Ravings
Submitted by Abalieno on May 1, 2008 - 19:05.
Taking a cue from D-One who pointed to a counter-rant of a moderator against those who hate the Arenas in WoW.
The truth is that anyone saying "arenas suck!" doesn't actually think they suck, they're either just trolling, or they have a specific and related issue/problem. I think we're able to break those reasons out though, filter everything down and get to what the issues actually are, see what may need to change or be fixed, and get down to it. If they're not the right kind of PvP for you, fine, hopefully we can address that by giving you more PvP in other places, if you don't like PvP at all and are afraid they're taking time away from the content you do enjoy - don't worry, they aren't, if you want to like the arenas but feel there are inherent issues with them, we hope to address those as well.
Well, the truth is in that my own case I DO think Arenas suck and SHOULD be entirely removed from the game.
Not because every aspect of the game I don't like shouldn't be liked by anyone else, but because the gameplay concept behind the Arenas is inappropriate for WoW. A mmorpg based on some degree of persistence and, in particular, on character progression, doesn't fit with a *good* arena game that is more aimed at competitive, and balanced gameplay and no real "RPG".
My suggestion:
- Strip the Arenas part from WoW. Make it an entirely different game. Make it accessible through the same client, Make it even playable as standalone paying a 1-2 dollars subscription for those who just want these arenas. Then add a tiered system where each tier gives you the choice between same-value armor sets, so that you can combine the pieces freely while also keeping the players in the same tier balanced. And then keep a sense of progression by putting better equipment in higher tiers, but without letting players in different tier compete between each other. Make it that you can even export your WoW-normal character, getting evaluated by a system and then put in the proper tier to compete fairly.
That would please everyone. Those who don't like the arenas, and those who like them and would like a more fair environment in which to compete.
It wouldn't work, though. Because what I think is when the players bought the game, they wanted to play a MMORPG. Not eSport.
Submitted by Innsmouth on April 25, 2008 - 01:35.
Player: Please, please, please release a Season 4 Arena and don't introduce ANY new gear.
Then I think you will have a VERY good indication how popular the Arena is on its own merits.
Kalgan: About as popular as a Sunwell without any loot in it?
Submitted by Abalieno on April 18, 2008 - 19:01.
This has been my theory since the first hours I've seen WoW's client with my eyes. I was discussing this on the forum today, so I will repeat here the concept, also because I think it's one of the most important aspects that made the game successful and that I've NEVER seen commented.
Outside of Dave Rickey, who wrote in his blog about the importance of tools and how always the worst programmers are put to develop tools, as it is not fun or really gratifying. Can't post the link because it was swallowed by the internet along with the blog.
So look at this sample picture that was posted.
It is nothing crazy, but it explains my idea. See all those tiny hills that make the mountains in the background? Now, do you think that a designer modeled and textured every one, one by one?
So here I repeat my theory.
--
I believe that a lot of WoW's beauty comes from ground textures and terrain modeling.
My controversial opinion is that it isn't about good art, but good TECH.
If you notice WoW's terrain is modeled in a way that is easily recognizable and every zone has the same rounded style. What I think is that Blizzard is using an editor that with a few clicks of your mouse creates pretty terrain while also placing textures on the fly, depending on the height and slopes.
Not only it allows them to keep that style consistent, but I also think they can make the terrain very quickly (and a new zone is just a set palette of new textures). Even the grass placeable are probably added by the editor itself.
What I'm saying is that this editor must have some preset brushes that do everything on their own (mostly). You give a general direction, a few mouse clicks and the terrain comes to life with all the textures placed and blended following a precise formula. That ALSO makes all the game, everywhere, look consistent (because they turned textures and modeling conventions into RULES, then applied by the editor itself).
Even *YOU* can make a pretty zone in a very short time, if you had the right tools.
--
You can import WoW's textures even in NWN2, so what?
I'm talking about tools that let you manipulate objects. Not the objects themselves. You can let someone make a picture pixel by pixel, or you can give him some broader tools. What you are saying here is that MS Paint is the exact same program of Photoshop.
SURE IS.
But can't you see that doing what Photoshop does into MS Paint would require years of work?
Tools.
So: try to use NWN2 editor to make a small zone with the terrain that look similar to WoW. Even use an existing zone as a model. I'm sure it will pass six months and you are still tweaking things.
And I'm sure it would only take a few hours to make a good looking zone with the editor Blizzard is using and that is giving that consistent look to ALL the terrain in ALL their zones.
You think this is the result of awesomely awesome art direction, or that maybe there's one slave who's doing all the terrain in all WoW. I say it's because a multitude of designers are using the same tools, so producing similar results.
And I know this because I did use tools in various games, and I know that the most difficult thing is to actually make things look DIFFERENT from everything else in the same game and produced by the same tools.
--
In short: WoW's designers are using Photoshop-level tools, all other designers doing other MMOs are using MS Paint-level tools.
Generalizing and simplifying a lot, that's why everyone else is behind.
--
Follow up here. In the same way Warcraft 3's editor as the "apply cliff" tool, WoW likely has an "apply rounded hill" kind of tool that automatically shapes the terrain AND applies appropriate textures. With no effort at all.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 15, 2008 - 05:53.
So saddening:
Tom Chilton, Lead Designer: The big objective is to build WoW into a viable eSports game platform.
And then worse:
Tom Chilton: Before this, we didn't really have a good forum for competitive eSports. WoW PvP was just kind of there. For example, our battlegrounds always had the limitations of the Horde having to play against Alliance, it was very themed toward the conflict within the game itself.
So the "eSport" is a way to surpass the "limited" form of factional-themed PvP.
This is surely a new drift that wasn't there in their original plans. Subjectively: for the worse.
Tom Chilton: I'll tell you, it's been a slow evolution. When WoW first came out, we didn't really have any semblance of organized PvP. We had Tarren Mill versus Southshore...
GameSpy: Which was awesome!
Tom Chilton: That's nostalgia speaking! I remember you were interviewing me at E3 a couple years ago and you not thinking that it was so awesome.
We kind of slowly went from there, to trying to bring some organization to it with the Battlegrounds. Giving the game a little more capability for players to feel like it was a fair, controlled encounter. Then it was (the arenas) a natural evolution from that.
Natural evolution.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 10, 2008 - 21:07.
I want to give a closure to the previous post so that I don't need to come back to it.
The instance performance of a realm can also be calculated in a absolute or relative way, this may be an objection to what I wrote.
For example WoW's arenas performance is relative, in the sense that your performance is calculated on a ratio, a so playing more isn't necessarily improving your performance. In fact it can worsen it.
This one model brings to the internal realm competition I described. In the sense that elite players are lead to fight their own faction as less experienced and geared players will worsen the performance of the whole realm. This would destroy the idea of "realm", and so be detrimental to the kind of gameplay Warhammer is offering, as it brings a faction to fight itself and divide players instead of uniting them against the enemy faction.
Not a case that WoW's arenas are detached from the faction Vs faction concept. It just doesn't fit there. And they know.
But there's also another possibility where the performance is calculated in a absolute way. Similar to how honor and badges work in WoW, but applied to the whole realm. In this case even when you lose, you win. You just win less than you would if you really won. Still win, but less.
The difference is that while in WoW the instances are completely volatile and reset, in Warhammer these instances will contribute to overall progress.
Assuming that 1 instance has always one faction against the other, this means that both have equal chances. If 200 instances are played and Destruction wins 101 times, then Destruction wins. In all cases. And this once again means that if you lost an instance, you also lost for your whole realm. And so better let the elite play alone instead of trying yourself and damage your own realm.
Your attempt to contribute will likely be detrimental. In particular in a scenario where these detrimental players are the great majority: casual players who would like to enjoy the game and finish to play against their own realm.
Lum's devs already whimper in WoW:
Yeah, basically the point I'm getting at here is just that the gear disparity is really frustrating for newbies. I'm basically dead weight on any BG team I join because everyone has full gladiator sets. I do my best to help out, but I can't really hurt anyone. I'm bringing whatever team I'm on down, but I have to do that in order to get to their level.
Which isn't a so uncommon feeling. In fact I think EVERYONE at least passed through it once, if not sat there permanently.
Now just think what happens when not only you feel miserable because you feel useless. But your mere presence is also making lose your whole realm with your crappy performance. Also because the organized guilds will have all kinds of phat loot and power ups (if they don't then what's the carrot to dangle in front of players and keep them addicted?). And you can't compete. You aren't catass enough. And you are making shame of your whole realm.
And I also wonder if Mythic is aware of the dead end where they are going. Blizzard has nightmares just to balance three BGs. Even if that balance doesn't matter so much. They make a smallish change and Horde wins all Alterac instances for six months. Make another imperceptible change and is the Alliance to win for another six months.
And this with classes being the same.
Mythic is pushing more class differences, and, in particular, Battlegrounds that will matter sensibly to the overall game progress.
That is a balance NIGHTMARE. They are going to pile the class issues DAoC had, on top of new balance issues due to the Battlegrounds progress. I wouldn't be surprised if the game comes out and we discover that a faction totally dominates the other. It's a no-win scenario. Either the RvR has no real consequences, and so is pretty bland and repetitive without real hooks, or it is meaningful, turning possible balance issues into severe wounds.
I really would like to know how the Beta is going, because all I wrote in this and previous post aren't foretelling of a distant future, but problems that should be explicit already in this phase of beta. So all I write should be already verifiable RIGHT NOW. And I'd like to know if I'm right, or where I'm wrong.
Submitted by Abalieno on March 12, 2008 - 22:36.
For MONTHS after the first screenshots of Warhammer Online were released there was the argument about whether WoW copied Warhammer or the other way around.
People who saw only WoW and thought Warhammer was a copy and people who claimed to know better said that it was Blizzard to have copied and pillaged Warhammer for years.
Both kinda true.
True that Blizzard didn't invent anything. Not just in gameplay, but also the setting and its style. Copied from Game Workshop, copied from Giger. Mostly because, as it happens with many franchises, the original games were bland and with no depth. Derivative. Ultima started derivative as well. Then all games, when successful and spawning series and consolidated settings, start to acquire a personality.
But rarely they are truly original or don't have roots somewhere.
Now the point is: WoW came before even the concept of Warhammer Online. Graphically, WoW has ITS OWN distinctive style. That people easily recognize. It's not just a general setting style. It's a visual style all-around. You can see at a glance if a screenshot comes from WoW. It goes FAR BEYOND being "cartoonish". It's WoW. Everyone recognizes it.
*Then* Mythic takes the concept of bringing Warhammer to an online version. They do have WoW under their eyes. They aren't oblivious. They know its style. When the screenshots of Warhammer appeared on the internet they said they weren't copying. Defended their choices saying that Warhammer came first. That Blizzard copied that style.
Now I ask you to look at this.
If the artist(s) who produced that say that they went for an original style that wasn't trying to replicate *precisely* WoW's style... Well, they would be some of the bigger and shameless liars in the world.
And this isn't just about artists "taking inspiration". This is a blatant CORPORATE MANDATE. To make Warhammer look AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to WoW in the hope to overlap the market and try to reach exactly that target.
I'm not saying this is a bad or unacceptable move. I'm saying they are COWARDS who won't admit what they are doing. And it is under everyone's eyes.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 28, 2008 - 02:27.
Directly from Lum's post and following comments:
This just can’t surprise anyone. EVERYONE who commented when Arenas were announced wondered how Blizzard expected them to be balanced, as the classes were NEVER designed for that kind of gameplay.
We aren’t talking about specialized blog comments, I actually remember interviews on mainstream gaming news asking that.
Everyone (including Blizzard) expected Arenas to bring up severe class balance problems. In fact we thought Arenas weren’t the best way to deliver the best rewards as the resulting gameplay wouldn’t be all that fair and balanced.
What people couldn’t expect is Blizzard making Arenas authoritative and compromise the rest of the game.
--
I also think Lum is wrong comparing this particular issue to what happened in DAoC.
I don't remember well the details in that case, but I think it was a change made after a long-standing balance issue. DAoC's problem was that the original class design wasn't all that good and laid out, so issues appeared down the road and sometimes they had to redesign a class on the fly in order to actually give it a specific role that it didn't have. It was a problem of the class and its identity in the game, due to the fact that the game had too many classes and so some "identity disorders". So they tried to "rethink" the class and consequently pissed off the players.
In WoW the original class design was (arguably) solid and objectively better outlined compared to all other MMOs released. The bigger balance problems arose (and here D-One is right) when the game escalated toward high-end raiding and now Arenas. It was a balance issue induced by mudflation and its pressure on game design. Like the itemization.
It's as if in DAoC they added a particular keep down the road and then discovered that one class could exploit that keep. And then decided to redesign the class instead of fixing the keep.
WoW's class design didn't broke because the original class design was poor, but because they added new gameplay systems (Arenas) that aren't appropriate and coherent with the original class design. And now, in order to make Arenas balanced, they are producing a chain-effect that has an impact on the class as a whole.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 27, 2008 - 18:35.
In my opinion for reasons not dissimilar to Auto Assault's failure.
There was a general disinterest and lack of hype toward Tabula Rasa, mostly because the few infos and media coming out of it were forgettable and mediocre.
Exhibit: this last video.
I don't know the effect it has on current subscribers, but to someone who never saw the game (me) it looks "meh". And that video is supposed to hype some awesome features coming with the patch, I suppose. At some point you even see players sliding around without moving their feet.
Tabula Rasa's kiss of death was a too long development cycle without a clear aim (so no focus and no time to get it right). Despite some interesting ideas here and there, the problem is that the underlying game isn't good enough. Not the overall systems and more complex features, just the basic feel, visuals, controls.
The basic message the game sends at first glance is poor. Looks like a childish shooter with silly aliens and cartoonish mechs, with big blobs of colors as weapon effects. Honestly, it looks like a poor man Halo clone that has nothing of what made Halo popular (which is a modern "Space Invaders", with waves of enemies to fight in various stages).
I say this overall effect is like Auto Assault reason of failure because what misses here is the basic visceral feel of a sci-fi shooter combat game. In the same way Auto Assault totally betrayed the expectations and dynamics of a car combat game. Both look and feel inconsistent, quirky, approximate. A bit of patchwork of classic MMO combat mechanics with slightly different skins.
It looks generic and awkward and this is made worse by the fact that the setting moves expectations toward a different kind of gameplay. Here we continue to theorize that sci-fi can't be successful when the truth is that sci-fi isn't successful when it is a skin on top of a classic fantasy game with minor changes.
We have sci-fi, we have fantasy, but it seems that when it comes to gameplay we just have one model that is applied to both uniformly.
Now again the exercise is to imagine a Tabula Rasa that is instead close to the expectations. So close your eyes, think of some epic battle scenes from Starship Troopers, or Terminator, or Aliens. And I'm sure you'll figure out quickly what is in their "feel" that Tabula Rasa misses completely.
Sadly while marginal game design progress can usually lead to better games, it isn't enough to deliver a good sci-fi game. To do something really different you need to reinvent the wheel and move as far as possible from marginal tweaks to current MMO combat.
Or at least use the Quake Wars or Gears of War or Call of Duty 4 as your basic model of gameplay, instead of WoW (or Star Wars Galaxies).
Submitted by Abalieno on February 9, 2008 - 19:51.
Cosmik on WoW's Honor Points, about one year ago:
The first curious thing is that you don't get your honor points immediately. Instead you get an "estimate", which tends to be far too low, and then get your real honor points the next day. Imagine experience points worked that way! "We estimate you have gained experience for two more levels today, but come back tomorrow for the exact value and the actual reward." I wondered, if honor points are given out on an absolute scale now, why would it take one day to calculate the honor points? It's better than the previous once-a-week calculation, but still not very logical.
My reply, one year ago:
Yeah. That question is gold. That's exactly what I was wondering a week ago on Q23, we are on the same line. No one could really understand this and the best guess is that it's all STILL because of those FUCKING diminished returns. My god, sometimes Blizzard is so absolutely stupid that isn't believable.
This can really make sense only in Kalgan's mind, because for the rest of the world this is blatantly flawed. And at this point isn't anymore just flawed, but also completely unexcused.
NO ONE STILL HAS A CLUE ABOUT HOW THIS SYSTEM WORKS.
THAT "best guess" was the friggin cause of all the fucking mess the Honor System was.
Proof coming from TODAY's patch notes (currently 2.4).
* Diminishing returns on honor for kills is being eliminated.
HENCE:
* Honor will now be instantly calculated, and available for player use.
My point still stands:
I'll tell you what you should do: you should demote that designer who is responsible for all this and replace him with someone who has at least half a clue. I do not want Kalgan fired. But I DO want him REPLACED. At least. Take his own responsibility for all this shit.
But, even more important, why the fuck PvP has to always receive this treatment? I mean in general, why the fuck PvP has always to be the afterthought? Why it always has to have the worst, careless design?
If your average bloggers figure out game design better than a team of senior designers who are paid to do that job professionally and have better insight about how the game works, then something is wrong.
Admit your failure on this system, and face your responsibilities.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 8, 2008 - 18:00.
He replied to a point I also suggested for Warhammer. I can't stay silent when he says such absurdities.
The proposal is about something like a mentoring system where players can access lower tiers (levels) of the game. So "delevelling" their characters to play along with friends who aren't in the exact same tier. My proposal was more complex but that's the main point.
His reply:
That's one I've always had mixed feelings about as a designer. The pros for doing that are obvious but the cons are what concern me. If players can easily move down in levels to help other players, I worry that new players will have a harder time getting in groups. After all, if you could choose an experienced player playing at a lower level or a new player playing at the same level, you'll go with the experienced player. His/her knowledge of the game will always be an advantage to you and to h/h. So when the new player is LFGing or wants to get into the fun in a situation where the number of participants is limited, h/h might have a more difficult time of it in this system. Like I said, I have mixed feelings on it.
One wonders. Because the main reason for that system to exist is to reduce the gap between veteran players and noobs, while Jacobs thinks it has the exact opposite effect. This can't be "opinion", either one or the other state must be wrong.
His thesis is that noobs should to play with noobs, because if there was a veteran player then all noobs will want him in the group. So the noobs will be sitting out of groups? Wait, it doesn't work.
His thesis is that in a world where there's a majority of veteran players and a few noobs, the few noobs wouldn't get in groups because they are, well, noobs. And in competitive, limited PvP (which is a flaw in itself and much discussed in forums) no one will group a noob.
Okay. So to solve this we remove veterans from this scenarios and what we get? A few noobs exactly as before, with the exact same grouping possibilities as before. So he fears that veterans group with veterans and noobs with noobs. Hello? In every game already happens. And the mentoring system (whatever the implementation) has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Really, Mark Jacobs sucks at game design. That's not complex reasoning, it's logic. The two worse alternatives are:
- Veteran players who can't go back in tiers, so they group together at higher tiers.
- Veteran players who can go back in tiers, so they only group together among themselves because they don't want noobs.
How this scenario affects a noob who's looking for group? In no foreseeable way, because in the first case there are no veteran players to group with, and in the second there are, but they won't group with him. So how this is detrimental to his group possibilities? Since Jacobs fears that a veteran player won't group with a noob he FORBIDS him to do it. So he is absolutely sure that there isn't the RISK that a veteran player may group with noob who can't find a group. Like if this could help.
Letting players go down in tiers has the only effect of keeping lower tiers more populated than they would if you could only more forward in tiers (everyone with a minimal MMO experience knows that lower zones become deserted over time). This means that the pool of players available for grouping INCREASES, if you let players move down instead of only up. The more people may be picky and not willingly to group with noobs, but this doesn't decrease the numbers of noobs in the system. And you can be sure that, even if in small numbers, some veteran players *will* be willingly to play with noobs, especially if the system is well designed and rewards this behavior.
So the best and worst case oscillate between "only few more players available", and "a lot more players available". In ANY case a mentoring system has a negative effect on the grouping possibilities of brand new players. In fact it is a partial solution.
The problem that Jacobs sees there has NOTHING to do with the mentoring system, and a lot to do with an intrinsic flaw of the close PvP system they decided to use. Moreover this flaw is foreign again to the mentoring system itself and WILL be present in ALL tiers.
Eldaec on F13 discussed this for months. How a "sport" PvP where results are charted and projected on the overall campaign will have a strong negative impact toward new players, because their participation may be detrimental to the result of the faction.
That's what you get when your "war" is faked. That's what happens when you OPEN that gap between veteran players and noobs because you designed a system that PUNISHES THE PARTICIPATION OF NOOBS TO PVP. With or without a mentoring system.
And that's also the MAIN reason why that "game design" will feed the hatred of veteran players toward noobs that want to play and finish to ruin the "performance" of the experienced team.
Mark Jacobs, get a clue. A mentoring system, in all games and in all implementations, is MADE TO HELP NEW PLAYERS. It is made to let people play together without levels being unsurmountable barriers. It is made to reward interaction between veterans and noobs. It is made to build with the time a welcoming community opposed to an hostile one.
It is made to keep the game accessible and playable after the first burst of players at launch is over.
YOUR OWN PvP system, instead, the one you defend. THAT's the source of hostility between players and the opening the gap between noobs and veterans. That's the one that promotes SELECTION instead of INTEGRATION. And that's the reason why the "war" in Warhammer won't even be close in quality to the war in DAoC. Where realm participation was ENCOURAGED instead of being detrimental to the battle.
Make everyone a favor, let real designers do the game design, and you just think to management.
Submitted by Abalieno on January 9, 2008 - 17:23.
Since I already stepped outside my purposes by commenting on Vanguard I decided to add on top of it by commenting one recent post by Mark Jacobs I spotted. The reason is that for once I don't have much that is edgy or bitchy to say. So I decided to do it for a change. And while I demonstrate to not respect my own rules, don't expect any more comments about MMOs for a long while. Take this as an EXTRA.
The comment I spotted is on the WarhammerAlliance tracker, I'm going to nitpick it:
Truth #1 - In terms of sub numbers DAoC was higher than AC and around the same as UO. These numbers are a matter of record and have been cited by numerous people over the years. EQ and of course WoW were more successful but on the other hand, DAoC cost only 2.5M to make in 18 months and its earnings to cost ratio make it one of the most successful games, not just MMOs, of all time. Its profit margin is even higher and based on what I know of almost all the other studios out there, was the best of any of the aforementioned games because of the game's lower costs for bandwidth, servers, etc. DAoC is 6 years old and still running.
Sure, DAoC was a success. Mythic deserved that success, put together a very good team, licensed some terrible middleware that still cripples the game today and will cripple Warhammer too, BUT that helped a lot pushing out the game so quickly and efficiently. It's probably for that crappy middleware that DAoC was *possible*.
So, DAoC's success should be measured on its own scale. As should EVERY game. Eve-Online has been MORE successful than DAoC, I'd argue. Measured on its own scale. And, measured on its own scale, WoW would have been a massive failure if it had just 400k subs all over the world. But it has nearly 10 millions. So it is not. Keep this in mind because I'll return on this point.
Sure the (DAoC) numbers are going down as they have been since WoW but *every* MMORPG that was launched before WoW took a hit from that game.
It's just too easy to argue this, but not too easy if the arguing isn't as superficial as that claim. Eve Online is again the exception to a rule. It grew and didn't sink.
I'd phrase that claim differently. MMOs whose numbers went down were all MMOs that presented the same gameplay WoW had (so most of all). WoW made a better work, so players moved there. It's simple. DAoC, between all similar MMOs, was the game who lost MORE players overall. Why? Not so much because game design went down the drain after TOA (that's another matter, not incisive here), but because WoW targeted those players and offered something better. While WoW's PvP is still limited, it's still the biggest effort since DAoC. And while DAoC still has a charm that wasn't recaptured, WoW, as a whole package, is just better than DAoC as a whole package.
Truth #3 - DAoC was the most successful MMORPG in Europe prior to the "WoW era". Nobody, not even EQ, had the same success in Europe that we did. This includes AC1, AC2, UO, EQ and all the other smaller MMORPGs that game out prior to WoW.
True. And it's why licensing Warhammer was a good move on this front. Trying to strengthen your position in a field where you are already strong. Supposedly because Warhammer has a more European appeal.
Slight problem: we aren't anymore "prior to the WoW era". Rules are different now.
I wish I had saved all the snark from Sanya and others when they kept repeating that WoW was as every other MMOs launched and that it wouldn't kill DAoC. Fact is that WoW killed DAoC and shapeshifted the whole market, entirely changed the rules. Only that MMOs don't die in a day. They become just corpses that continue to struggle indefinitely. It still doesn't mean they are alive.
2) Assertion - DAoC failed because of Trials of Atlantis and because we made RvRs do PvE.
Truth #1 - DAoC's numbers were going down as expected even before ToA.
I call this false, even if I don't have any factual number, while he has them.
I remember the numbers on the live servers well. During summer Mythic always lost some activity, but then it was stable. DAoC's numbers weren't going down prior to TOA. They just oscillated as it typical of every MMO without major updated. When TOA launched numbers went up significantly. Three months after TOA I think DAoC peaked on concurrent logins. So it actually was doing really well after TOA. I believe because TOA was an ambitious expansion, with lot of work and resources gone into it. Three months later and with the actual conscience of the flaws, players started to say "fuck it". So the impact of TOA's failure actually arrived after some time, and it then lasted for a veeeery loooong time. What TOA did was destroy Mythic's reputation more than the game itself. TOA's effects on the game were long term.
Truth #2 - If the PvE required for ToA had been better, the PvEing wouldn't have been as big of a deal but as I just said above, and countless times before hand, it wasn't so it made it worse. Burning Crusades required WoW's people to PvE and yet less of a stink was made about it because they did a better job with it than we did and we paid the price for it.
I agree, even if "making PvE better" isn't the real solution to a less superficial problem (relationship between PvP and PvE in a mixed game type).
But here Mark Jacobs misses Truth #3, the most important. It's slightly before TOA (so where Mark Jacobs puts the start of DAoC's decline) that Mythic started to move resources away from DAoC and over to new projects. Namely Imperator. DAoC suffered firstly from this shift of focus, that never ended as it moved smoothly through Imperator development, to its sudden cancellation, and right into the purchase of the Warhammer license. It's not game design that killed DAoC. It's management. And management is about choices.
Truth #2 - We listen more to our community than any other developer of a major MMO as our betas have proven.
I'm sure you can work for any other company and claim the same. I'd add "subjective" before "truth". But then I was never in DAoC or Warhammer betas, so no first hand experience.
Assertion - We are keeping out the players because WAR isn't ready
Truth - We have delayed beta and the game before, and will do so if necessary again, to make sure WAR is a great game. I will not apologize nor be sorry for doing so in the past and if it happens again, I won't be sorry then either. So, guilty as charged. That's what all the great developers do and we want to be considered in the same breath as people like BioWare and Blizzard and you don't get there by cutting corners or releasing a game before its ready. We will take the time we need to make the game great, period, end of discussion.
And here comes the real truth, that Mark Jacobs tried to disguise.
He starts his post saying that DAoC was a success because, requoting:
DAoC cost only 2.5M to make in 18 months
And:
and its earnings to cost ratio make it one of the most successful games
Understood? So, as underlined above, an exceptional success on its own scale.
But how can be this justification valid when projected on Warhammer? Because Warhammer as a project BETRAYS BOTH those critical points:
1- Warhammer cost Mythic independence, had to sell out to EA to make it possible.
2- Warhammer is being delayed because not ready.
One wonders that Mark Jacobs sold out Mythic to reduce the risk. That's his claim, Mythic was on edge after all the work wasted on Imperator and with DAoC going down, if Warhammer failed then they would have been in a very bad situation. Supposedly selling to EA bought them time and resources, so more living space. More hopes?
If only was that easy. Once again DAoC was a huge success because of its costs. If there's a rule that was valid for DAoC and won't be valid for Warhammer is that one. EA dumped on this new game a lot of money and resources. That comes at a price and the price is that expectations rise.
Consequently, if Warhammer is as successful as DAoC, it is a failure. Because its costs are not even comparable, and EA won't leave Mythic its space if all they can do is make another 300k subs game. So this is where all Mark Jacobs post comes apart. You can't justify Warhammer through the example of DAoC because DAoC was made under different rules.
As Lum repeats continuously, yes, you can be successful and profitable while still small. Problem is that the rule is not valid in the specific case of Warhammer. And it is not valid because the management decided to go big, sell out to EA, and overturn the principle on which Mythic worked (stay out of the radar, then come in and surprise everyone).
What will be of Warhammer?
I think Lum's predictions are overly optimistic. The first batch of players will be of the unfaithful/jumpy kind. Those who go out and try every now MMO, last two months max, then lose interest. From my point of view the biggest competitor at this first stage will be LOTRO. The one game without strong bonds and already filled with that kind of jumpy players.
At this stage I know very little of Warhammer. I kind of expect an execution slightly better than LOTRO. The license may be strong, but stronger than LOTR itself? So my opinion is that the number of active subs will be on that scale. I stick to my old prediction. 400k or less in six months. As long it launches in US+EU at the same time. From there it's hard to predict without having seen the game. If much more or much less will depend solely on the quality of the game. I doubt it will reach 1M.
Making better PvP is kind of easy. WoW itself would just need some more persistence and more guild involvement. Banners or something to display, some territorial control. Elements borrowed from strategy games and RTS, Blizzard should know them. Just empowering the players enough so that they don't just fight anonymous faces or over continuously resetting objectives/achievements. Something that puts players together working on a shared objective, more than just a personal piece of power-up. Something more motivating and moving. And as always there are plenty of ways to achieve all this, you just need the WILL to go down that path. Start trying things and experiment progressively. PvP isn't a system you get right all at once.
Warhammer is trying some of that. I'm skeptical mostly because the game design doesn't seem to have found a clear direction yet. Just heaping together different game modes without a clear concept of how they should work together, or what drives the players progress.
One last remark for Krones. I don't actually remember Mark Jacobs calling my ideas 'rubbish and not worth piddly-shit'. I guess I would if it happened because it would be amusing. And I don't think he did because I seriously doubt he ever read anything I posted on this site.
I'm not worthy to be what Lum was for Richard Garriott back in the day ;)
Submitted by Abalieno on January 5, 2008 - 09:58.
The year starts refreshingly.
I noticed this old-style drama, yet about Vanguard, on both Plaguelands and K10R. Fun stuff, reminds me of old times.
Just a few words:
1- While I don't believe every word written, I think there may be some truth and it is not a complete hoax.
2- The guy isn't scared about burning bridges.
3- Comments about private life are always inappropriate and should be omitted. Those were gratuitous attacks.
4- I was the first to call Vanguard vaporware when Anyuzer started to drink the Kool-Aid, years ago. I spelled it out: it was vapid. Those comments, while poorly written and making me ashamed, are still mostly valid. Vanguard wanted to be a design innovation, but it didn't innovate anything aside some very vague (almost valid) concepts that weren't properly made a whole (as game design should be).
5- I would defend Brad McQuaid. I think he proved that he believed in the game and that he had a vision. Debatable, but still personal, strong and competent. I'm sure that he saw the thing sinking from far away and still blindly continued to hope in some kind of external intervention to make the miracle. If they say he didn't do shit in the last year of development, I would believe. But I don't believe that he didn't care about the game and that he was slacking. I just don't believe in this drug-addicted image of Brad McQuaid, careless and hands-off his game.
6- Vanguard, once again, was a failure for *technical* execution first. Programming. Graphic engine. Server stability. Art and animations. Controls. Game design comes after those, and in that Post Mortem there's no mention of those flaws, as if the game's faults were all about high-level design. The game didn't fail because of Game Design, it failed because it was a POS close to Shadowbane. It was broken. Not because the newbie quests weren't written by senior designers, but because it ran poorly even on powerful hardware and yet looked awful. You need the basics to work, then you can think about the rest.
7- If Vanguard had a good technical execution but poor game design, it would have survived. Not a success, but something viable (see LOTRO, a game with zero ideas but good execution overall). So it's the technical execution the most relevant aspect of Vanguard's failure. And the one that is still ignored the most in discussions.
8- Brad McQuaid has responsibilities as he wasn't just responsible of the game design, but of the project as a whole. Including the technical execution. In particular: you have to bargain between ambition and concrete possibilities. Especially if you are forming a brand new studios. Start small and improve from there. Aiming too high is another relevant factor behind Vanguard's failure (and probably others on the horizon).
9- Let's talk about something else. Thanks. This drama is now about as relevant as Glitchless' Dawn and Dave Allen's Horizon. I hope we are past that swamp and that we can expect and bitch on a different level of quality and competence. Good and interesting discussions for the genre are somewhere else.
Submitted by Abalieno on December 15, 2007 - 11:44.
Lots of blog activity today. I just wanted to point out that the new version released today (0.27.169.33f) has one feature/change that was proposed by yours truly.
made wagon start in selected biome if possible
That's what I get for hosting one of the mirrors ;)
I don't think Toady will be pissed if I repost a mail where we discussed this:
Toady: On the request, the thing that makes it not immediately do-able is that some single square biomes are not edge-connected, and wagon placements will always have a path (sometimes just 1 wide...) to the edge, so as to guarantee some chance at trading and so on. It's not all that hard to handle, but it's a border case and should probably be handled more robustly. Something like allowing the actual square in the local map to be selected, or going as far as allowing the wagon(s) to be placed. This last is a bit much, maybe, but it could serve as a 3D camera tutorial at the same time, with a message. I know a lot more instruction is needed, but moving the camera up and down and using up/down stairs seem to be the trickiest early issues. In any case, I haven't quite decided where I want to go with wagon placement...
Abalieno: Makes sense. A solution could be about making selectable only those biomes that are connected, like printing on screen "unreachable" if the biome doesn't reach the edge. Is the program able to perform the check already in the location screen?
Or you could as well do the same if you let players place the wagon in the game. Letting them place it only in reachable (edge-connected) areas. To place it you could use something like the workshop placement, using the panel on the right to give enough detail about why a location may be forbidden.
My choice would be doing both. In the location screen you select the biome and with the cursor an approximate location (with all the checks necessary). Then make the dwarves start on the wagon, with the horses linked to it, so that you may then move the wagon where you want if the starting position isn't optimal, then unload and see the dwarves spread around.
But even the first solution can work well: you give control on the selection of the biome, but only allow it to be selected if it's edge-connected. With a simple message on screen it should be intuitive enough.
I actually think it's better to not give players the control to place the wagon manually. As you say the trickiest issue is to figure out the z-depth and it's better to let players handle it a bit later. Become comfortable with the level where they are, then starting to figure out the multiple levels, gradually. So it's important that the wagon starting location can be already selected with a decent approximation.
In tutorials this is essential: so that you can explain how to select a good area. And have the tutorial itself being much easier if you can remove some of the odds of the placement.
Submitted by Abalieno on November 24, 2007 - 10:52.
In regards to the "Jade Raymond" new internet legend. This is my reaction:
What's the point here beside a "I hate people" argument? Because this isn't the internet. This is the world.
I don't know what happens in the US but if we get over here a pretty woman doing politics then you CAN BE SURE that the image will always come first, that you'll have plenty of (admittedly questionable) humor and satire about it. It happens the same with writers, actors, journalists, dancers, bankers, whatever.
This isn't even the byproduct of male-chauvinist society. Women drool after soccer players. Not always because they play well soccer. Women drool after actors. Not always because they act well.
This isn't the "game industry", this is everywhere. And I don't get the outrage. Aren't movies promoted because there's Leonardo DiCaprio or George Clooney in it?
Now we sue webcomics because the humor doesn't correspond to an idea of personal taste?
One wonders what could have happened if instead of Assassin's Creed she was the producer of The Witcher and agreed to appear in a digitalized form as one of the hookers.
Submitted by Abalieno on November 13, 2007 - 19:24.
There's an interview with Lum and Dave Rickey at F13 and I wanted to answer the last question.
--
So, presume you had an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of talent and an infinite amount of money. What do you make?
I'd make a school. I'd make an environment that is half production, half school.
So that, instead of stealing talent from other companies and feed this incestuous behavior, you grow talent and have that talent go feed yours and others companies. So that you build and refine talent instead of just hiring those who got their experience somewhere else.
You can have a school that doesn't train abstract, but that teaches the basics and then the practice. You could have those students working and practicing with real games developed (and pay them for this work), and in the case what they make is good and they demonstrate talent, you hire them directly into the company.
And one day they'll lead something or even be teachers themselves.
And with 'school' I don't intend a MMO school. I intend something that will open to every activity. Game designers, writers, artists, animators, programmers, musicians, actors and so on. If one day you have a game and then want to make a TV series about it, you open a new production for it. Publishing games, animation, books, whatever. From a side you open the school, from the other a new production.
And with 'school' I also intend a place where you can go live. Like those colleges you have there in the US. But where also grown-ups are accepted. Apartments, cinemas, bars, dancing halls.
I'd actually make a town. With the school in the middle.
Maybe put it in the bottom of the ocean, and call it "Rapture".
Submitted by Abalieno on November 6, 2007 - 03:59.
I was reading Tobold through RSS:
They observed that many players in a MMORPG go through the same stages in the same order: Entry, Practice, Mastery, Burnout, Recovery.
You know I just talk of fantasy books these days. Well, I've noticed that also fantasy books readers go through the same stages in the same order: Prologue, Chapter 1 ... Epilogue.
Amazing, ain't it?
Some also get bored before the end and don't finish it. Some may try again a few years later.
Submitted by Abalieno on November 4, 2007 - 01:23.
This is a guide designed to be as quick and effective as possible.
Dwarf Fortress is a sandbox game simulating a randomly generated world in every detail, from geography to populations and myths. It offers four modes of play, but the one explained will be the first. You will lead an expedition of dwarfs and build their fortress along the years, starting from setting farms and bedrooms, up to the military aspect to deal with sieges of epic proportions. In short it's a city-building kind of game blended with The Sims and Dungeon Keeper. There's a bit of everything, but in the beginning you'll just try to make your dwarfs survive the first winter while you start to dig your wannabe Ironforge.
Yes, it's an ASCII game, but it's more easily playable than how it appears.
1- You don't need to memorize commands as everything is accessible through on-screen menus.
2- The ASCII is a graphical representation. It just needs time to get used, and then it will be as readable as any graphical game.
(click to read the rest)
Submitted by Abalieno on September 21, 2007 - 12:24.
If you see the site being up again, or this entry appearing in your old, stinky RSS aggregator... DON'T PANIC.
I'm not back.
I just need to fish some old entries for the next couple of days.
These months I'm also reading through Steven Erikson's epic fantasy saga (10 books, 7 out now), then think if it could be made into a mmorpg.
They say it's the Best Ever and the finest and most complex and intricate worldbuiliding ever made.
Ian Cameron Esslemont: I (and Steve) both believe that Malaz is vastly different from the general popular fantasy series of the genre. We deliberately set out to achieve this goal of convention challenge, contravention, and reversal. It is deliberately anti-heroic in a genre heretofore reserved for heroic indulgences all this because we have faith in the intelligence and discrimination of genre readers to recognize when they are not being talked (or written) down to. In many ways the entire series is an extended critical study of the genre itself how it works, why it works, how far can it be pushed to evolve? But all that is sub-textual and academic; foremost the books must and do remain a damn hair-raising read. If that falls down then it will all fall down (and deservedly so)
Erikson: The Malazan Book of the Fallen is a compiled history, warts and all. It's not above brazen manipulation of events and facts, because, well, that's the nature of the beast. By this, do I mean it as a way of squirming out of things? No, you'd all never let me get off that easily. I just love the feel of an uncertain history, as all histories are. If none of you had any questions, then I'd be worried.
Erikson: The second question: oh the sparks were all negative things, frustrations at the genre's confounding predictability. Wanting to write something in fantasy I myself would like to read (and not just me, but Cam as well -- the one reader who stays in my head as I write). Wanting to kick the tropes around, wanting to get rid of that endless quasi-medieval class-conscious blueblood crap. Wanting a fantasy world as multicultural as this one (the preponderance of white-skinned heroes and blonde princesses ... man, what century is this?). Wanting a fantasy world with a history beyond the Dark Lord of three hundred years ago who's found a rock that will help him rise again and do, oh, bad things; a world with geology and geography, etc.
Sure, there's some good stuff out there, but it wasn't enough. Maybe still isn't.
Erikson: I probably play around with subtext a lot more than your run of the mill fantasy novel (at least those I've slogged through out of boredom or some similar reason); but the better ones out there do that as well. I was told, long ago, that the stranger the world you're writing about, the clearer and cleaner the language must be -- 'windexed language' as it used to be called (and maybe still is). But I found a way around that, by making certain characters players of language -- in dialogue and monologue, and with those I can let loose on the linguistic games, puns, etc I can play with self-consciousness and metaphor and deliberately twisted analogy and simile. Messing around with voice is one of things that has always interested me as a writer. Multiple points of view unleash that like the hounds of hell. Also allows for plenty of misdirection, which is even more fun. Of course, every bit of writing, every sentence, every paragraph should function to serve more than one purpose. If there's just one (advancing action) it should probably be short and precise; otherwise if it's establishing setting, or if it's dialogue/monologue/characterisation, it should carry more than one level of intent and communication. That's a rule I follow, any way.
His first fantasy novel, Gardens of the Moon (1999), constitutes the first of ten projected volumes of the Malazan Book of the Fallen. His style of writing tends towards complex plots with multiple point-of-view characters.
It is an epic fantasy, wide in scope and encompassing the stories of a very large cast of characters. Each book tells a different chapter in the ongoing saga of the Malazan Empire and its wars. For the first five books, each volume is self-contained, in that the primary conflict of each novel is resolved within that novel.
However, many underlying characters and events are interwoven throughout the works of the series, binding it together.
HRose: Erikson's series should be under 'epic' in the dictionary. With timelines spanning 100000 years and more, and tons and tons of characters, many of which who are ancient themselves.
My personal favorite. I love the expansive and interesting world Erikson has built. That being one of your criteria I don't think you can go wrong.
The other bonus of Erikson is that he's fantasy of his own devising, and isn't Tolkienesque. His take on gods and magic is pretty awesome, and unique to boot. He turns the idea of undead on its head, there is no ultimate good or ultimate evil, and there's startlingly few stereotypes. Even when he delves in to a plot involving a young kid being caught up in things above him, he manages to take it in places that you just wouldn't expect.
I do like Erikson too, but the far-flung epic feel drags in parts. That could just be me in that I only have time to read sporadically. The Malazan books are certainly not ones you skip merrily through. You have to pay attention and invest yourself in them. You are definitely paid off, though, because the detailed world he creates is nothing short of amazing.
This is the seventh novel in the Malazan Book of the Fallen series. It is everything you hoped for if you have been following this story from the beginning. The sheer scale and grandeur of this tale is breathtaking. Again you will question who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys".
Martin and Erikson are absolutely the giants of the genre at this point.
One huge plus between Martin and Erikson though- Erikson is putting these out on an almost annual basis. There is a very real possibility that his entire ten book series will be released before Martin gets his sixth book out.
Erikson commonly gets compared to George RR Martin thought the two really aren't that similar IMO other than the scale of the work and, in most opinions, relative quality. Both authors tell a fairly gritty tale but Erikson seems more concerned with history and magic while Martin seems focused mainly on characters.
Erikson's strength is in his world detail. The world of the Malazan Empire has an incredibly detailed backstory and its the primary focus of the series. His books take the "in media res" concept very much to heart- there is no true beginning and most readers find themselves fairly confused with the first half of his first novel, Gardens of the Moon. He doesn't slow for explanations or introductions- the world is already in the midst of a major continents-spanning war and most of the characters already have histories with one another that is only hinted at. You just have to accept that you'll be confused and trust that you haven't missed anything. By the second half of the book things start to click and you get a pretty good idea of the scope of what Erikson is trying to get across.
His best asset, IMO, is the sheer scale of the events. He also has some relatively interesting characters. One huge plus is that each book is relatively self-contained- there is a genuine finale and following books often take place in different times and places than previous ones with a few overlapping characters. Consequently each book is relatively satisfying without engaging in cheap cliffhangers.
Erikson other folks have described. Huge time scale, lots of gods and other major powers futzing with things. Enormous, dramatic conflicts. I've found every book so far to be rough getting into (he sometimes spends 5/6ths of a book building tension and weaving threads before the big shit goes down.) but increasingly compelling to the point of obsession the deeper into them I get. There's nagging things that keep popping up and back down again before I can entirely identify them. But he's telling much too good a story for me to really care.
Another big hell yeah for Malazan. There is just nothing else quite like it out there.
Tearing into 'Memories of Ice' by Erikson. Gotta love a book that has a 300 thousand person army of starving cannabalistic peasants laying seige to a city.
And another reason it deserves the "epic" title (which I didn't see anyone else mentioning in this thread but they may have and I missed it) - the depth of character and location interaction is so broad it's almost silly. You meet what look like minor throw-away characters in one book only to find they are the major player three books later.
Or you find a bizarre scene that is visited by many different groups of characters at different times, but the scenes don't appear in order in the sequence of the books. You may find the gruesome mysterious aftermath of a battle in book 2, then read about the battle itself in book 5. I found myself constantly going "WAIT! Is that how that got there?" and shuffling through earlier books to remind myself of how things were connected.
And my last bit of fanboy praise - the characters are freaking GREAT. Ericson is not afraid to kill of major characters, and he creates new major characters in just about every book, and yet almost all of them are clearly drawn with distinct personalities and are quite memorable.
I think Erikson is the most complete fantasy writer out there today. Some authors are good at world building, some are good at characterization, but Erikson isn't just good at both, he excels at both.
Erikson also does some really unique stuff with structure and narrative that I haven't seen a lot in the genre. It's not straightforward in any way. For example, the first book takes place on a certain continent with certain characters then Book 2 moves to a completely different continent with mainly new characters. Book 3 then acts as a sequel to Book 1, and Book 4 to Book 2.
Then there is an all new continent and characters in Book 5 and now Erikson is drawing all of those threads together in the latter half of the series.
The result is that the whole enterprise is basically a puzzle where the reader is making the connections between these seeming disparate storylines.
Especially since Erikson abhors any type of exposition describing the world and it's history. It's left to the reader to put together so readers of the first book often feel like they are missing something and starting a series in the middle. Another cool technique Erikson uses is that he hides some secrets and twists in plain sight which can makes re-reads quite enjoyable when you see how much he had laid out in advance.
Highly original. Very little of his world-building even reminds me of things I've read before.
I agree they're an acquired taste, and not the easiest reads, but the chaotic insanity and excess of the whole concept is sort of exhilarating.
And the plotting is pretty extraordinary. By the time you get to book four and see how the throwaway random comment in book two was actually a reference to an event which was experienced in book three and had been foreshadowed in book one it can boggle the mind nicely.
Martin isn't really high fantasy- it's all very realistic with minimal magic. Erikson, on the other hand, really excels when it comes to epic, magic heavy battles.
Erikson's world can probably be compared to the mythology of Ancient Greece but set in a medieval period- Gods and Ascendants (basically demi-gods) are main characters and frequently interact with mortals.
Erikson is a master of lost and forgotten epochs, a weaver of ancient epics on a scale that would approach absurdity if it wasn't so much fun.
The sheer scale of the author's vision is nothing less than astonishing. And the ease with which he seems to navigate through this grand epic of mortals and gods never ceases to astound me.
If you are not reading A Tale of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, you are missing out on what is possibly the most ambitious fantasy series to ever see the light.
War is a constant -- from continent to continent, century upon century. Erikson's universe is a violent one, Gothic in intensity, without clear demarcation between good and evil. It's perhaps more like the real world, then, than most fantasy, which so clearly differentiates between light and dark. Not the kind of story I would read to my son before bed -- death and pain abound, along with magic and wonder.
Gods are always messing with mortals in Erikson's work, but the mortals also, by their patterns of belief, create their own gods, their own greater powers.
Give me, instead, the evocation of a rich, complex and yet ultimately unknowable other world, with a compelling suggestion of intricate history and mythology and lore. Give me mystery amid the grand narrative. There's no need to spell it all out; no prefaces, please, elucidating the history of Middle Earth as if to students in a lecture hall. Instead, give me a world in which every sea hides a crumbled Atlantis, every ruin has a tale to tell, every mattock blade is a silent legacy of struggles unknown.
Give me, in other words, the fantasy work of Steven Erikson.
Genabeckis Continent & campaign as main arc: books 1 & 3
Seven Cities subcontinent & rebellion as main arc: books 2, 4, & 6
Lether Continent and Tiste Edur: books 5 & 7
The problem is that each book fills or offers a different interpretation of the backstory, along with advancing the series arc. You also have groups of characters take off from one continent and show up in another.
Fairly important characters are introduced in book 1, that then have a subplot in book 2, one of whom pops up in most of the other books.
Book 5 is almost entirely standalone, with a new continent and entirely new characters (except for one guy introduced in book 4) but it's set as 5 years back in the timeline.
Sometimes people recommend starting with book 2, Deadhouse Gates, because it's gripping and has the least background requirements, but then other people say that's a bad idea.
Quon Tali, the continent that the Malazan Empire comes from, periodicly shows up throughout the books.
And I'm fucking ANGRY with Robert Jordan.
When you have duties toward people, YOU CAN'T DIE LIKE THAT. I'm going to blame him and god.
Submitted by Abalieno on May 1, 2007 - 23:07.
It's since 2004 that I push for this term and used it not parsimoniously a zillion of times. Probably the most used term on this site along with "accessibility barriers", "permeable barriers", "gated content" and others I used to use.
Accessibility. When WoW launch everyone was ascribing its worth to another term: polish. The word was that WoW was a "polished" game, with a good UI and had a good launch (if you exclude the growing pains). And while everyone was agreeing on the polish I was trying to criticize that term. I remember especially a discussion on Dave Rickey's blog that I'd link if the blog still existed.
If you call it "polish" you aren't wrong, but you fail to underline the distinctive trait and the reason why it is so much important. Polish just means it's glossy, appealing. A good presentation. That's important, but not fundamental. What I was explaining is that polish is a subset of accessibility, but it's the accessibility itself being the key.
And accessibility is a broader term that includes many different aspects, all absolutely relevant and important. Why WoW won? Hardware requirements to begin with, but also game design. I complained many times about WoW's raiding endgame. Everyone out there agrees that while WoW did a wonderful work by removing so many enrooted bad habits in the genre while distilling all that is relevant and fun, it still wasn't able to do the same with the endgame, both raiding and PvP. With the problem of raiding being, guess what? Accessibility barriers.
The game that will SURPASS WoW will be the one game that removes those accessibility barriers that are still left. I repeated this ad nauseam.
And yes, accessibility barriers are everywhere. On game design and technology. Even bandwidth, stable connections, low ping. One of the reason why MMOFPS are problematic is because of connection issues. They require very fast and reliable connections. They require servers geographically near you. They even require very smooth framerates. Today game designers completely underestimate fundamental parts of the code like the bandwidth requirements. They care if the server overloads, or their own bandwidth costs, but they rarely think about the player's end.
Voice chat, just as another example, is another fucking huge accessibility barrier.
So "accessibility" is an important term because it goes straight to isolate those problems that are usually underestimated and that instead are the most important. Slash commands, another "first generation" MMO bad habit are another accessibility barrier. I don't know how many times I ranted against DAoC and its frequent introduction of mechanics only accessible through slash commands. It's not just because you have to memorize them. The problem is that before you can memorize them, you have to be *aware* of them. You cannot pretend players to read the patch notes to be aware of a new function or possibility. Nor you can pretend that players retroactively remember all that was added along the months. To not even say that these commands are also poorly documented.
Take Guild Wars and the most recent dev quotes:
According to the team, the problem with high-end PvP is the learning curve. With so many skilled players, there's no way in Guild Wars to gently introduce players to the concept of PvP. Newbies can be brutalized by the experience of letting teammates down as they develop the skills to be competitive in PvP.
Yeah, accessibility barrier. And even GW's PvP sucks for that reason. It's not a small problem.
The fact that it's so hard to meet other players in these games that you meet for example on a forum. Because there are so many servers and you cannot move your character freely to meet other friends you make. This isn't an accessibility barrier, but it's still a barrier and one of the most important in the whole genre. One that NO ONE IN THIS INDUSTRY seem to care about.
Levels are another fucking barrier. No one is touching it either.
I described the current situation as an iceberg because the MMO market IS submerged for the most part. Guild Wars MAIN principle was to let players play without the monthly fee. And it's again an aspect of accessibility. So if you want to reach that large market, you have to envision that part of the iceberg that is still submerged. You have to provide solutions to the problems that ALL the mmorpgs out there are clearly exposing. Instead of perpetuating them to maintain the status quo.
I said it:
The future of the genre is to make these world even more accessible and immersive. Working on the qualities that we already discovered and going to tap that potential that is still dormant. The future of the genre will be about offering *solid answers* to the problems that are now dodged or dismissed. It will be about games that bring the players together instead of apart and that will continue to appeal to casual players, without imposing them unacceptable strains and dependencies. Games that will let you contribute to the "world" without the need to schedule your life around it. Games that are accessible and don't separate the players in social classes of uberness
Now both Lum and Ubiq returned on the topic about accessibility. Finally admitting it IS accessibility and recognizing its importance (Ubiq by calling it for what it is and Lum indirectly: "you have to have as few roadblocks as possible").
With both of them I disagree on two points. With Ubiq about the "Uncanny Valley". There was a long thread on Q23 where I managed to demonstrate better the point. The point was that the problem of the "uncanny valley" is used inappropriately in gaming. There are no games so realistic to fall in that case, while the "uncanny valley" is mostly an excuse to disguise poor art quality.
Instead with Lum I disagree, again, when he says that "bad launches kill games". This is yet again the wrong perspective, exactly as when you use polish in place of accessibility. It's not wrong, but it's the least significant conclusion, the one that doesn't let you identify what's important.
I don't see launches being important. They are "moments of truth". But I don't know any game that I think should deserve substantially more or less subscribers than what it has (eastern market aside). That's it. Take Eve-Online. It is doing fairly well, but I don't think it deserves more than what it has currently, moreover, I don't think it deserved more than 20-30k it had at launch, because the game was quite terrible.
So what's the point here? The point is that a launch is the moment where all the empty promises fall down and the boxes have to be on the shelves. There's not anymore hype or rumor control. If the game is good, it will succeed, if it sucks, everyone will see that. That's why a launch is so important. Facts replace words.
Secondarily it's true that "bad launches kill games" because if a game is terrible at launch, then it means that it will likely suck one year later. More on this: Lum says Eve is the exception, so not a meaningful example of a viable strategy. I say that Eve IS an exception because I haven't seen ANY other mmorpg evolving and growing that much. And I don't mean growing subscriptions, I mean growing quality.
So, considering that with a launch the players finally see the game for what it is, and not for what it was hyped, and considering that once released a game usually doesn't really move anymore in any substantial way, yeah, bad launches can kill games. But the reason why that game dies is much deeper than "bad timing". Where "bad timing" is just the ready excuse that devs provide to avoid admitting they did a poor job. You gotta be sympathetic toward them.
Bad launches also put a huge mortgage on the possibility to improve the game and gather more resources, while good launches give that possibility, even if those resources are almost always moved to other projects and only for a small part reinvested to improve the original product.
Now "accessibility" has finally became the hot word. I guess I'll have to thank Vanguard to have revealed again how a good client is important. Finally people are starting to agree with me. On Terra Nova they argue about the term itself. Too generic? Too vague? Doh. You know... Fruit. Apple. Apple is a fruit, one term includes the other. One is specific, the other more generic. Do you really need a linguistic lesson? Terms have distinctive traits. Terms come out of an "use". So we have a term when we also have an use for it. There are Native American tribes that have more than ten different terms used to define the color "red". For us it's just red, but for them those are ten completely different colors. Why? I don't remember exactly but they had an use for them, while they clumped other colors into one because they weren't as relevant for them. You see distinctions where you have an use for them.
So "accessibility" is useful and relevant exactly because it encompasses so many fundamental aspects. With all having that distinctive trait in common that I consider next to the "barriers".
And here we come to the conclusion that leads back to the start.
Why ultimately "accessibility" is this important? Because there *is* a bottom line that excuses the importance of this term.
This bottom line is once again about "learning". Games are about learning. The three cases. Accessibility is the possibility to be let in. To what extent the lesson is accessible for you. To what extent you are included in the group, or excluded. Winner or loser. To what extent you are in, or out.
Accessibility isn't a vague definition of a mechanic. Accessibility is the one, only value: the vocation of gaming.
To reach as many people as possible, immerse them, let them be part of something.
Look at the bottom of this post. What you see on top of that list?
Submitted by Abalieno on April 25, 2007 - 03:58.
Sean Howard: Woah, no no no no. MMO gameplay has issues - usually philosophical and exclusionary issues - but the gameplay does not suck rocks... and I am the biggest opponent of many of the MMO norms. I very, very much believe that MMOGs could be really amazing, not by changing what they are, but by softening the edges and cleaning up their act.
It's like, right now, all MMORPGs are pot smoking womanizers. They are bullies and sadists. We enjoy their company in spite of this behavior, not because of it. So, if they clean up their acts, they might even become somebody you respect and admire.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 24, 2007 - 05:26.
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.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 23, 2007 - 13:33.
I've already clearly explained my point of view from the commercial perspective, so I'm not going to comment more about it.
I continue to read in forums and blog posts how LOTRO is a respectable mmorpg worth playing but I still see no trace of actual reasons or explanations about what this game does different or better.
Imho LOTRO isn't just a game within a genre, borrowing many standardized mechanics. LOTRO is a rip-off, a plagiarism that doesn't offer anything neither new nor improved. And if you play the game and enjoy it don't just tell me I'm wrong. Tell me *why*, describe me what LOTRO does better, where are the fun points, what is different. And maybe you'll even write a blog post that is interesting to read.
The real difference between LOTRO and WoW is this one: WoW is a game that fits in a well-defined genre. It is strongly influenced by other mmorpgs, replicates most of their features. But what is relevant is that WoW HUGELY IMPROVED what it borrowed. From the UI, to strict mechanics, accessibility, polish and flow. Every tiniest aspect in WoW was analyzed throughly, improved and refined. WoW took a model and improved it like no one else, set a new standard of quality and opened up a genre that was a market niche mostly inaccessible to the larger public because of consolidated bad habits that plagued it.
Turbine instead took a successful game and shamefully ripped it off in every aspect, hoping that the powerful license they purchased will compensate the complete lack of ideas, competence and ambition.
The difference is that LOTRO doesn't bring any kind of worthwhile contribute to this genre, it just hopes to leech it.
People often talk about first, second, third generations of mmorpgs. I wonder which generation I have to wait to see dialog trees for NPCs or monsters stalking players instead of sitting while waiting to be pulled.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 14, 2007 - 12:07.
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".
Submitted by Abalieno on April 6, 2007 - 01:15.
Related to the discussion about how to make hopeless PvP defenses a bit more epic and fun.
Music
- Develop a system similar to Lucasarts' iMuse (music tunes dynamically adapting to the situation in the game). The zerg approaches and you are outnumbered, and a special epic badass music starts to play.
War skills
- The Horn
Mechanic: This is a commander skill. It can only be used when the team in a zone is outnumbered. When used it works like a simple trigger, enabling the "Braveheart" skill on all the players in the same team and in the zone. The horn is also a huge physical object that cannot be transported, so a commander must reside at a castle in order to use it.
Metaphor: The horn is played and its deep sound will be heard through the valley. You hear the sound, your realm is calling you. Fight for your realm!
- Braveheart
Mechanic: after you hear "The Horn" your "Braveheart" skill lights up ready to be used. When pressed your character is locked into place, building up a morale boost that enhances your stats. If you are hit in combat you'll be interrupted. This "buff" has a cap, so once filled it won't pass that limit (you get the visual cue of a bar filling up, so you always know the status of this buff). Around five seconds to go from zero to cap. Your morale will then slowly decay over time and go down every time you deal damage, proportionally to the damage you deal.
Metaphor: You hear the calling, your realm is calling everyone to arms. Your character rises his fist into the air (animation) and SCREAMS THE HELL OUT OF HIS LUNGS (sound). You are answering the calling. In a castle "The Horn" is played and all defenders answer the call by screaming at unison.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 5, 2007 - 23:32.
Taking from a thread on F13, mine and someone else's quotes.
This addresses "the problem that isn't a problem", meaning the population unbalance in persistent PvP.
--
People fail to understand that population IS PART of this type gameplay. Those unbalances are part of the system because they ARE the system. We are simulating the "struggle of nations" and even in real history those unbalances existed. History would SUCK if every battle was fought by the exact number of people. Taking all your people into RvR to defend your realm was THE game. This social aspect was THE game. A real motivation: fight for your realm or watch it fall. The realm NEEDS YOU.
The second you have EXACT numbers on either side, this kind of real RvR is over. "Numbers" are the heart of this kind of gameplay, not something to eradicate. The second you decide to lock numbers on either side you don't have anymore real warfare, you have something else.
So look at this from the other perspective: instead of locking numbers to erase this unbalance, why instead not trying to make the game fun and exciting when you are outnumbered?
This can be done by making correspond to asymmetric numbers also asymmetric objectives. So that these objectives (and victory points you earn) are measured on your *current* condition, and not on the unfair premise that everyone has an equal chance. We *know* that it's improbable to obtain equal footing in real persistent PvP so we don't make a game assuming that, we make a game anticipating those problems and around those conditions.
Mythic's big mistake was to design RvR ideally assuming that the three realms were always symmetric. They are not. The game rules should anticipate and be based on this.
--
tazelbain: Now with Scenarios giving the most VP, teams with best PvP teams controls the zone. This is a preferable situation because individual players have a better chance of overcome a teamwork gap than the numbers gap.
Nope because this is exclusive PvP. And exclusive PvP means that it's selective. And selective means that some players get in while other players are left out.
A successful mmorpg must promote inclusion, not exclusion. Battles, the real medieval battles were about inclusion and numbers. Grab a pitchfork and join to fight. But we all also just saw "300". And we know that a good team CAN overcome numbers. Or at least that's the myth that games should make us live, because that's what makes games feel cool and involving. Giving us myths.
The problem of zerg vs zerg must be solved elsewhere. I always said that the game must provide paths (through directed/objective based PvP) so that the game is fun and exciting even and IN PARTICULAR when you are outnumbered, because there's the potential for something truly "heroic" that the players would love (see 300 again). While it's dead boring if you know you are winning and the victory doesn't require any effort.
How to achieve this? Instead of locking the number of players who participate in a defense/attack (which negates the immersion and the WHOLE POINT of the warfare), you give teams different objectives that are balanced for that specific situation.
A concrete example for a taste of what I mean: the team with the large zerg will have the objective (and related victory points) to conquer a castle. The outnumbered defenders will have the objective to defend it *as long as possible*. The more they resist, the more points they earn, and the more they are outnumbered the more the points they earn over time scale up.
Asymmetric/immersive warfare is the whole point of RvR. You just need to make it correspond adaptive/reactive objectives that are balanced to the current status of the realm.
--
And to precise better: are the game rules to lead the players around and determine what they'll do and what they'll avoid. Carrots on a stick, goals, power-ups. That's what the game is about and what the players chase. They simply go where the best points to be made are.
What's bad in PvP when you are outnumbered is that you only waste time feeding enemies points without getting anything back. So it's often better to just /quit.
If this is seen as a problem then you can use the rules to encourage and motivate players to defend. What I mean is that this is ENTIRELY a problem of game rules.
It's about time that game design starts to "legislate" on this, start working on models, interactions. Because till now RvR was just a big zone with a keep in the middle, with some bleached, gimmick features tacked on it. Not much development went into the actual RvR and warfare, and that's the main reason why all that potential is untapped.
Just think to what we could have now if RvR had received in the years the same focus and numbers of reiterations that went into PvE.
That's what I'm saying. RvR is still a closed door. The first step.
--
eldaec:
On the first question, is open RvR ever going to have mass appeal? I don't know. Indications from daoc were that it's worth a try, the casual players genuinely liked 100 v 100 face offs at keeps. The hardcore liked the open aspect of RvR much less, because it diluted their individual advantages. Certainly RvR is the only major thing that is unique to Mythic and WAR - and it's the only mechanism I've seen for having hardcore and casual players interact constructively - so it seems nuts to focus instead on something that is already the focus of games like GW. At the end of the day, what we do know is that meaningful sport pvp is an unlikely premise for a mass appeal game, while RvR is at least unknown.
First off, prep-work. The beauty of RvR prep work was that the double mega hardcore did (and enjoyed) the prep work for the casual masses. Casual players did not have to do prep work for RvR, but double mega hardcore players who wanted to get shit done in RvR had to communicate that prep work to the casuals, it wasn't perfect, but I have yet to see a better MMOG model for getting hardcores to talk to casuals. Plus prep work was only necessary at all for the very largest RvR events, on your average night of RvR you just use the realm war map to go find the action.
Open RvR remains untested in the market since daoc. And that was pretty much a stealth product by recent standards, I don't think you can automatically draw conclusions about how an RvR game would do today.
There is significant evidence that meaningful (as opposed to diversionary) sport pvp is hard to sustain in a typical mmog setting because it dramatically emphasizes differences in player skill, at the same time as limiting community size and so forcing the uber up against the noob too often.
But at the same time, the best you can say for RvR is that people who tried it usually liked it.
In daoc, assuming you survive to level 50 rr4 or so (ie. rvr viable, and yes, that needs to come sooner in WAR), your realm is, in effect, a form of guild.
But in a normal guild, the guild community can form around social links, and so it is naturally cohesive. In a realm on the other hand, the game has to build a community around the arbitary membership of the realm.
If people (scrubs included) don't care that scrub participation in sport pvp hurts the realm, that means you didn't set up an environment which builds the community right, and as such you already failed the most important precondition to make RvR work.
This is really key, if you make everyone believe they are involved in a genuinely realm versus realm competition, and believe that they can contribute, and believe that the rest of the realm is on their side; then tbh most other stuff falls into place by itself. DAOC was built entirely on that principle, in that game pve was ostensibly about building community, and open-RvR was how the community entertained itself on an open-ended basis.
|
Recent comments
20 min 34 sec ago
Posted by: Chuckles the Sane
3 days 14 hours ago
Posted by: Lord Loom
3 days 14 hours ago
Posted by: Lord Loom
6 days 4 hours ago
Posted by: Brett
6 days 10 hours ago
Posted by: Stranger
1 week 4 days ago
Posted by: Innsmouth
1 week 4 days ago
Posted by: Stranger
1 week 4 days ago
Posted by: Anon
1 week 6 days ago
Posted by: DwarvenRage
1 week 6 days ago
Posted by: Zaccc