The Cesspit. - The Cesspit

Factional Warfare further down the drain

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

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

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

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

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

Expect to get hurt.

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

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

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

IMPRESSIVE GAME DESIGN MEDAL OF THE YEAR!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not who, but how. Anagrams.

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

Enthusiasm for Factional Warfare already smothered

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

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

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

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

Attacked by anyone anywhere? Wow...

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

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

Then it gets worse:

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

No functional limitations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The good:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bad:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. I was right again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Tobold's blog comments:

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

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

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

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

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

The morale is in the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations. You are back home.

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

Multi-kings kills in Warhammer

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:56:30 -0700

The only two things I'm curious about Warhammer and that haven't been fully revealed are those at the core of the game:

- RvR character advancement
- How real RvR and instances battlegrounds are interconnected

I was kind of baffled when I read this reply of MJ (no, it's not Mary Jane) on the forums:

Random guy: It is already going to be that way. The king fight isn't only accessible for one group/raid. The instance is simply capped, that is it. But everyone can fight the king when they want to, once per city siege. I am really not sure why people think it is only for one raid/group when Mythic never even said this, nor hinted it.

Mark Jacobs: You are correct. That would be stupidity on a whole new scale. We'll make mistakes over the next 6 or 7 years but none on that scale I hope.

To explain and complete the few informations I already had, Warhammer endgame RvR should be structured in a number of linked maps, probably similar to how the multiplayer worked in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic.

We should have the capital cities maps at the two extremes of this imaginary segment, and in between a number of transitory maps. So the opposed factions fight to "push" the front line further toward the enemy city. In theory the map where the fighting happens is just one (as only one front line is supposed to exist), and so you move back and forth through these maps only when objectives in that map are won by one of the two factions. Then the front line either moves forward (next map) or backwards (previous map), depending on the point of view.

At a point it will happen that a faction is stronger enough to be able to push this front line/map progression all the way to the enemy capital city. And there, after a number of objectives, the last goal is supposed to be the attack to the king and the conquest of the city.

This is what I knew, assuming it is correct at least as a general scheme. The real question, as said above, is how you make all that work when you have BOTH real RvR (meaning persistence of maps and battles outcomes), AND instanced battlegrounds (meaning lack of persistence and relativity of victories).

If there's real RvR, then a conquered keep is a conquered keep. A truth. But if the RvR is instanced then your efforts aren't absolute and objective, but relative to that instance, then shattered through a number of other instances where other players are playing and obtaining different results.

So the legitimate question: how persistent RvR and instances are supposed to work and relate to each other?

And we came to that answer above from Mark Jacobs that baffled me. He says "you are correct". So: the instance is capped, and everyone can spawn his own instance and go kill "his" king.

This means that the "king encounter" is a group instance, that can happen an unlimited numbers of times, but only once for each player.

You know, kinda like in WoW's PvE, where everyone had his occasion to kill Van Cleef in the Deadmines (minus the farming).

Makes sense? Sure, but while PvE is an experience relative to yourself (personal adventure), the RvR is supposed to be a communal experience. Your realm. Where these fights are fun because they are supposed to be persistent. Fight for something as "concrete" as possible.

If Mark Jacobs confirmed that crucial events like the assault to the capital city are instanced, it means that this kind of RvR is going to work like Guild Wars. Where there's no real war. But the results of a number of instances are charted together, then compared to the global results of the opposite faction, and then the victory mathematically deduced from that comparison. Order won 155 times, Destruction 160, so Destruction wins and the front line moves one map further toward the Order capital.

I called that "projected" PvP. As you aren't fighting for what's in front of you (territory warfare, as in conquest games), but you are fighting to collect "stats" on a chart, and then hope your performance is overall better than a vague idea of "enemy" that also appears on a chart.

I'm sorry but this isn't RvR, as the war between the two factions is detached and filtered. It is just charts compared one to the other. Leader board game. Ladders.

But no RvR in the sense of persistent war and fight for territory.

So virtually identical to the PvP in WoW, and completely different from the RvR of DAoC. Assuming that the whole difference between DAoC and WoW is about the persistence itself.

Which is still a legitimate game. But it isn't what is being advertised. It's no RvR in the sense people expect.

And also leads to a number of problems. For example this kind of "sport PvP" (a definition that matches more closely the game) is by its nature more divisive than inclusive as it encourages the "elite" to despise their own faction as other players who aren't on par with skills and gear become DEAD WEIGHT for the whole faction, as their losses worsen the performance of the whole realm.

The RvR existed to offer a different model. A model where every player contributed. Even if low level and with crap gear, but still better being there than not participating. That's what built the sense of realm in DAoC , that brought everyone together to defend relics, that built the community, cohesion, motivation and longevity of the game. And that put less focus on the personal performance and phat loot.

Which is what Mythic systematically destroyed by promoting 8vs8 gank groups and that made the RvR (keeps and relic warfare) almost irrelevant and just a mild "flavor" on the background. And that consequently destroyed the unique qualities and value the game had, and dig the hole where the game now lies.

Warhammer seems to be a game with a new coat of paint over gameplay that people decided to abandon. Saving what in DAoC didn't work, and burying what worked. We'll see if, after the game's launch, the players will still appreciate the game after having scratched below this new paint coat and discovered the exact same gameplay they decided to quit.

I'm sure this bodes well

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:33:12 -0700

A GOA (Mythic european operator) representative trying to explain how their service will be greatly improved for Warhammer:

We have moved our offices to a foreign country to be able to provide the service that we couldn't offer for DAoC due to the labour restrictions in place in France.

Scott Hartsman quits SOE

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:35:33 -0800

So we have the first half of the news.

For those who doesn't know he was the live Producer of Everquest 2 and did his job the very best possible from what I've seen. He became producer after launch, so can't be blamed for what happened before, even if I think he was Technical Director before that, so maybe he had some blame on that front. In any case I admired him for his way of dealing and talking with the community. He always answered the critics with moderation and honesty and this is not something that happens rarely, it NEVER happens.

Since I have no need to write presentation letters for colleagues like Lum (wink) why I'm writing this? Simply because I'm curious. I have esteem for him and curious to know where he ends up. I doubt he would have quit the job if he didn't have a backup ready.

I guess we'll read soon the other half of the news. In a press release? Or maybe on his blog.

My guess is Curt Shilling.

Dwarf Fortress new version out

Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:34:24 -0700

After almost a year of full-time development, the new version is released.

Lots of stuff probably changed. The most notable new features are the multiple z-axis levels and variable environments.

I was a bit worried about the z-axis levels because they could mess too much an already complicated game, especially because it's simply impossible to present intuitively "height" when you have an ASCII interface. But this new feature doesn't seem too intrusive and once you figure out how it works you can navigate through it easily without feeling baffled. The new environments instead are *awesome*. Instead of having always the same default outdoor layout (and predictable gameplay development), this time the environments depend on where you pick the location for the settlement. So not always you have a cliff face, or a river. But then you also have increasing possibilities, like digging down. It's much more a sandbox now. More freedom and variation. New powerful toys to figure out.

I'm still trying to relearn the whole thing, so I can't comment much more.

Just two short tips:

Shift+< and Shift+> To move through z-axis levels

To dig down: (d)esignate a "downward stairway", go down one level, (d)esignate an "upward stairway" and a dwarf will then appear in the lower level

Now if only I could figure out why I can't use any seed on my farm plot...

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.

CCP/Eve headcount

Thu, 03 May 2007 08:42:30 -0700

As recent as last week:

We've never been shy about letting the community know approximations of the number of active subscriptions (approaching 170k), trial accounts (about 22k), peak concurrent users (34,420), staff (201), etc. Information like that is normally mentioned on the forums or in news items, so it may be hard to spot. Most of the forum regulars see the numbers and will generally pass the information along to those that ask.

Just the renovation of all the 3D models in EVE (not including the graphics engine) is about 80 people.

EVE is still growing rapidly, we're about 2000 short of 170.000 paying subscribers. Not counting EVE China or trials.

Reaching 160K at christmas, Jan and Feb were slow, now going on 170K. That's paying subscribers.

They seem now bigger than Mythic. But I guess it depends on what you consider "staff".

Of those 201, 150 are working on Eve. The rest? I don't know, but CCP is working on different projects.

And about this specific gripe, they also have something interesting to say:

player: There used to be a time when the only thing CCP thought about, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, every individual at CCP ever thought about was EVE. This was the core group of developers that made EVE, that launched EVE, that imbued EVE with life. This core group of developers is now sundered both in their minds and at thier company.

Oveur: The new MMO is being made in Atlanta to prevent this from happening. A new team is being built there to prevent this from happening.

I drink the Kool-Aid, the fact that the WoD game is being built elsewhere wipes most of my concerns. Good work.

Sanya quits Mythic

Tue, 01 May 2007 18:18:28 -0700

Sanya joins Lum and Matt Firor out of the door, and I think it's a good thing (for her, not for Mythic).

Lepidus: Can you talk about the circumstances of your departure?

Sanya Thomas: We mutually agreed to separate.

Mark Jacobs: I'm not going to say anything else on the subject, so please don't ask, sorry.

The fun part is that Lum wrote a pitch letter for her :)

I consider this a HUGE news. Now don't fucking tell me that it was just for personal reasons and things with Mythic were all fine and dandy.

I got the impression that Sanya was a bit of a driving force. Bad for Mythic, but Mythic doesn't deserve anymore good things.

I think it won't take long to discover where she lands. Maybe on Lum's belly? (or maybe that's too far away)

Well, I would, if I were leaving the area. Which I'm not.

Kendrick @ Relic

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:04:30 -0700

Kendrick was one of Vanguard original designers and he left Sigil a couple of years ago, so not part of this last diaspora.

Now at Relic, the makers of Warhammer 40k Dawn of War and Company of Heroes:

Start work at Relic on Tuesday provided they let me across the border.

This would fuel the rumor about Relic working on a Warhammer 40k mmorpg, if it wasn't for the fact that someone else has announced it.

That leaves space for some speculation.

--
Instead about latest Vanguard's news, Shild:

So, is there about to be a large influx of resumés floating around the MMORPG industry? Are some of them already flying about?

At this time though, I'm merely reporting what I've... heard. As such, do not consider this confirmation nor a denial.

Monday Morning Bad Awakening

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:37:14 -0700

It's all ultimately good news

Maybe. Depending on perspectives. But your credibility isn't that high at present.

I'll make a tighter quote-play than Krones:

SOE is in discussions with Sigil regarding the future of Vanguard and Sigil Games

Vanguard is doing decently but not as well as we hoped

SOE is going to be getting more involved with Sigil and Vanguard - our relationship is going to become even tighter - much tighter

When people start getting burned out of the Warcraft expansion (pardon the pun), we need to make sure that the game is more polished and will play on lower end machines

they think to themselves, "ah well, were I younger and had my life not changed, I'd give it a shot, but I just don't have the time for another EQ with better graphics right now."

there are arguably a lot of people who by mid to end of this year in the MMOG gamespace for whom Vanguard could potentially be very attractive

Yeah, arguably. Pretty much the same number of players who can find SWG attractive post-Raph.

SOE is now, objectively, a dock where MMO ships go wreck. Vanguard, SWG, Matrix Online, Planetside, EQ and, to a lesser extent, EQ2. With the years instead of growing resources, SOE has worn them out.

I still see a 500k+ game, I was just off by a year for a variety of reasons

I don't know, if this was politics the best thing you could do is to admit you were wrong and failed, and resign from a management/lead position to do something that fits you better.

I wouldn't like seeing Brad fired or out this industry. But I'd like to see him stepping down from his position.

You had your chances. And a whole lot of them. Drop ego and pride, step back, and let others have their own as well now.

That works

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:30:51 -0700

There's a curious article on the Red 5 website fancily describing their revolutionary recruiting strategy.

Aside the way they "dressed" it, that's how I always thought things should work: you go out to hunt and seduce talent, you don't wait it to knock at your door.

Sadly I didn't receive one of those invites ;)