The Cesspit. - Tinfoil hats

Warhammer: post-launch state of the game

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:56:02 -0700

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.

I'm having serious doubts about Warhammer

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:21:41 -0700

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.

And it begins

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:52:04 -0700

And it begins.

Point 1 + 3 at the bottom of the post.

==
Part 2.

I play on a High/Full server and maybe I'm leveling too fast, but the PQs and RvR Lakes are usually empty.

With the quantity of PQs and the size of the later RvR Lakes, they'd have to have twice the server capicity to keep people doing them?

Prior to release, I was very excited about the prospect of levelling through RvR - The massive pvp that happened in closed beta was a good sign that my excitement was justified.

However, on Phoenix Throne, there is very little open world RvR, and I'm surprised. Loads of people PvE'ing, and lots of characters being created, but hardly any OPvP.

Now, Phoenix Throne is going to be cloned, and plenty will leave.

In my opinion, things are looking a lot more grim than I had anticipated. Either we have a lot of PvE players who don't want to PvP, or the server population being "high" is not indicative of the amount of action happening on that server.

The nail in the head of Warhammer

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:12:24 -0700

Despite all the praises about the gameplay and design choices, there are still those glaring flaws that I and others pointed out... years ago.

In this case I quote someone else, as a good summary:

There are 7 public quests (that I know of) in the first Chaos zone alone. That means you’d need 42 to 70 people in that zone working on public quests to do them all at once. I even ran into one completely empty PQ over the weekend even though almost every Chaos player was in that zone.

Will there ever be that many people working on PQs in the same low level zone after the first week or two after launch? Probably not.

I suspected that they would dynamically scale public quests based on the number of players currently participating. When I found a PQ that nobody else was doing, I worked my butt off and completed the first stage alone. Then Champion mobs spawned in stage 2, and I was screwed. So, it looks like they aren’t doing any sort of scaling.

Unfortunately, even though public quests are extremely fun, I fear they won’t even be doable throughout the majority of the game for those of us who will get behind the curve. As soon as I fall behind the pack, which inevitably I will, I’ll be unable to do any PQs until the end game.

I was able to have a similar experience in the second chaos zone, even with 2500 players logged in. Not exactly during an off-peak. And not even weeks or months or years after a server launch.

There's a way to sum it up in an even more significant way:
- Too many parts of Warhammer's core design are strictly dependent on keeping a fine balance on the number of players participating, and so vulnerable. It's not about PQs only. It's about PQs, faction balance in open RvR, issues of overcrowding and depopulation in all the parts of the game. The *fun* strictly depends on that fine balance, to keep all the options viable at all times, and to keep the single option fun without suffering overcrowding or depopulation.

Right now Mythic does absolutely nothing to preserve that fine balance, and down the road I only expect XP, renown bonuses/disadvantages for a faction or the other that won't really move anything in any significant way.

There are certain workarounds that may help, some of which I also suggested (de-levelling, multiple scenarios queues, adaptable objectives for PQs). But to me it's very clear that this game required to be built different at its core.

- Dynamic server structure with a mix of persistence and instancing. Server(zone) created dynamically depending on the number of players. Something like a creative use of Guild Wars system.

Certain design schemes need their specific systems to work. Or they just remain pretty ideas that do not work in practice.

The scheme Mythic's adopting here will have its flaws hidden or sweetened for a while, but it will hurt them hard in the long term.

Bloody Industry

Mon, 14 May 2007 21:47:51 -0700

It's been described in a brutal way:

At approximately 4:30PM today, Sigil employees were told to meet outside. At which point they were terminated. On the spot.

Did they tell them to stand along the wall before they got executed?

Do we have the movie on YouTube?

Only official comment from Nino (FoH's mascot), on the FoH's boards:

I will make an announcement tomorrow regarding my status...

That isn't a denial of the news.

My guess is that SOE cherry-picked some of them and fired the others. They'll probably pretend Vanguard is going to be supported at least to milk it as much as possible before its demise. After all SOE still has Matrix Online active.

In other news SWG team is made by 20 devs.

(a)Vanguard

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:26:04 -0700

Four months later and Vanguard is now perfect.

...What? Isn't what everyone used to say a few months back? That the game just needed a few more months of development to be ready?

shiznitz: Latest hubbub: Sigil UI dev quit a few weeks ago and the UI mod community is annoyed that no one is helping them any more. While reading the rants, I discovered my issue with having to click on spell icons twice to actually fire the spell was not my issue but a long known bug. Wonderful.

Devs, your UI is the first and last thing your customers see when they log in and log out. It should work and not suck. Looking like WoW's isn't enough.

Also, Nino seems to have left Sigil.

Kageru: Meanwhile I have no idea what happened with the game coding. The code seems to already have reached an unmaintainable state where bugs just can't be fixed. I can't imagine how else the act of forming a group, or not falling through the world, can still be so flawed. Meanwhile the rate of introduction for new bugs is scarily high.

I honestly can't see the game holding enough subscriptions to fund the development it needs to be decent.

Rumors. My opinion is still the same, the game was broken this January, as it will be broken next January (if it survives till then).

And not much because of Brad's hardcore game design, but more because of execution was poor (and planning, which is Brad's fault in this case).

One player also noticed that quests don't work in multiplayer, which would be interesting to discuss.

EDIT: New rumor. I doubt it's true. And even if it's true SOE will never admit the game isn't doing well and will probably dress the press release so it sounds positive.

The LotR Online short-living bubble

Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:07:29 -0700

I'm biased against Turbine, so read keep that in mind.

Months ago I was guessing possible subscribers numbers for the next Turbine's game based on the Middle Earth and I said that I was expecting around 200k. More recently I noticed that the interest in the community was rising, in particular not in a specific niche, but in a more transversal way, so I thought that they could be more successful than I expected. 300-400k maybe.

I posted a quote from EQ2's Scott Hartsman that is interesting to see in the context of this upcoming game. He says that the constant rise in subscriptions is a privilege of "the king of the hill", while all other "players" live with the same rules upside-down: retention demands revolution, while for the king of the hill growth demands stability. This is not only true, but also particular enlightening, even if apparently so simple, because it explains so much.

I was finding something in common between these two points above. I said that I'm noticing an unexpected enthusiasm toward LotRO, but the real point is that when you dig in the enthusiasm you find out that is not just unexpected, but also unexcused. The enthusiasm isn't backed up by actual solid points that justify the interest. You can call it classic beta hype.

WoW created expectations in the market, in the last few years since its release the market wasn't really providing interesting alternatives, so the demand for "new" grew. People like to anticipate stuff and a big mammoth like WoW, while still top-quality, failed to renew that part of interest that is only awaken when you offer new perspectives. The Burning Crusade expansion is overall very well executed, but it delivers more in a kind of horizontal growth. Surely it doesn't go to explore new frontiers, the game is enclosed in its boundaries and rules. It's still an excellent experience, but you know what to expect.

LotRO falls in this particular "momentum" and it becomes a double-edged blade. From a side the game is "familiar", and this is positive. People appreciate familiarity. I remember a post from Vanguard's UI designer ,who joined late in development, who justified WoW's UI ripoff because she said it is important that you carry over and respect some expectations, some standards. When the mass market is reached (through WoW) it's convenient that you don't impose a whole new language but instead integrate it. Instead of re-training players, you continue on the same path. You try to deliver on the specific genre, following its rules. Players come with expectations, directly compare features between games even when the comparison makes little sense, they impose their own needs and habits. If you want to be considered by an already formed audience you need to talk them in their language.

From the other side that approach becomes negative: the "sameness". The feeling of "already seen". This isn't a problem of the first approach, I wrote not long ago how the first ten minutes are the very best experience in every game. During those ten minutes everything is a discovery, the brand new look. Even if it's a familiar game it still appears very shiny. Things change with the time. The "familiar but shiny" loses its glint, the drug tends to fade and you look at things more consciously, you ask yourself what is deserving your attention and dedication.

I said that the enthusiasm I'm noticing about this game is both unexpected and unexcused. Unexcused because when you scratch below the surface you don't find worthwhile concrete points. The most interesting feature I've read about is the "title-driven carrot", depending on some actions and triggers you may unblock special titles, and there are a whole lot of them. Well, it's nice, but this is what I call a "gimmick". It's not really part of the game fabric, it doesn't affect the game rules and the final point is that, while nice, you surely won't decide to play this game because "it has titles". It is actually the perfect example of feature that gets your interest right away, part of the exploration and first impact. But three/six months into the game, do you think you'll still be excited about these titles? It's all presentation. Good presentation puts you in a good mood and it is very important, but you won't stay because of it.

Is that where all the enthusiasm is coming from? There's the "same girlfriend with a new dress" that I explained, and then there's Tolkien. From what I'm reading Tolkien is really the whole point, what gives that particular flavor that people are liking. So it doesn't matter if the actual art direction is just "passable", it's still Tolkien and (it seems) feels enough like Tolkien to trigger that special flavor.

And we arrive at the last point. For perspective I remind that Codemaster (euro publisher) is expecting 1M subs JUST for the european market. Then read again the quote from Scott Hartsman, is LotRO going to be enough King of the Hill to see a progressive growth in subscribers along the months? Let's say it will be successful, do you think that WoW is going to lose from 500 to 1M subs because of LotRO (beacause for sure it won't tap a new market with just a license)? My idea is that there's a period when players keep their former account and also go try another game. LotRO may pulg there. I expect a good numbers of WoW players to try this new game and even like it. Either they are bored of WoW and so canceled their accounts, or they are still subscribed. In the first case I seriously doubt that LotRO will be interesting for them in the longer-term. In the second case I expect players to keep accounts active on both games and this usually lasts for a while but sooner or later they'll decide one or the other.

I expect LotRO to be a short-lived bubble even on the forums. I don't see the game having some serious draw that is not that special glint derived from the "newness" and "being Tolkien". MEO will draw a lot of attention, it could initiate an interesting process of "mass-market", but I also believe that it will be a comet. Big burst and then very quick fade.

My prediction is that the game, while starting quite well, will enter "subscription retention mode" very soon. Like two months after release.

It's known that gamers have ADD. Especially those who go after the "shiny".

SOE Station All-Access pass, thirty bucks

Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:18:10 -0800

What I told you about SOE's business practices and trends?

I saw this looking at other blogs feeds (Cuppycake and Krones). I guess Brad McQuaid pretended the price to raise in order to keep Vanguard vaguely profitable.

The price is now thirty bucks (in Europe add another $5 of taxes) and they even rebill you automatically with the higher fee (effective April 2, 2007).

Firstly they publicize Vanguard and the All-access pass as both part of a very convenient deal, then, I guess, they are successful but so successful to the point that they cannot keep all games and live teams alive with one reasonable monthly fee that has to be split thin.

So it's now thirty bucks. Still cheap? Well, it's almost what you would pay for a FULL brand new game with years of development behind it. And you pay that MONTHLY.

Prediction: this will break either EQ2 or Vanguard, as they are now forcing players to pick one side. As I anticipated, only one will survive.

Next step is obviously rising the single monthly fee. But they just cannot do that before the competition moves the first step ;p

They also gave NCSoft the perfect occasion for a winning stab. Release Dungeon Runners, Exteel and Tabula Rasa and launch their own version of an all-access pass with an accessible monthly fee. If they are going to miss this opportunity then they are just crazy. A victory handed on a silver plate. With their accessible games and variety of styles it even makes sense to play more than one mmorpg.

P.S.
Planetside monthly fee is also going up: $13 -> $15

The player-reported news on VE3D is worth a quote:

After more 3 years of continually dwindling subscriber numbers, corporate mismanagement, a botched expansion, the addition of in-game advertisements, and numerous unpopular gameplay changes, SOE in all their wisdom has decided to increase the subscription rate from $13 to $15, citing investments to improve the game's support and infrastructure. Any long-time player knows the only support they have given is life-support. Barely keeping the game running is their idea of investing in it.

EDIT-
And another quote from Amber:

The short-sightedness of this approach is staggering. In a marketplace that Sony hasn't come close to dominating for well over 5 years, they're behaving like a monopoly with a captive player base.

The dream in the closet is about to get burnt

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:44:58 -0800

This is about that "Top Secret" project that claims to give you the occasion of your life.

Hey, if I'd be a goon that would be the occasion of my life. Since I don't have the opportunity to work on games following the standard path (as foreigner) this could be the only way to actually try!

"I've always loved the idea that someone, from their bedroom, reveals their passion and talent, then suddenly can have an absolutely stunning career explosion, becoming a famous Game Director with a pre-built fan base. We're going to make it happen!" says David Perry who is a Game Director and Chief Creative Officer for Acclaim Games.

David Perry will be building the new online game from scratch and is offering members of the Acclaim player community a rare opportunity to help him develop this video game in a collaborative effort with some of the industry's best talent. "We will bring in some surprise guests along the way to inspire and mentor the contributors," says Perry.

One lucky winner who shines the most during the development process will be given the top prize. "This is the only chance I know of to jumpstart a directorship career in the video game industry," continues Perry. "Everyone wins. They get to learn how to make professional games, and if they get anything in, they get a real professional credit on their resume." Perry finishes, "But, if they win, well then they get their life changed."

Interestingly, applicants don't need any prior game development experience. In fact, Perry refuses to look at resumes. "We only care about the pure, focused, passionate talent they show up with," he says.

Hey, it IS me. It's about MMO. It's about bedroom game design. It's about offering a lifetime occasion. It's about an opportunity for those who cannot have one. There isn't anyone else in the world who could make a better target!

But I'm not so naive and my first reaction was the same of Stephen Zepp on the F13 thread: a laugh.

I'm mildly curious about how they are going to attempt this. I'm one of those who like to plunge in the community for ideas and feedback, I'm the one who believes that it's an indispensable part of making games. But at the same time you just cannot let the players, as a vague group, build a game. And what game by the way?

You cannot design "on the air", you always need a context. A project must have well outlined goals and purposes, then you can start to gather ideas about a specific system or possible alternatives. The problem working with "the community" is that there's no synthesis. It's pure chaos and without someone directing the process and taking decisions then it's all absolutely useless and superfluous.

Without a set context the ideas would be contradictory and conflicting. Building a game is about having a coherent Vision. Letting a whole community build a game instead equals to a "patchwork". Even assuming the execution is exceptional, you still have a castle of cards lacking solid foundation, principles and goals.

And would be Dave Perry(™) the director that is supposed to make all this happen? Who will tell good ideas from bad ideas? Who will make the calls? Who will evaluate the community work? Since Lum was too modest to brag directly, I'll quote what he linked, last year's Austin rant where he comments one of Dave Perry's ideas, this wonderfully creative guy:

As an example of that last bit, Jennings brought up a new project by Dave Perry and Acclaim that will include in-game classified ads on the screen. They can be turned off, but players won't level up as quickly if they choose to play without them, a point that drew a chorus of boos from the assembled audience. He also suggested facetiously embracing a "wonderland of consumerism," with Coca-Cola-sponsored magic swords, Kobalds corpses that hold Skittles, and a Jet Blue dragon to fly players around.

"When you totally disrespect your consumers like that, I can assure you of one thing: Your project will fail," Jennings said. "And deservedly so."

Jennings ended his rant to a hearty round of applause

The last nail on DAoC's coffin

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:59:53 -0800

From an interview with Copper:

what we're doing is taking the resources we would devote to an expansion - artists, quests, content, programmers - we're taking those guys and they are all focused on delivering high-level content every two weeks.

When you replace the last bits of game development with "live events" it means it's really over.

Bioware: as clueless as you can get

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:27:14 -0800

The firsts, vague details about the already hyped, upcoming Bioware MMO are coming out from the first interview they released about the project.

As a first comment I'll copy what Haemish said: "I see a whole lot of naivete in that interview".

Summary:

Gordon Walton, co-studio director, BioWare Austin: We announced the game around March, but we'd really started on it in the beginning of December 2005.

James Ohlen, creative director, BioWare Austin: We've got a lot designed -- we've got the GDD [game design document] done, we've finished more than three quarters of the detail design documents. We've got a couple prototypes up.

And we can talk about the high-level goals: We basically want to bring what BioWare's famous for to the online space, and one of the things BioWare's famous for is storytelling ... and it's something that pretty well doesn't exist in the online space right now. Most "storytelling" in MMORPGs is just FedEx quests -- you know, you have to go get some eggs -- and it's presented in a format that's just a bunch of text thrown at you in paragraph for ... and that's not so exciting. We want to bring a level of storytelling that's equal to the single-player box games that BioWare has done.

JO: You can't stop the world from being destroyed by [Sauron], but you can do a lot of things that are personal to your character. You change how your character evolves over the game, the player's personal story -- and a player's personal story can be quite epic. It can involve parts of the world that, while they're epic, exciting, and interesting, don't change the landscape of the entire world for everyone else.

Rich Vogel, co-studio director of product development: One thing we don't want to do is NPC Pez dispensers, as I call them -- go over there, dispense a quest, and then go "vacuum-clean" a zone. We want to make sure you listen to NPCs, because choices matter. And that's really important.

JO: and they can still -- especially when you use things like instances -- go on a quest that involves killing an ancient huge red dragon.

JO: In WOW, you get XP when you finish a quest, but the weighting on that is pretty low; there's not much benefit to doing that over finding the perfect monster to grind and kill. If those quest experience points were a little higher, it would make a lot more sense to go along with the story.

GFW: How many of your key staffers migrated from SOE [which also has a studio in Austin]?

GW: I don't know that we have a count. Some from SOE, some from BioWare Edmonton, some from other companies completely. It's not like we had to go knocking. Experienced people want to work on a product that can be successful.

We probably have the most experienced team in the business, as far as building MMORPGs.

JO: we don't want players to be stuck grinding through the same content over and over again.

RV: is our game going to be a simulation? No. Our game is an entertainment experience.

RV: it's very important to have directed content ... especially if you want to get to a mainstream audience.

JO: If we're going to create immersive, epic stories that are believable, that really goes against having a simulation-type world.

RV: The key points that we're gonna do that no one's done before in an MMOG are bring story, character, and emotion to it. Decisions matter, and NPCs aren't pez dispensers, and you're not in a grind.

JO: One of the things we want to do is create more story content than in any other BioWare game before, and we started a writing team earlier than in any other BioWare project -- more than twice as big, nine total. The reason is that the world is huge and has tons of paths and options.

So they found the magic recipe for the Endless Stream of Quality Content and No Grind that no one was able to find till today: hire nine writers.

And when it was asked how to "bring the story, character and emotion" the answer is: instancing.

If there's one thing that irks me is when people disown what they have done in the past (SWG). You know, the more I hear them talk and the more I think that the "dinosaurs" Raph Koster often talks about are those two guys. Rick Vogel and Gordon Walton.

They come from a systemic game, it fails and now they are all for the directed gameplay "because you cannot be successful without". And because of the WoW "me too" syndrome.

They are just running around aimlessly, glad that they now have "Bioware" printed in their resumes.

It's not like we had to go knocking. Experienced people want to work on a product that can be successful.

Experienced people are looking for the Bioware name. Between these people are Rich Vogel and Gordon Walton.

For these "experienced people" what matters is their resume. And the fact that now there's "Bioware" printed there. The rest? Irrelevant. They are leeches.

By the way. I also wrote a bunch of design notes in the past about how to bring "story, character and emotion" (part 1 - part 2). With the difference that I explained *concretely* how to achieve that. It's there and you can agree or disagree with it. And surely wouldn't be the only thing to make a game significantly different to be INDISPENSABLE and EXCUSED in the market. Because if no one feels the need for another cookie-cutter game (beside those "experienced people" who care only about a new voice on their resumes) then it shouldn't be done.

One thing is an excuse to get a job. One thing is working because you believe in what you are doing. Because you have something to say.

But of course they would say that they HAVE innovative and interesting ideas, but, of course again, they cannot disclose them JUST YET. All those other MMO companies out there are just waiting the occasion to steal all their incredible, brilliant ideas. Okay. Sure. How much time do you want? One year? Two? Three? More? Whatever. Because I'm sure that no matter how much time we will wait, at the end there won't be absolutely anything new behind the curtain.

Maybe a brick: in the form of instancing, nine writers and, maybe, branching quests (that will effectively double the time of content production).

In the meantime I really have one question. Honest. I hope someone will ask them in an interview in the future. The question is: Why a MMO?

Wait...

Why a MMO?

Better :)

"Because I want it on my resume" is NOT an answer.

If this project deserves some attention it is because, as I wrote on the forums, there's Ubiq working on the combat system, and lately he seems more enlightened than usual.

Codemaster, that's the way out the door

Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:28:11 -0700

If Codemaster were (or going to be) relevant to the mmorpg space, I would write about this (Lum did), but they don't.

Codemasters Online Gaming today announces ‘PlayPLUS’, a revolutionary subscription system for the hugely anticipated MMORPG ArchLord™. The PlayPLUS system will enable players to purchase packages that include both game time and in-game bonus credits. Credits will be redeemable against in-game items and benefits, such as experience bonuses, teleportation spells, health boosts and many other desirable enhancements.

Enjoy your way out of this industry. Noone is going to miss you.

I would also laugh so heartily if they could manage to convince Turbine to use that system on the soon to be failure MEO.

Shame on you, Sunsword.

Brad McQuaid like John Romero?

Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:06:18 -0700

So again with The Escapist, I'm reading this description about John Romero and I couldn't stop to think about it as an omen for Brad:

McQuaid's game was Vanguard. It was intended to be larger and grander in scale than any videogame ever made, and was heavily advertised as the game that would make you, the player, Brad McQuaid's "bitch."

That Vanguard eventually sold 200,000 copies - a smashing success by some standards - is irrelevant. Costing more than $10 million and taking three years to develop, Vanguard would have had to do far more than make you its bitch to have been considered a success. Since day one at Sigil, McQuaid and Co. had set their sights on EverQuest-like sales figures, and in what was certainly the greatest example of star-driven, game industry hubris, had been completely surprised by their failure.

Sigil's Carlsbad, California office, rocked by political in-fighting (which led to a near-complete walk-out of McQuaid's Vanguard team) was closed in 2007 by SOE following a bail-out deal in which the publisher had acquired a controlling interest in the hemorrhaging game company.

Hey, maybe it could work like a lucky charm ;p

Who's more nearsighted?

Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:27:20 -0700

I was reading a rant linked by Jeff Freeman and written by Dan Rubenfield (who apparently has a long experience in the mmorpg industry and recently left SOE in search of something different). I liked it quite a bit. I agree on most of those premises.

Dream games. All developers and designers have them. In fact, everyone has them.

But we never make them. We all want to but don’t have the time or the resources.

So all designers have dream games. We bandy them around but tend not to talk to them while employed as there’s always a fear of “losing your idea” to your parent company.

Well, I'm not sure that I understand this. I would love to "lose my ideas" to make them possible, myself. In fact I expose them often when I write. So I see that trend described as really counterproductive. Why you should hide your ideas when employed? And what's the work about then?

See ideas becoming real should be the most rewarding experience ever. The "parent company" is supposed to valorize the people who work within and let them express at their very best. Put them in the condition to do so. If instead the devs shy away it means that something is going really wrong.

Making a mmorpg is about harmonious teamwork. You dedicate yourself to the game and everyone contributes with what he does best. Competition inside the same team is a bad thing. But this is a digression.

Currently nobody’s making anything new for MMO development. There’s a smattering of small developers pushing the envelope but the majority of the big publishers out there (Except Blizzard) isn’t doing shit.

There’s a palpable sense of fear and terror amongst mmo developers right now. They’re scared shitless of WOW. They see it, believe it’s insurmountable, tuck their tails and go the opposite direction.

What does that mean?

It means you’re going to have company after company fucking around with smalltime, smallscale free products. Myspace Killers, Habbo Killers, Runescape Killers, you name it.

It’s going to be reactive, marketing driven, and for the most part, failure after failure.

It’s going to be company after company saying things like “We’d like to focus on the Casual market instead of the hardcore”.

Dan considers the "casual market" as a "null" one, since it is made by non-gamers who will never really cross the line to become gamers and true supporters of this industry:

(about casual gamers)
We should figure out how to craft and sell games to the people who legitimize us before dorking around with people who don’t buy or enjoy our products.

Continuing on the same rant:

Everyone looks at MMO development as “Competing” with WOW. And nobody wants to do it. They’d rather scrabble for the detritus that falls from their pockets. They’d rather go for spillover and for some fucked up reason, focus on the Non-Gaming market.

And once again, I ask “What The Fuck?”. We haven’t figured out how to reliably create and sell games to the people who buy games and we’re fucking around trying to sell games to people who don’t even play games?

We’re once again not using the strength of the medium, once again not asking the questions that need to be asked. The people who hold the purse strings aren’t interested. They’ve retreated into their developmental shells in an attempt to go for the “untapped potential” market.

The thing is, we’ve seen this happen over and over historically. If you single track your product lines like this you’re going to end up fucked. You’re might see some short term success but long term you’re going to end up in very bad financial shape.

We’re not in a static environment of game players, game developers, game sales, game platforms. There’s an ever evolving sense of tastes and ever shifting marketplace. Our marketing efforts and development dollars tend to use history as the basis for choices. Unfortunately this is only part of the equation.

We should be looking historically as well as looking forward for future trends and desires.

Like I do, he hopes for games that expand their sighting, new approaches, different paradigms. The current rules in the market are just consolidated and conventional, but not absolute.

So the market is incredibly malleable. It can be shaped. This is the correct perspective to see it. Hystorical rules are just consequences of what is being made. Different things being made would lead to a different types of market and completely different influences for future products.

It is important to understand the market, but not react to it passively.

The part where I don't agree with Dan is where he is over with the analysis and proposes an alternative:

Everyone’s piling into that rowboat because we’ve convinced ourselves that WOW is insurmountable.

And to a degree we’re right. WOW is not something you can ever compete with. So DON’T.

I will bold this yet again.

STOP TRYING TO MAKE THAT SAME FUCKING GAME.

Raph made a comment a few years back that WOW was going to set our industry back 10 years. It wasn’t meant as a derogatory statement about WOW but instead about the reactive, bullshit nature of us.

And you know what? He was right about that too.

From there he starts to pitch his own game idea that I want comment (but it's good enough).

I don't agree with him even if I agree with all the other premises because I see things from a different perspective.

What I strongly believe is quite simple: it is possible to make new and different games IN the "fantasy genre".

From a side Dan proposes to start from a different game concept, from the other to push a different pricing model that relies heavily on RMT.

I heartily *hate* the second part for reasons I won't explain again (in short: real money should stay OUT of the game, it doesn't belong there), while I see the first as not the obligatory solution.

I'm between those who really dreams and wants completely new and different games. Focusing on the immersion, with a true ongoing, dedicated, passionate development to shape and nourish a *world*, and not bouncing devs and resources between a bunch of mediocre projects or sequels that won't leave any sign and will be obsolete and forgotten after a few months or years. Ambitions and myths. Not consumer society.

But I also believe that the "fantasy genre" is far from being just WoW. Or pinpointed by it. Different games are possible. And not only possible: successful. And the same for different genres. I would love to design a Space Opera mmorpg, or a steampunk based world (think to Myazaki's Nausicaa), but you aren't forced to abandon a genre because you blindly believe that nothing else is possible within it.

I just refuse to believe that WoW has now the monopoly of the fantasy genre. And I refuse to accept that you are now forced to make games into different genres if you want to survive.

Hell, even the same Warcraft could be made into completely different games.

I have tinfoil hats for all! NCSoft next

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 06:26:35 -0700

Lum worries about his friends at Mythic, now lets not start worrying about Lum, please...

While I was writing the Prey review I noticed this comment:

Offtopic, but there are rumors about trouble in NCSoft Austin -- layoffs.

I checked the link provided but saw nothing relevant.

Then I start my usual blog tour and I see this on F13:

NC Soft (US) just had a big layoff today:

80% of GM's
90% of tech support
75% of QA

Numerous other staff, from producers to marketing/pr.

They are blaming the declining subscriber numbers for City of Heroes/COV which has slowly dropped to just over 100k total. Also to blame has been the disaster that is Auto Assault, which has yet to climb over 10k total subscribers since its launch in the third week in April.

Tabula Rasa continues to suck massive amounts of cash, yet still has no release date in sight.

Not good.

I'm sure we'll hear more about this later. It's starting to sound less of a rumor.

EDIT: Comment from Alan Dunking on Q23, and official announce here below in the comments:

We can't really comment on anything regarding this, honestly. I think I can safely say Lum & I are still employed.

I do want to give general advice for any kind of weird anonymous posting on the net:

* Don't believe everything you read.

and

* It's never as bad as it sounds (or looks).

--- Alan

EDIT2: For a mean chuckle notice Walt's comment on the Q23 thread:

EA Mythic's hiring.

From incestuous families only deformed childs.

What about new people?

Btw, I doubt that people in Austin (the Hollywood of mmorpgs) are going to move to Fairfax Virginia to join Mythic.

HIRE ME! I'll cross the seas like Christopher Columbus and discover the new world!

(J. also commented)