this "layer" you cannot sell them to buy your character a better sword. These two sides, personal and communal are kept separate. Personal wealth should be unrelated to realm warfare, the two systems should be impermeable between each other. Moreover while your personal items can be stored safely, all that belongs to the "world resource system" is persistent on the world. This means that nothing is ever safe (aside your own personal progress). Enemy players can come and not only conquer your territory, but even pillage your cities and steal resources from your depots. There would be no way to take the objects used on this layer and log off safely with them. If something exists on the world, then it never exits. It is sitting somewhere. You can hide it, you can defend it, but you cannot take it out the game with you.
Of course this choice would also force to deal and address other long-time problems, for example guaranteeing a balance and a tactical depth, so that when you log in the game you won't find out that the enemy realm "won the game" during the night while the defense was down. I thought about these problems and I believe that they can effectively addressed with some work, but again I think it's pretty useless to abstract here, as the solutions are too dependent on the concrete implementation and scope of the game.
In my "dream mmorpg" the conquest of the regions was somewhat predictable and strictly paced, with a wink to wargames, so you would know which regions you are going to conquer or lose just by glancing at the map. Basically the outcome is predictable, you would be able to guess what could happen in a day, within a best and worst case. The overall goal would be making this "struggle of nation" like a slower paced campaign. Something that evolves through days and weeks, not something that can be resolved in the arc of a few hours. Somewhat similarly, in Eve it takes a loooong time before you can effectively take over a system. You cannot conquer the map in just a few hours, it's just not functionally possible.
As I always repeat in these cases, I don't care much about the actual implementation, but just that the right goals are set and that the right problems are considered and addressed. I offer my own solutions, but this doesn't mean that there cannot be better ones. In this case I believe it's possible to counter effectively the problems arising.
Concluding. From a comment:
You looked at history of mmorpg PvP through distorted prism of hear-say and reached wrong conclusions. I think its prevalent problem with PvP designing, its never designed by someone who actually, you know, serious PvPers, instead it what other people think it should be and it often fall short.
PvPers want gang warfare and turf wars! Small scale guild warfare over points of control is ideal state of PvP in any game.
Yeah, that's EXACTLY the reason why today PvE is much more prevalent over PvP. Because PvP was always delivered with that shortsighted mentality of yours.
The point is that we have already plenty of offers of those "turf wars", in particular with non-persistent games where that model works better. So go play them, and leave us have at least ONE game that gives us the "struggle of nations", that is where persistence can become a strong quality. Because we currently have none. And because it has the potential to become significantly more successful than current, unambitious models.
Again, I prefer games integrating players as much as possible instead of games designed around small and extremely selective niches.
I also wonder, why when I write about the same themes, brining up the same points I get completely ignored while when Lum does exactly the same it triggers impressive chain reactions? Oh well, I know the answer ;)
Submitted by Abalieno on February 4, 2007 - 02:05.
I was writing on F13 that the natural growth over time of Vanguard's subscriptions will fall sooner compared to similar titles:
A side effect of an "hardcore" game is that it will age worse. The subscribers growth will fall sooner.
In WoW the solo friendly design helped the longevity a lot because the game is built so that you can have a good experience even if you aren't part of the initial "rush" on the server. The fun experience is well preserved.
Vanguard will probably have a much harder time to grow subscribers in the mid/long term as the grind when there aren't players around will feel much harsher. Being more "group friendly" makes the game vulnerable to lack of players, off-peaks and so on. The longer leveling curve will also build much bigger gaps and it will take ages for a new player to join his friends and play together.
These kinds of barriers are overlooked RIGHT NOW. But I'm sure they'll become a major factor later on.
This is part of a bigger picture. The majority of the games out there and in development are showing obvious needs, the players are exposing them. These are cues that must be understood now. There must be answers at least to those problem that the majority of these games are showing.
So this is a design discussion common to ALL these games, not about a specific one. Game designers are LATE on providing valid alternatives and answers. I don't consider "being innovative" giving a strong, valid answer to these main problems, but if this industry must proceed through incremental improvements then at least let's DO SOMETHING. Narrow down some very simple and essential problems and tackle at least those. Define some strict goals that are *proven* as valid.
From my perspective these three are the priorities. The design principles to work toward even before the preliminary work on game design started:
1- Server structure. Brandon Reinhart recently wrote how "the fundamental server architecture has an impact on the game in a very real, money-in-the-pocket, subscribers-on-the-line kind of way", as I also did a number of times in the past. Mmorpgs should develop as FIRST PRIORITY a flexible server structure that balances the server load, population and PvP factions, while avoiding to build barriers between players. For me this means "server travel" as a basic, exposed mechanic built in the game. I don't care about the implementation. But your game MUST remove barriers between players, must let them meet together easily. If there are barriers these MUST be passable. Permeable. So if there are barriers they must be temporary. The "sharding" should never be a cage to separate players permanently.
2- Game structure. Let's build games as worlds that can live and flourish. Let's develop systems well connected between each other, with a solid function. And let's develop them so that the whole structure is well developed and maintained, so that the game doesn't become stale for new players who finish confined in forgotten and deserted parts of the game. A new player when starting the game should be presented with a vibrant, lively, active world and community. Not an abandoned zone. The game should be considered and developed cohesively, not just focusing on the last segment of a linear development scheme. Not toward a dispersive drift that will necessarily bring to a decline. Let's not build these games so that they can be easily replaced, let's build them so that they become solid structures on which you can capitalize. Solid foundations on which you continue to build and improve. Not castles of cards. Not perpetuating mistakes just so you can fuel and hype unnecessary sequels.
3- Remove gaps and barriers that prevent players to have fun together. Instead of FORCING grouping, let's make grouping not a chore. Let's keep the power differential between new and veteran players narrow so that they can join their friends, play and have fun within the first hours in the game, right as they are comfortable doing so after they learnt the ropes of the game. And not after months of grind/work. Let's build a structure of the game to keep the community together and focused instead of scattered along an infinite treadmill. And let's give player's classes flexibility (for example directly through class switching and alternate paths, without having to relog new characters) so that a group can be put together quickly without having to waste time waiting for a specific class, letting players ADAPT their characters to the group.
These aren't vague and abstract principles. These are founding values. These aren't game "wishes" aimed toward a specific game or preference. These are actual EMERGENCIES in all today's mmorpgs.
Design priorities. Everything else is subordinate. Setting, combat system, gameplay, these are all secondary. There may be millions of different and valid answers to those three problems. But we MUST provide answers to them. I don't care what the answers are (mines or someone else's), but I do care that they are aimed there.
So, dev people out there, lets agree on these basic principles and do something to start moving in that direction? Let's at least have the will to go there.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 2, 2007 - 08:49.
Not trying to vehemently bash Vanguard, just explaining better what I mean for decent "world design".
Since people say I'm deliberately picking horrid screenshots to ridicule Vanguard (the truth is that I picked those that illustrate better my point), here's a good looking one that still shows what I pointed out. A lack of world design. There's this bumpmap effect applied to all the terrain everywhere but it seems that the textures themselves are random noise patterns with a varied hue.
The lack of "world design" isn't the fact that there aren't many objects visible. But that those that there are, like the boulder, the fence and the tents, seem all completely estranged from the environment.
How would it look if there was an at least passable world design? It's not that hard. The lines (textures) between objects shouldn't look so definite. The areas around the tents should have probably used a different texture that shows there's activity in that place and the sand near the fence would surely look different. Since there's water, a possibility of high tide, along with the fact that the sand is soft, that big boulder would have likely sank more in the sand creating a hollow in the area, maybe even a small pond. And I also doubt that a cliff so close to the water would look like that and the same for the transition between the rock area and the beach.
EDIT: Credit to Jpoku for a much better "reading" of the scene (and this is a very good design lesson):
the connectivity is poor for whatever reason. It just doesn't feel as alive. The fence, gate's and tents look like they are about to fall down. The sea creature looks like it has just fallen out of the sky and landed on the ground rather than having led there for ages. Also someone could just swim round that fence. What's it defending against? No signs of it being a real barricade. WoW here would have supplies behind the fence, strong supports holding it up. On the other side there would be bits of broken wood, swords or corpses (like a fight has happened there so a fence is needed)
Another example. If in the real world you make objects on the terrain invisible, you would still see many evident cues that something WAS there. Now imagine to remove all those objects you see in the screenshot. Well, There would be no sign at all that something was there. The terrain would look uniform.
Vanguard world design is this: a fractal terrain generator on which were then dropped with no real logic a number of trees, rocks and buildings of various type. It's the opposite of an organic world design.
In general there's always a glaring clash between the terrain and the objects/models. As if things were photoshopped into the scene. It gives a very "false" feeling (and this is the result half of the art quality of the textures and half the graphic render they coded, which sucks. See Black & White 2 for a terrain render that looks amazing).
Now take these other examples:
1- Transitions. Can you see how in this case the transition between the beach, the grass and then the rock areas is much smoother and organic (dithering aside)? And how the result is a believable, immersive scenery?
2- Detail. Notice how the terrain is painted to have some kind of trailing effect near the wooden planks, as if some water dribbled around them. Imagine to remove these planks and the terrain would still reflect that something was there.
Now go and see if you can find in Vanguard a similar example. WoW can deliver some organic scenery even with an empty landscape. In Vanguard the terrain looks as if it was colored with the airbrush in MS Paint.
Try to walk along the coast in Westfall and you'll see plenty of wooden planks, barrels, tree trunks, shipwrecks and so on. That's world design.
Please understand that this isn't a Vanguard vs WoW. I'm just pointing out one of Vanguard's flaws and using WoW because it offers descriptive examples of good world design.
And consider that I'm pointing out only one tiny aspect of what I consider world design, just because it was the easiest to explain. I hope it illustrates better the kind of point of view from where my comments were coming.
P.S.
I know very little of "world design" and I doubt I could do a better work, I don't have any practice with it. But I see something that looks amazing and then something that feels like crap. What I do is just to ask myself why. I try to analyze and dig what I see and try to understand what makes the difference. So I'm trying to learn by myself. I compare things to learn the differences. It's not simple but I expect that those who actually ARE WORKING in the game industry know these things I'm trying to teach myself.
Submitted by Abalieno on January 30, 2007 - 03:46.
The "collection quests" (meaning those that require you to loot "x" objects that may or may not drop) are a quest type that is often criticized by everyone because it feels grindy and frustrating. Many also wonder why they just don't all get replaced with the more straightforward kill-quests.
I don't think that collect quests are bad but the players don't like them. Still I believe these types of quests shouldn't be removed as they fill a different role than simple kill quests. They should be tweaked, though.
While playing in WoW's Outlands and even the starting zones I noticed plenty of quests that weren't well balanced. In particular those that require you to collect different kinds of items are usually badly balanced. Often there is one object type that is ALL OVER THE PLACE, while the other much more rare. This tends to feel frustrating.
The point is: it's not the quest type to be bad, it's the balance. The quest type just exposes the quest to this vulnerability.
Rule for collection quest and non-grindy gameplay: It's ok till you don't push players to kill respawns.
That pretty much guarantees that a collect quest is a good one. It also feels better from the point of view of the immersion. "Respawn" is a workaround mechanic to refresh the world, but it should be as invisible as possible from the player's perspective. In the case of collect quests the "respawn" becomes an ACTIVE mechanisms of the quest itself. This is all kinds of WRONG.
As an example, one of the first quests in the Outlands (Alliance side, but I guess mirrored even for Horde) asks you to collect 12 badges from the fel orcs in Zeth'Gor. The place is big enough, but with just a few players around and about a 50% (or less) chance of getting the badges you'll HAVE TO kill respawns at some point. In my case I killed the orc in the forge five times before I was able to complete the quests. This is grindy. Players should be presented new challenges, even with minimal variations, but at least some. If I have to kill the exact same mob, in the exact same location, then the game starts to feel grindy. And I shouldn't be put in the condition for this to be required.
This is bad. A quests that makes you kill respawns is bad. It's a very simple rule. And in the classic game there are more than one quests where not only it happens that you kill respawns, but in some cases YOU HAVE TO. As there aren't enough mobs to complete the quests if you don't wait for respawns. It even happens that you exterminate a zone, but the quest requirements still aren't complete (concrete example: it happened me two days ago collecting venom sacks in Stonetalon near the lake).
Come on. This kind of balance and game design is very easy to understand and to execute. WoW could use some tuning. It's not hard.
Submitted by Abalieno on January 21, 2007 - 19:30.
Answering indirectly Raph's comments and blog.
I suspect we're reaching a little bit of a language barrier. :)
I don't know if it's a language barrier but it's probably a term that defines two different things. The one I'm talking about is strictly "functional". Content -> purpose/function. Mudflation doesn't exist till the function of the content is preserved. And it is always preserved till it's not deliberately replaced.
This thing I'm describing is also completely independent from the "social" aspect. It can be reproduced even in a single player game.
For example before the expansion the levels 58-60+ were covered by five dungeon instances (Stratholme, Scholomance, Upper and Lower Blackrock Spires and Dire Maul). From there you could get experience and gear upgrades along with the "tier 0" armor set, then move to raid instances. This was the intended progression.
The launch of the exp pack provided everyone an alternative path. Instead of doing those five dungeons multiple times now you can run a few quick quests through the new zones and obtain MUCH BETTER gear. With MUCH LESS effort.
What is the consequence? That suddenly the first path becomes completely irrelevant because devs have provided a much better alternative. "The path of least resistance": over time content with the same "function" in the game system is progressively selected till there's ONE path left (and here the players asking more "middle" content are in a wrong position). Content is eroded to the essential.
The content of this expansion doesn't stack on previous level 60 content. Or we wouldn't get any mudflation as the old content would retain its function. But the content in the expansion replaces the standard 58-60+ content. It allows you to skip old content entirely. It's a jump forward.
Faster, soloable, better rewards = FUN
The point is: this not only the goal, but also the "escamotage".
(2) The point is: by devaluing old content they can valorize the content in the expansion. That sort of "artificial fun" that is the KEY of these kinds of games. Here you manipulate desires. What people want, what people do. In the game you can create a "need" just by devaluing and replacing.
(3) The point is: without the devaluation, there cannot be new value. No baits to throw to the players.
Your Epic Sword of Pwn must become a toothpick so that you can then restore your lost power. You need to lose power (mudflation) so that you can gain it anew (valorization).
Hell, it even happens on movie sequels. The Hero who won both the kingdom and the girl at the end of the first movie must lose everything so that he can demonstrate how badass he is once again.
So the end point is that devaluation and valorization are strictly connected. WoW expansion is practically this: you take away from the players so that you can give them again. In a endless loop.
being able to go back and see something that was once powerful and is now trivial helps that, and both of these feelings are core to the value offered by this style of game
This is often brought up, my opinion is that it's not really relevant. What matters is what you see ahead. What's behind, in these kinds of games, is soon forgotten. Games based on this model are successful when they don't even give you time to look back. They keep pushing you forward endlessly. As an obsession. If you stop, you lose interest.
How many players that are having fun with the new content are going to run old level 60 instances for the "nostalgia"? Some for sure, but this isn't a core mechanic or motivation. It has a place in the game, but it's a part that isn't directly relevant. If players start to go back to past content it's mainly because they lost interest in the expansion content, or because they already finished it. These cases are not good cases for the game.
restrict players from helping each other (limit trading, twinking, use soulbinding, etc)
Powerleveling happens (in fact the first 70 worldwide was poweleveled to victory), twinking is so limited that it's not relevant in WoW. But in a game so founded on the solo experience the powerleveling isn't a main phenomenon. What I mean is that the mudflation doesn't interest the game as a whole, but just that part of content that is now "sided" by new content in the exp. Not content "stacking" (on top), but content added aside past content. And replacing it as the "new" was designed to be artificially more desirable.
As an hypothetical example let's say that Guild Wars offers periodic packages, each offering the exact same level 1-20 experience, just in all new environments. If every package is balanced then there would be no reason for the players to buy all of them. So the devs decide that in every new package the 1-20 experience is shortened by a 25% and the gold dropped upped by 25%.
What happens? That new content looks graphically better and it's even "functionally" better. So the new content completely replaces old content. Their function overlaps, so one is preferred to the other. As if we have two quests with the exact same reward, but one can be completed in half the time. Which one do you think the players will choose?
This becomes also a quality problem. There may be a quest that it is written very well and original. But there's another quest with the same function that gives a better reward and that you can complete in half the time. "Players see past fiction". That's a quote from Raph. Players go for the game's goal. Not for "quality". And here we are at "The best route should also be the most fun route."
The kind of mudflation pertinent to WoW (and that I commented here as a very SPECIFIC case) isn't of the "social" kind. But is the fact that the lower end content in the expansion OVERLAPS with classic 58+ content. If the very first quest was only possible if you had a character in a complete Tier 3 set (last raid instance in the classic game), then Blizzard could have released a full expansion without an hint of mudflation.
The progession could have been: level 58 -> 5-man dungeons -> Tier 0 set -> Molten Core raid -> Blackwing Lair -> Ahn'Qiraji -> Naxx -> first quest in the exp
Instead the progression is: level 58 -> first quest in the exp
All that we had in the middle is gone. Bypassed. It lost its function in the fabric of the game.
And this mostly because WoW is a GAME. Pure game. Where more social, virtual world-like features like the Auction House are a minor phenomenon. A gimmick with relative relevance. In fact these work within VERY STRONG restrictions exactly to NOT GET IN THE WAY of the GAME.
Which is what Lum explained perfectly in the follow-up to that thread I linked.
Every MMO economy is false. Duh. Trust me, you don't want a real economy in an MMO. It will, with stunning rapidity, result in a tyranny of a very small minority. Much like, well, real economies.
The problem with the typical MMO economic model is that crafting items compete with dropped items. Literally: crafters are in competition with the items that world builders are crafting to make hunting attractive. The problem is that one "faction" in this equation is always losing; either craftsmen complain (justifiably) that the results of their labors are marginalized because the Shiny New Sword from Deepest Dungeon is better than anything they make, or everyone else complains (justifiably) that the stuff they're getting from monsters is worthless, because it isn't as good as the stuff crafters are making.
So points Raph listed, such as:
- New users now have less “buying power” so to speak.
- Social contacts get harder early in the game, because users accelerate out of the shared low level experience quickly.
These are irrelevant in a game where you can (and, mostly, will) play solo and where what is *required* to buy are skills from NPC trainers that have fixed prices.
One interesting point is in fact that since WoW is so solo-friendly (single player game), it will also age much better than similar MMOs. Just because the social aspects and virtual world-like elements are already so weak and bland that the negative effect due to their degrade is next to none. Heh.
|
Recent comments
1 week 3 days ago
Posted by: Stranger
1 week 4 days ago
Posted by: silveredie
1 week 6 days ago
Posted by: Innsmouth
1 week 6 days ago
Posted by: Hic
2 weeks 6 days ago
Posted by: epicflyboy
3 weeks 3 days ago
Posted by: My Name is Frank
4 weeks 15 hours ago
Posted by: whipit
4 weeks 17 hours ago
Posted by: cantgivamouseshorse
4 weeks 5 days ago
Posted by: Innsmouth
4 weeks 5 days ago
Posted by: Hic