SERIAL GANKER

Darkfall Unholy Wars: The MMO that shouldn't be compared to other MMOs

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:09:00 +0000

Darkfall: Unholy Wars launched on Steam recently and I understand that a lot of the poster comments have been less than favorable. Many of which say things like "don't buy it, this game takes MMOs backwards" or some such nonsense.

Unfortunately for AV, Darkfall Unholy Wars is suffering from the reputation of the original Darkfall. The irony is that the thing that made DF1 so grindy was the progression system and that's actually part of what is making the game extremely fun in Unholy Wars.

Darkfall is NOT an MMO
OK, well it is an MMO. But my point is that if you are thinking of trying Darkfall, you shouldn't think of it as an MMO. I wrote this on Syncaine's blog tonight in the comments of his review:

If you like FPS games, if you like MMOs, if you like PvP, and if you like banding together with others — there isn’t a better game that combines all of these things that exists.

Darkfall is a misunderstood beast because people want to label it as just an MMO and then hold it up for comparison against other MMOs.

Honestly, that’s just a very small part of the appeal. Many of the people actually playing Darkfall come from more skill-based games like FPS shooters. That’s why bloggers like Tobold don’t “get” the Darkfall concept — they compare it to WoW and EvE when they should also be comparing it to entirely different games (like Tribes and WWII Online).

To be honest, Syncaine doesn’t really help the cause because he draws a lot of his own comparisons to other MMOs including EvE. This game has almost nothing in common with EvE — it’s so NOT EvE that I find the comparison ludicrous.

It’s a shame because you have a lot of DF haters posting on Steam because they are thinking of this game entirely in the context of an MMO. It’s that, for sure, but it’s also these other things.

Adding on to what I wrote in his comments, there are things that exist (and work!) in a game like Darkfall that wouldn't work in other games because the game is designed around certain PvP concepts. It's simply not accurate to say, "well, we can compare this feature to other MMOs and know it doesn't work" -- because it DOES work in Darkfall because the game is DESIGNED FOR IT TO WORK.

The best example of this is "full loot" PvP. Scary stuff, right? Nope. The game is designed to be easy to lose and easy to gain. I've farmed a few sets a gear, lost a few sets of gear, and battle looted a few sets of gear. That's simply how the game is designed. And it simply wouldn't work right if it wasn't designed that way.

Why Darkfall is the MMO that isn't like other MMOs
If you have read any of my blog postings over the years, you'll know that one of the things I despise is when people place labels on games to attempt to put them in a box.

Darkfall can't be placed in a single box.

WoW is it's own box. EvE is it's own box. Darkfall is neither -- it's something different and deserves it's own box. Sure, it has some familiar MMO parts, but it also has parts from completely other genres. It has just as much in common with skill-based first person shooters as it does with any other MMO.

Combat is far faster paced than a normal MMO and it's not easy. But it's not always about the individual skill level, it's often about the skill level of the group. It's a very dynamic game where the objectives and goals are more oriented at PvP.

A game built for PvP
If you don't enjoy the PvP experience, don't unfairly toss your opinions on a game whose entire design is built around making a fun PvP experience. Shame on you for casting disparaging remarks about a game that's simply not meant for you.

That's really my point of this blog post. Darkfall is for people who enjoy PvP, who enjoy MMOs, who enjoy fast and skill-based FPS combat, and who enjoy grouping with others to form a common cause.

In this way, the game is unique and as an MMO community we should be fostering the development of these types of games rather than trying to criticize a game that's not entirely in the MMO genre.

Darkfall Unholy Wars: Prowess & Character Progression

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:59:00 +0000

I am a big believer that RPGs are largely driven by character progression. In MMOs, the dial gets turned up even further because the shared world experience breeds competition between players. This won't hold true for everyone, but I do believe it holds true for the vast majority. In the PvP game, character progression also leads to an advantage in PvP and the "reward" for progressing your character is more tangible in that it allows you to vanquish your enemies more easily.

In other words, in a game like Darkfall, the motivation dial to make your character as powerful as quickly as possible is set to a very high setting. The more effective you are at character development, the more viable you are at PvP.

The problem with original Darkfall Online (DF1)
Not to be confused with Darkfall Unholy Wars, DF1 is the original Darkfall that was launched back in 2009 and closed it's servers in 2012 in preparation for it's successor, Darkfall: Unholy Wars (DF:UW).

In the original, characters were progressed by "skilling up" an ability by actually using that ability. If you wanted to be better at melee combat, you needed to get out there and swing that sword. Pretty much everything could be skilled up -- even mundane things like Swimming and Sprinting.

In addition to skill gains, there were stat gains. Unlike other games, wearing armor only provided better protection, it didn't provide more stats. In fact, without the stats for it -- you simply couldn't wear the armor.

You will hear other reasons why people may not have played DF1 but many of those reasons will be opinions about a style of gaming that player simply doesn't like to play. Ultimately, the problem with DF1 came down to two major flaws:

It's exploitable through macros. Players quickly learned that if they just setup a script or macro to have themselves swim in a circle, it would yield them stat gains. The more hardcore players would "blood wall" and set up macros where they attacked each other without delivering a killing blow. Looped endlessly overnight, these macros would progress players without them doing any actual work.

Exacerbating the above problem, the grind was incredible. I am not a casual player and I played for 3 solid hardcore months and still barely progressed my character. It simply wasn't worth the effort to continue playing particularly if the only way to "catch up" was to use macros.

The problems I am describing here are deeply rooted and linked to why players who otherwise enjoyed the game quit. They simply didn't want to keep a computer logged in macro'ing for 8 hours a night in order to be competitive.

The early beta solution in Darkfall Unholy Wars (DF:UW)

At the start of Unholy Wars beta in December, the above system still existed but the developers had taken some steps to mitigate the problem. Aventurine had eliminated skill-ups for things like Swimming and Sprinting but it still existed for things like combat swings. Since this was "on use" skill-ups, you absolutely could still "blood wall' with another player for easy gains.

Aventurine further mitigated the macro problem by reducing the grind. Since the number of skills needed to max was reduced and the speed at which those skills level was increased -- such macro'ing was believed to only provide a short-term gain and casuals could eventually catch up with normal play.

They also introduced a new system called Prowess. As you completed certain things, you gained Prowess. This Prowess could be used to buy things like a "booster" which increased your stats for your class. Maximizing your character progression in the early beta took a combination of Prowess and skill-ups.

Feedback was VERY positive on the Prowess system but continued to be very negative regarding the ability to continue to be able to macro and blood wall. It was suggested in the beta forums that this Prowess system be the primary method of developing your character -- not the old skill-up "on use" system from DF1.

The new Prowess system in Darkfall Unholy Wars (DF:UW)

And Aventurine listened. Based on the beta feedback, they revised the whole system to be entirely based on Prowess rather than the old DF1 system of skill-ups based "on use" of that particular skill. In that one act, they completely eliminated the macro'ing problem from DF1. This was a big change and in fairness to AV, a big contributing factor to why the beta lasted as long as it did.

Under the new system, you must "earn" Prowess by completing meaningful actions (harvesting, crafting, killing creatures, and completing feats). These points, once earned, can be used to purchase your skill (or stat) gains.

Unlike Syncaine, I don't think it's a brand new idea. The feats, in particular, bear a striking resemblance to Achievements and even Quests. You can argue how it's different until you are blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact that attempting to kill X creatures feels exactly the same. Likewise, we have seen point allocation systems in other games. I am reminded or the Renown Points in Warhammer Online and how they are used to buy Renown Rewards to increase Strength and Weapon skill from the trainer.

That said, I think what is perhaps unique about this progression system is the depth to which it is implemented throughout the game. It's also a very tidy "sandboxy" solution to a significant problem.

My biggest criticism about the new system is that I felt the progression went, ironically, too quickly. In turns out that some of my concern may have been related to circumstances that only existed in beta. Specfically, for much of the beta, "resistances" were not in on the creatures so they effectively were wearing no armor. Shortly before end of beta, all the resistances went back in -- and the difficulty level scaled up as a result.

So -- progression will be slower as a result. How slow? That's hard to say and it may still be too fast. But almost assuredly, players will speed past whatever expectations Aventurine has on the progression. As I said at the top of the blog post, in a PvP centric game like Darkfall - the dial doesn't get any higher in the "race" for progression.

Let the Prowess race begin.

Darkfall Unholy Wars: The myth behind the polarizing labels

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 22:16:00 +0000

If you have read my blog or comments on other blogs over the years, one of the things I despise is how often MMO pundits toss out "labels" on games. I prefer to think the actual truth of a game lies within the features that comprise that game and not some "label" that is tossed out to force a game into some box.

Darkfall: Unholy Wars is a prime example of labels in action. It will be described as both a "sandbox" game and as a "hardcore pvp" game. As such, it will be compared to EvE ad nauseum and success or failure, you'll hear all about why people don't want a "hardcore pvp" game.

Bullshit. Darkfall is no more like EvE than it's like WoW.

The similarity between EvE and Darkfall can be summed up in the following way - these are games without a story. That's it.

Even here, both games take a radically different approach. EvE is largely about empire building and actual PvP is very rare. In many ways, PvE and crafting is more central to the EvE universe and the game has more in-common with Minecraft than Darkfall.

In Darkfall, the game centers around the PvP. Crafting, as it exists, serves only to create a value of sorts for the zero-sum PvP. Darkfall is not an empire building game any more than it's a PvE raiding game.

Darkfall is a fast-paced shooter style MMO with a focus on controlling specific bind points through PvP. In other words, it's a conquest game that has as much in common with a persistent world-wide version of Arathi Basin as it does with EvE's sandbox game.

In other words, start with elements of EvE (city building) and elements of the classic control-point scenario (like Arathi Basin). Mix them all up and put them in a large persistent world. Then throw in some first-person style arcade combat and zero-sum PvP. That's Darkfall.

If DF:UW fails, the reasons will have nothing to do with so-called "hardcore PvP"

Wait, you say, EvE also has zero-sum PvP. Umm, kinda.

There is loss in EvE, for sure, but it's not zero-sum (which means winner-takes-all). It's a winner-take-some scenario because some items are destroyed. Also, it's relatively rare. The loss is something to be feared and protected against.

In Darkfall, PvP truly is a zero-sum game. Often labeled as "hardcore PvP" what most people don't understand about such PvP is that because it's zero-sum, it's just as possible to GAIN as it is to LOSE.

Zero-sum, by definition, means that if one person loses 10 gold, then another person gains 10 gold. The problem with the original Darkfall was not the zero-sum PvP, it was that there was such a vast gap between the veteran and the new player that the new player was always the one to lose the 10 gold.

This is an important distinction because it's not zero-sum PvP that poses the problem but the relative balance between players that leaves one player at a significant advantage. A problem that has since been corrected in Unholy Wars. New players can and will become viable in PvP very quickly.

The myths of zero-sum PvP

The biggest misconception about zero-sum PvP is that there is this monumental loss when you lose your items. In other games, gear progression is an important form of character progression and it's not uncommon to spend weeks and weeks to try and get that one key drop.

There are no make or break drops in Darkfall. Ever single usable item can be crafted and farming for those items is no more of a time sink than harvesting some mats for your typical crafting profession. In fact, most of the "time sink" comes from leveling the skill to craft the item and not the harvested mats.

Instead, you see a different dynamic that is based on people managing their own level of risk. You don't always go out in your best gear. You save that for the special events. And sometimes, you wear bad gear on purpose because you don't want to take the durability hit on higher cost items.

It's a game of easy come and easy go. Everyone loses gear and the game is designed in such a way that individual losses are not monumental.

NDA Lifted: Beta Tester impressions of Darkfall Unholy Wars

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:26:00 +0000

AV lifted the NDA this morning on Darkfall: Unholy Wars and the release date is set for April 16th. You
can expect me to be posting a lot more actively now that I can speak freely about the game I have been beta testing for 5 months.

Yes, a 5 month beta. Normally in these types of posts you get "first impressions" of a game. My first impressions were gone many many months ago. To put this in perspective, I played the original DF1 for 3 months so my "beta" experience with Unholy Wars is already 2 months longer than the original game.

It was a long beta and Tasos had one ask as he lifted the NDA: to comment on the game as it exists today and not on issues that were addressed earlier in beta. I think that's a very fair request.

The first month will be incredible.
The second month may start to stall. And by the third month, they better have something new or anyone without a strong vision for the game is going to lose interest.

In other words, par for the course with every other MMO that has launched in the last billion years. That said, I'll make a caveat -- that first month will be worth the price of the game. If you like PvP, it's going to be fun times and worthwhile.

Also, it's worth pointing out that interest isn't going to start waning immediately and mileage will vary depending on how actively you play. Also, there are pieces expected at launch (dungeons, in particular) that could be introduced to keep players interested longer than I'm anticipating.

Not enough sand in the sandbox...
The problem, in a nutshell, has nothing to do with the "hardcore" nature of this game. I'll speak to this in a future post but this is mostly a red herring thrown out there by people who would never truly enjoy a game like Darkfall.

The problem lies in that progression is very fast for "characters" and mind-numblingly slow for everything else. This is incredibly ironic if you were at all familiar with the original Darkfall, but the net of the problem is this..

In these types of conquest games, players need things to do when they aren't out conquesting. Right now, the potential problem is that there simply isn't enough interesting things "to do" when not sieging to keep people logged in.

This isn't inherently obvious to someone who hasn't spent a lot of time in the latest beta round that introduced the new "prowess" system for character advancement. All due respects to Syncaine and his opinions, but I'm fairly confident that I have logged 4-5 times the hours he has in this latest beta (having played it full-time).

For many players, the biggest "thing to do" draw is improvement to become more viable at PvP. Early game, the new prowess system is going to be a big draw and feel very rewarding. It's also going to create a lot of competition for important mob spawns. This is going to make for some fantastic PvP and a real sense of accomplishment during the first month.

And then that will end. Around 100k prowess, there will be an effective prowess cap for your role that means you'll gain very little benefit for further character improvement. In other words, you will still have choices but the level of effort required will likely not be worth the gain. [EDIT: To be clear, I'm not implying this is "grindy" -- I'm saying you are effectively almost "maxxed" within that role for the purposes of PvP.]

There are still other choices, of course, what gear to wear, what to siege, and so forth but the main motivating force that keeps people logged in will be minimized. That's a problem. Because in order for you to have PvP, you need to have people.

A game of conquest!
The counter-argument you will hear is that Darkfall is about conquest, sieges and crafting. Crafting, in it's current state, lacks the "bones" in which to build a strong economy. That's the backbone of EvE, but it's not the backbone of Unholy Wars and needs considerable work if that's the intent.

On sieges, I absolutely agree and these are extremely fun. That's not the issue. The issue is -- players will log on for a siege -- then log off once it's over. Any "spontaneous" PvP will be virtually non-existant and largely consist of 15 bored guys rolling into a city that has 2-3 semi-AFK harvesters.

And to be clear, PvP is the goal. The content that needs to be added should drive PvP and come in the form of "hotspots" that bring people together for a fight. My criticism here is something needs to be added that is rewarding in such a way that people will congregate in areas that will allow PvP to flourish.

On Aventurine...
I want to comment briefly on AV. It's obvious this isn't a big budget company and I admire what they are able to accomplish with limited resources. It requires a different approach, one that is more iterative in that pieces of the puzzle are slowly added into the mix.

You do need to be comfortable with the idea that the game will always be a work-in-progress. That's true of all MMOs but particularly true here where the budgets are small. This approach does work and I do think it results in a better game but it requires patience from players which is often in short supply.

Fortunately, I do have patience and do believe in the vision. It's a fun game and I do plan to continue playing many months after launch. But I'm also not most people..

And thus, my prediction that unless something new is introduced (which is possible) players are going to hit the same "lack of content" wall that they hit with every other game.

Group Lurkers: The silent MMO majority

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 22:02:00 +0000

Call it "cracking the code" but I think I understand what the "masses" really want out of an MMO. They want what I would call Group Lurking.

Players want to be grouped and play with others — this is why they are playing online — but they don't always want the convention of interacting socially with others. In other words, they want the interaction and benefits of grouping without actually having to invest in interacting.

In almost every online community, the vast majority of people are lurkers. Why would we assume this is different in MMOs? While that may seem illogical, all evidence seems to point towards this being true even in MMO communities. The "silent majority" want to group but they also want to remain silent.

Voice chat / communications

To find your first group of lurkers, look no further than the voice comms of your clan or guild. How many of the people in your comms don't talk? In every guild, the "talkers" are usually limited to maybe 8-10 really active speakers and everyone else stays quiet.

Are you the one lurking? Then you already know the reasons why you don't speak up. There could be a 1000 reasons. The point is.. you want to participate but you are perfectly happy not participating as much as the guys doing all the talking.

But this is only one type of "lurker" and lurking isn't always black/white. For example, on the other extreme we have ...

The "solo" grouper

People who write about MMOs often mistake lurkers as wanting to play a "solo" game. This is a gross oversimplification and untrue. Why play an MMO at all if you don't want a shared world with others?

Simply look at some of the most widely praised features among casual gamers as evidence: party finders, scenarios & battlegrounds, public quests, and really anything that facilitates a "group" forming automatically which has a relatively short duration. Remember how much "open groups" and "public quests" were praised for Warhammer Online?

That's what this group wants -- they want to group, they just don't have the real-life time to invest more than 30-90 minute chunks of time. Any feature that facilitates this type of player's ability to group is appreciated. And just because they want to group for a bit, doesn't mean they want to invest in making long-term friends.

Cracking the Code: How to retain your players

I would posit the theory that these "group lurkers" want to be led by others. The easier a game makes it for these "group lurkers" to be led, the better the chance that the game will succeed and retain players.

The most vocal people in “vent” are the guys who do the leading. An important group, to be sure, but not the silent majority. In sandboxes, the quiet ones are the lurker slaves quietly farming all the resources to build your battleship/city/whatever. In theme parks, they are the 15 silent guys making up 60% of your 25-man raid group. These players are the heart-and-soul of an MMO's success.

At it's core, I think this is what most games lack to be successful in the long-term. Sure, they need content. Sure, they need to be fun. Sure, a good IP helps. But at the core, online gaming is about interacting with others. The easier and more important this becomes, the more successful the MMO will be at retaining players.

Balancing the Archtypes

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 22:07:00 +0000

Darkfall: Unholy Wars may still be under NDA, but that doesn't meant that there aren't topics out there that can be discussed which are public.

From the DF: Unholy Wars FAQ:

Q:

What are the classes in Darkfall Unholy Wars?

A:

Darkfall Unholy Wars does not utilize classes in the traditional sense rather, you select a role and specify two schools to focus on within that role. Roles and Schools are not set in stone and you can change between them to suit your play-style or current situation.

Without going into the specifics of the available Roles and Schools, one major change from the original Darkfall is that players need to select a very clearly defined Role or Archtype. This selection, while not permanent, does mean that your "current situation" must be played as this Archtype.

While hardly a unique idea, this change marks a significant deviation from the original Darkfall which allowed players to advance multiple skills and shift from play-style to play-style while mid-combat. Watch a DF1 video and you'll see players switch from Melee to Spells and back to Melee again in mere heartbeats.

I don't think it comes as much of a shocker that with such changes, the same class warfare type forum arguing erupts over game balance. Again, I'm not going to speak to specifics but as with every game -- such class warfare inevitable leads to the type of forum bickering I despise most in games.

Not all Archtypes are created equal
The reality of class balance is that it's incredibly difficult to balance and it often evolves over time as players become better and/or find optimum skill usage.

Tank Archtype: In PvP, this is by far the most forgiving Archtype because by definition, it has the most survivability. Played poorly, a Tank can still survive and the golden rule in PvP is that you don't do any damage while dead. This means that even a bad player can still be effective and helpful (a notion that gnaws at many players). Typically balanced with sub-par damage and lack of range, making the Tank type too effective at dealing damage can easily make this the most OP class. By contrast, not enough damage, and good players are rendered as ineffectual as the poor players that are surviving right along-side them.

Glass Cannon Archtype: In my opinion, the glass cannon is the most difficult Archtype to balance by a wide margin. By definition, the cannon must do tremendous damage and be weak enough to kill quickly. Played poorly, the Glass Cannon is easily killed. Played well, the Glass Cannon can be un-killable even by equally skilled players. So, do you balance for the weak or strong players? If you balance for the strong, you'll hear no end of complaints from the weak Cannons who keep dying. If you balance for the weak, every elite player will play a Cannon and dominate the game.

Healer Archtype: If, like me, you think the golden rule in PvP is that you don't do damage while your dead -- then healing is the trump card. A great healer not only keeps himself alive but everyone around him. As a result, they have a huge bullseye painted on them. A tough class to balance solo because they are usually balanced on the idea that others do the damage while they do the healing. If you make them too effective at damage and healing, then the best scenario includes everyone playing Healers.

Complicating things even more is that the nature of these Archtypes tends to lend itself naturally to a sort of rock-paper-scissors thing. Where, Tanks beat Cannons, Cannons beat Healers, and Healers beat Tanks.

Archtypes vs Homogeneity
All that said, I like having the Archtypes in games. It provides a diversity that is fun. Sure there are balance issues that are always evolving and need constant attention but that doesn't make it impossible.

The original "sandbox" game was Dungeons & Dragons. Not the MMO -- the original Pen & Paper game that you played with your imagination. And there was a reason that you started by rolling up your class and following the game rules for that class. It provided a sense of self for who you were in the game.

The alternative is homogeneity, or uniformity, between all players. Oh sure, there are systems you could develop that limit certain things by your equipment and such but it's not quite the same as "playing a mage". :)

Polarizing MMO Rhetoric: Oh how I missed you!

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 04:44:00 +0000

A typical MMO discussion

After a two year hiatus from blogging, it's good to see that the same old polarizing MMO rhetoric is still out in full force. We still have our rollercoasters, our themeparks, our sandboxes, our "hard-core pvp" crowd, our WoW care-bears, and so on..

And of course, we have our good old-fashioned commenters:

"When will people figure out no one likes PvP"

"Blame the WoW tourists" or alternately "Go back to WoW"

"Then why is EvE successful?"

"It's not 1999 any longer, people don't grind"

PvP Political Compass

Several years ago I wrote a post about what I called the PvP Political Compass. The basic idea was that PvP in "games" is not as straight-forward or simple as "hardcore pvp" versus battlegrounds.

It's more of a graduated scale with grouping on one axis and "impact" on the other.

As I return to blogging, I am reminded of how polarized the MMO gaming community is on so many topics.

The part I find interesting here is that I believe you can create a similar "compass" for MMO features in general. The reality is that there is no standard definition for what people like in games.

For example, all RPGs have a certain amount of "sandbox" to them simply by virtue of allowing players to make decisions about character development. Whereas, a very linear game like Halo is on the very far extreme with your options limited to such things as: should I drive a Warthog or a Ghost?

By no means am I calling all MMOs a sandbox, I am simply pointing out that a game -- any game -- need not be defined by the box we try to put those games in. And yet, the fascinating part is that people who write about MMOs or follow the games work so hard to create these boxes.

It reminds me of real-life politics. No matter your country, there are political groups which form to try and represent large bodies of people. Very rarely do individuals agree with every single thing the group stands for -- often they only agree with some core philosophical principles -- but they'll defend that group and anyone who questions it (even parts they don't totally agree with) in fierce and often heated arguments.

The truth, if there is one, often lies somewhere blurred in the middle. More often, there is no truth at all -- just opinion. I always find this willful blindness by the public to be infuriating. It creates apathy. So many people don't like the status quo but are so concerned that the other side will "win" if they give any concessions that they willingly bring the whole process to a stalemate.

The straights aren't so dire with MMOs and we all have the power to vote with our wallets. And yet, we still keep trying to put games in boxes and point fingers and blame when they fail...

Unholy Beta

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:37:00 +0000

After my triumphant return announcement, I expected to be more actively posting some thoughts on Darkfall Unholy Wars. Thing is... NDA is still up and the beta has lasted FAR FAR longer than I ever would have expected.

What I find interesting about betas is that different people play them for different reasons. Some people want to contribute suggestions for improvement. Some people want to get an "early edge" so that when release happens they have a head start. Others just want to play the game.

No matter what your reason for playing the beta, one factor always plays in everyone's mind: will I play this game for long on release?

That's the unfortunate side effect of a beta -- people can't help but judge an incomplete and unfinished product through the lens of what they expect at release.

The part I wonder about is how badly a game is hurt by an unexpectedly long beta. Personally, I can't think of a single instance where interest "increased" during an extended beta phase.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions about how this relates back to the DF:UW beta, but I don't think it's breaking NDA to say that the longer an extended beta lasts, the more likely interest is going to start to wane.

Excitement can easily turn into bitterness, particularly when a concrete release date isn't known and players stop wanting to invest time in a game where character progression lacks permanence.

For myself, I like the game and I "do" plan to play it at release.

Sid's Triumphant MMO return?

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:47:00 +0000

Hi. My name is Sid and I'm an MMO-holic. It's been 6 months since my last MMO and I'm starting to get lured back in with false promises of a better gaming future...

Who's that sexy MMO? Darkfall: Unholy War Wait. Wait, you say! Calling Darkfall sexy is a bit like telling me you are really into fat chicks. OK - I get that - I really do... Except, here's the thing..

I played the original Darkfall and enjoyed it. In fact, my only real complaint was that I started playing a little too late and would forever be a bit behind the curve. But now Darkfall is getting not just a reboot -- but a whole new upgrade. Will it be the flashiest? Hardly. But they do offer really compelling gameplay and the lack of permanence for "things" in the game is oddly even more compelling. Stay tuned...

So I guess selling Used Software really is just like Piracy!

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 17:09:00 +0000

Via Tobold, I just read this article in Wired about the overturning of the Autodesk case by the 9th US Court of Appeals:

Guess What, You Don’t Own That Software You Bought (Wired)
The 3-0 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal, if it stands, means copyright owners may prohibit the resale of their wares by inserting clauses in their sales agreements.

“The terms of the software license in the case are not very different from the terms of most software licensing. So I think it’s safe to say that most people don’t own their software,” said Greg Beck, the defense attorney in the case who represented an eBay seller sued by Autodesk. “The other ramification, there is no reason a similar license could not be put into the cover of a book. It wouldn’t be difficult for everybody to implement this.”

This may not be good news for eBay seller's and buyers on a budget but I absolutely agree with this ruling. When you buy software, you aren't buying the software but a LICENSE-TO-USE that software. As such, I feel a company is well within their rights to limit any transfer of that license to a 3rd party.

The more immediate ramification for consumers is that the discounts provided by a secondary market go away. But the longer term ramification is that the companies and individuals producing this software will be more justly compensated. That means they are more profitable and better able to continue to provide more of those types of products.

If I have a concern here it's the ramification to other Intellectual Property like books. A lot of books go out of print or have limited print runs.

Facebook: Sid the Seer?

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:54:00 +0000

Via Tobold, I just saw this article with Popcap executive Jason Kapalka who just confirmed my prediction from March that competition would squeeze the profit out of the Facebook gaming:

Serial Ganker (March 2010) - Facebook: A lesson in Competition
The Laws of Competition are going to require a successful social gaming company to compete by either:

creating lots of crappy games (most options)

and/or, build better games to distinguish themselves (best option)

This is what happens with market forces in a free market. Big markets with big profits attract lots of competition. Which, in turn, drives profits down because more people are chasing the same pool of dollars.

The point here is that while social gaming is attractive to investors right now, it’s not always going to be this attractive as competition drives down profits.

Those are my words from March above, but enough self-congratulating for being so smart and let's steal some juicy quotes from the article with Jeff at Popcap.

"You're definitely in the stage right now in social games where there's a lot of bandwagon jumping, where everyone sees moneymoneymoney and suddenly all these new companies appear. It happened before in mobile, it happened before in casual – in the past it's tended to signal the beginning of the end."

Kapalka isn't suggesting that social games as a whole are going to die. Instead, he says it's the end of a "golden era," where the possibilities of the genre seemed limitless.

So thus far, the first half of my prediction is coming true. Increased competition is bleeding away the profit in social gaming. Zynga, the largest FB dev, has taken the approach of making LOTS of crappy games with the hopes that will increase their overall exposure to more users.

The next stage, I believe, is that we'll see "better" games on Facebook. That's already becoming true to some degree. Certainly games like Desktop Defender, Kingdoms of Camelot and even (gasp) Frontierville are much better designed games than Mafia Wars and Farmville.

Should Used Games be Supported?

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:46:00 +0000

While I’m not of the opinion that buying used games is the equivalent of piracy, I certainly do agree that it’s bad for the business of making games. As a general rule, I think it’s safe to assume that the original manufacturer profits little to not at all when you buy or sell a game used.

I’m also not going to argue the legality of it. You can buy and sell used games. That’s not in question.

It’s true that a software license is simply a license to use and while that license gives you no ownership of the actual intellectual property, it does give you license to use the product. You agree to those terms when you install the product.

There is quite a bit of case law that exists for Copyright and Software. And some of it even says that one of the things Software companies can’t do is enforce a term that limits your ability to transfer the license to another party. It’s viewed in the same way that Books or Music copyright is administered.

BUT – unlike Books or Music, Software often needs to be supported long after the initial purchase or sale. This support comes in the form of patches and game updates. And, in many cases, some online service component that the game provides for multiplayer access.

Now the question I would raise is whether or not the right to continued support is something that should be transferable with that license to use?

I don’t think so.

In my mind, the right to use and the right to support are two separate items. Copyright law supports your right to use. It doesn’t support your right for support.

As I see it, a gaming company should be entirely within their right to provide a key for this support with the original purchase and then deny that key to anyone purchasing the product on the secondary market. There are plenty of examples of non-transferable warranties for non-software products.

To me, that’s entirely fair. If you buy a used game, then you buy an unsupported game.

Why Warhammer's failing proves absolutely nothing about the things you think it does...

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:46:00 +0000

I was engaging Syncaine over at Hardcore Casual this afternoon on a very old debate we have had about WoW-clones and specifically whether or not we should attribute the clone issue as the reason for Warhammer Online's failure.

My position has been and always will be that Warhammer Online failed not because it was a WoW-clone but because they had a very mediocre execution of a very flawed game.

Or as I wrote on Syncaine's blog:

WAR didn’t “fail” because it was a WoW clone. WAR failed because Tier 3 and Tier 4 weren’t as much fun. WAR failed because it couldn’t support the whole server converging on one hotspot for PvP action. WAR failed because a two-faction system allowed one side to grossly outnumber the other.

Those are all design decisions that have nothing to do with WoW. There are certainly a whole slew of other failures as well but those I listed above are the big ones.

ANYWAYS– We’ve had this debate several times and I still maintain the idea that the reason these games fail is that, at the end of the day, they just aren’t as good a game as Warcraft.

If they were, then more players would stick with the new game. Not everyone, mind you, but certainly far more than the desolate wasteland that these games become after 3 months.

But all that aside, here's my real problem with WAR's failure. It's now the world's greatest excuse by everyone as to why NOT to do things. Or as I commented a bit further down in the discussion:

WAR is my great disappointment because it’s become a great scapegoat for many people.

Those who dislike PVP can point to WAR as to why PVP can’t work in an MMO.

Those who hate WoW can point to WAR as the reason why MMOs should stay away from anything remotely WoW-like.

But the REAL reason WAR failed has nothing to do with either of those things.

That's what really gets my goat about the perception of WAR's failure. It didn't fail because it had PvP. It didn't fail because it was a WoW-clone.

It failed because it just wasn't good enough.

Destroying PLEX for $$$$

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:55:00 +0000

TAGN has an interesting discussion going on over in the comments of his blog about this article from Massively.

Quick Background:
CCP recently changed the rules regarding PLEX (a system for trading EVE game-time for game currency between players) so that it can be looted or even destroyed by EVE pirates. Previously, you could not move PLEX and it could only be traded safely in the hanger. And now, according to Massively, some player lost 74 PLEX cards (1 PLEX = 1 month game time) worth around $1300 real-life dollars. Destroyed. Not looted.

The discussion over at TAGN site seems to be focused primarily on what action CCP will need to take to make things right with the player.

The part that is getting lost here is that with the old PLEX system, CCP had nothing to gain except future sales. For example, trading PLEX for ISK didn't add net new money into the pocket of CCP -- it simply allowed one person to effectively pay for someone else's game time.

But if PLEX can be DESTROYED...
It's a much different story.

From CCP's perspective, it's a paid subscription they no longer need to honor that has been destroyed. Unlike the virtual Ore that gets mined, someone paid real money for that PLEX card. A game card that will never be redeemed if it is destroyed.

And what happens to the real life dollars? Those aren't destroyed. They stay in CCP's bank account.

Is money the real Reason for the policy change on PLEX?
The major benefit to CCP of the old PLEX system is that it encouraged players to purchase game time they might not need in order to trade it for the in-game currency (ISK).

From a cash flow perspective, this is a great thing for CCP because they are are getting money upfront today for a future promise of service. They are still beholden to honoring that promise, but they get the money sooner rather than later.

But one thing always rubbed me wrong, what happens when there are more unused PLEX cards being openly traded than their are players who could reasonably use them?

In other words, if you have 1000 months of game cards and only 800 months needed by players, then a couple of horrible things happen from CCP's perspective:

Cash Flow Stops or Slows - your players don't need to pay you because they have already paid.
The in-game price of PLEX suffers dramatic deflation and your primary product (subscriptions) is de-valued.

Now I'm not suggesting that CCP reached the point where their are more PLEX game cards than players who need them. But what I am suggesting is that CCP, who does have an economist on staff, is well aware that such a system is an impending financial crisis and not sustainable for the long-term.

I would even hazard to guess that CCP started to see cash flows slow down as less and less players find themselves needing to purchase PLEX because it already exists in-game.

But, you ask, why is cash flow important? After all, doesn't CCP already have the money from the game cards they sold?

Well, the problem is that in all likelihood, CCP management didn't just set that money in the bank. It's going to be invested -- likely back into the company to pay for development costs on a future project for future returns. If those returns aren't realized right away, they need continued cash flows to keep coming in order to keep the lights on.

Destroying PLEX for Profit
What's the best solution to having a surplus of something? Why blowing it up, of course!

The moment that PLEX is destroyed and rendered unusable as game-time, the promise of future services is gone and it becomes pure profit for CCP.

But more importantly, you no longer have as large a surplus of game time and it reverses the two trends I addressed earlier. Less PLEX means PLEX is more valuable. Less PLEX means more players will need to purchase additional game time.

It's for this very reason that I believe the change by CCP was deliberate, intentional and entirely motivated by self-interest.

The irony is that EVE has a player culture that revels in such losses. They don't want it to happen to them, but the fact it CAN happen is oddly appealing.

Contrast that change with Blizzard. Can you imagine the reaction from WoW players if you could get ganked and lose your game card in WoW?

Legal challenge?
From a legal standpoint, it's an intriguing situation. Does CCP have the right to void those promises of future services?

If I'm CCP, I would argue that what I am providing for the fee is not game time until it has been converted. Instead, I'm selling a virtual currency similar to ISK. What the player chooses to do with that virtual currency is up to them. Based on their actions, it can be traded, stolen or even destroyed.

Assuming the player losing the PLEX is not the same person who bought the PLEX, they have to agree with this interpretation. After all, if they don't agree that it's simply virtual currency, how did they trade for it?

It's a much murkier prospect if the person losing the PLEX is the same person who bought it. But even here, however, I think CCP is protected because there are other alternatives to adding game time. It could be argued that the only reason a player would buy PLEX over other methods is to at least have the option of trading it.

Edit:
On the legal issue, I particularly like Old Tom's comments at No Prisoners No Mercy:

Leaving out all extraneous analogies, the transaction between CCP and said customer is for a game-time code. That item has 2 possible functions – 1) Can be used to add game time to a particular account, or 2) can be transferred into an in-game item which then can be bought, sold, lost etc.

The transaction worked as promised. The issue is not the PLEX .. it is the game-time code. Seeing that the game time code was effectively transferred into PLEX, CCP’s implied warranty was fulfilled.

This is right in-line with my thinking that PLEX is first and foremost an in-game item subject to the rules for in-game items. That it can be redeemed for game time is secondary because the purchaser chose to turn the game time into an in-game item subject to those terms in the EULA.

Quick Hit: What makes an MMO?

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:38:00 +0000

By definition, we all know it means Massive Multiplayer Online Game. Yes, I'm aware that it should more accurately be MMOG but the "Game" is implied when you say MMO.

The Online part is obvious, the "Massive" part is subject to opinion. And the "Multiplayer" part is subject to interpretation. For example, some would argue that the "leveling" game in a MMO like WoW is not Multiplayer at all. Whereas, I might argue it is Multiplayer by virtue of it being a shared world.

I was reading an entry over at KTR about Cultural Differences and I was struck with a thought. I think, at it's core, the defining characteristic of an MMO is shared experience. Or more specifically, a shared gaming experience with hundreds of strangers.

Now traditionally, this shared experience is in a Persistent Online World (POW), but I don't think a persistent world is really the defining trait. Lots of MMOs have sharded worlds or very little persistence. In fact, I would argue that if you start with UO, the trend has actually been to move AWAY from persistence in MMOs.

But the one commonality in all these games is shared experience.

World of Darkness

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:41:00 +0000

I was just saying on Heartless_'s blog yesterday that if I were a game dev, I would have to strongly consider Vampire & Werewolves as the backdrop for an MMO. Vampires, in particular, is a subject matter that draws a lot of attention. Most recently, we have seen the Trueblood and Twilight craze but this has always been a very popular genre. Dracula, Underworld, Blade, The Lost Boys, Salem’s Lot, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Interview with a Vampire.

The great thing about that genre is that it’s not exclusive to Vampires and can include all things that live in the dark. Poltergeists, Ghouls, Zombies, Necromancers, Warlocks, Witches, Demons, Ghosts, Banshees, and basically anything else used to scare the bejeezuz out of people by movie producers. People just eat this topic up and it has a bigger fanbase than even the strongest IPs like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.

The other interesting thing about the IP is that the Lore is mostly based on the creatures and critters than inhabit it. It’s not specific to an area or even a point in history. You could just as easily have a Vampire / Werewolf story set in ancient Rome as you could in modern day London or New York. In addition, the creatures themselves are mostly immune to modern weaponry. So, from a lore perspective, attacking a mythical creature with a holy dagger instead of a gun is entirely plausible.

World of Darkness MMO
The impetus for this entry is that I just learned about the World of Darkness MMO. Credits to Tobold for pointing out the upcoming MMO list.

World of Darkness is a pen-and-paper RPG with the exact supernatural horror setting that I just described. One of my major concerns with many MMO titles is that the IP just doesn’t work or fit very well with game mechanics required of an MMO. However, when the IP is already based on an established RPG, the rules already exist and have been tweaked and tested through years of “on-paper” testing.

I stopped playing pen-and-paper RPGs around 1993-94, so I only knew the World of Darkness RPG under its original title of Vampire: The Masquerade. As far as pen-and-paper RPGs go, Vampire: The Masquerade seemed to be well liked by the people I played with regularly (one of which wrote several published D&D modules). And according to Wikipedia, it won an award for “Best Roleplaying Rules” in 1991.

In my mind, it’s a huge point in WoD MMOs favor that it uses a well-established and tested ruleset. The underlying game mechanics are important to the pen-and-paper crowd. These things still exist in MMOs so it’s big plus to know that the foundation is well thought out and tested over time. But more than that, the specifics of the Lore were designed with an RPG system in mind.

Developed by CCP
But perhaps more importantly, it's also being developed by CCP. The same CCP who is currently publishing the second most successful MMO on the market in EVE Online. There are several very important things we know about CCP:

They have the financial backing of another successful MMO. We know the lights aren’t going to get turned off anytime soon.
They execute well. You don’t attract the players that EVE has with shoddy craftsmanship.
They stay committed. CCP will stay the course and continually work to improve their products over time.
They have a proven track record of doing things that are different from World of Warcraft.
The graphics are going to blow your mind. (see Cloth and Hair demo)

If I’m being blunt, the mere fact that CCP is attached to this MMO guarantees it some measure of success. If, for no other reason, because we know that CCP will stay the course and put forth the work necessary to continually improve it into a quality MMO.

Success?
Tobold asks us today, Which upcoming MMO will break the million subscribers mark? If I was a betting man, I would place my money on World of Darkness.

First of all, it has World of in the name. Perhaps if Funcom had released World of Conan instead of Age Of Conan more people would have understood that it was an MMO set in the world of Conan. Clearly, Warhammer made the same mistake by not naming themselves World of Warhammer. Oh sure, this would have abbreviated to WoW but one could argue that such confusion would cause an increase in subscription numbers when my best friend’s brother-in-law signed up for the wrong WoW!

OK. OK. On a more serious note, blogger pundits like to write lots of theories about why no MMO has seriously offered Blizzard real competition over the years. There are several recurring themes in these theories and World of Darkness would appear to avoid most of them. It’s not fantasy based. It’s being produced by a proven developer. It’s in a popular genre with a strong IP. It’s based on an existing RPG with tested game mechanics. The developer has a history of executing well, supporting the game long-term and listening to the community enough but not too much. And finally, the developer is best known for creating a unique game that is markedly very different than WoW.

On the surface of it all, I have to say that WoD appears to be very well positioned as a major up-and-coming MMO. The only irony is that I don’t really like Vampire movies or books. Oh well.. :)

Input Devices, the iPad, Wii and You

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:40:00 +0000

In recent years, consumer electronic products have seen several new and innovative technologies introduced to tackle the challenge of how users interact with their devices. Voice activation. Motion controls (Wii). Touchscreens. Invisible Mice.

Technology developed primarily as a result of wanting to create a more compact and portable product. The iPhone is perhaps the best example. It has voice activation features, motion controls to determine orientation and, of course, the now famous touchscreen. 99% of computer users still use a mouse & keyboard but most people have had some exposure by now to this type of technology with some type of non-computer device.

Why is this important?

Well, Raph Koster thinks the iPad form factor (or slate) is the future of computing for the average user. I tend to agree with him. It’s compact, portable and certainly covers all the needs that my wife, her parents, my parents, and all my siblings need out of computer.

One of the knocks I had about the iPad at release is that for the price, you can buy a cheap laptop. And while I still believe that’s true, the trend is that the platform will eclipse PC innovation within the next 5 years. I would argue that it’s already eclipsed the innovation, but within 5 years it might actually become the dominant platform of choice among home users.

So by extension this is important for gaming because, in all likelihood, you’ll own one of these devices within the next 5 years.

Fighting the 1-2-3s
As we learned with the Wii, providing an alternate way to interact with our gaming devices is a novel and interesting way to breathe new life into them.

If I think about my own frustration with MMO controls, I find that what I don’t like most is having to make keystrokes (hotkeys) while simultaneously doing things with my mouse.

Compare that experience to the Wii with it’s motion controls. Or with the iPad's on-screen finger controls + motion controls. The controls themselves are not just intuitive, but fun to use. On a personal note, I find them more challenging as well. Something that is “easy” with the twitch of my wrist on a mouse is far harder to accomplish when I need to swing my whole hand or body.

As MMO players, we talk a lot about innovation. We talk a lot about how MMO devs need to break away from the 1-2-3 hotkey mold made popular by Blizzard.

For me, this was a huge part of the appeal with Darkfall. The UI might have been total crap, but the controls as it related to combat were both fun, challenging and innovative. As I’ve written about in the past, the simple act of killing a monster you need to “aim at” makes the game several factors more difficult than your standard MMO.

Gamers are all about efficiency
I think this is what strikes some gamers wrong about using these newer input devices. The Wii remote is not as easy to use as a Playstation controller.

Using motion controls to drive a car or do just about anything is a bit more challenging on a Wii remote. Some gamers, like myself, enjoy that challenge. Other gamers, like Yahtzee Croshaw from Zero Punctuation can’t stand the motion controls because they make them feel like they have to flail around to do the same thing they could have done with the twitch of a finger.

Gamers are competitive and look at the input device as a potential tool to make them more effective. They buy expensive mice with super high DPI ratings and more buttons than your number pad. I know that on a personal note I am very tempted to buy a Logitech G13 Advanced Gameboard for that exact reason.

This is a fundamental problem with introducing new controls. One of the games I have for our Wii is Mario Cart. As much as I love the motion controls, you can’t get me to use them in that game because it offers a method without the controls. If I were to use the motion controls while playing against someone who wasn’t – I would be at a disadvantage. Therefore, I feel like I need to play without motion controls in order to feel competitive.

If you want it to work, it can’t be a choice.

It’s not a new argument. There are plenty of people who play WoW who would rather play the game without addons. But in order to compete against players WITH addons, they feel compelled to download and install them.

As an addon author, I’m cleary not against addons. However, I can see that point and respect why other devs like CCP would choose not to allow them to exist in their game. Having an interface option where one method is clearly far superior to another method is really no choice at all.

No one likes grind.

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:37:00 +0000

To me, the statement "No one likes grind" is one of the most obvious observations that a person can make. It's right up there with "the sky is blue" and "black is darker than white".

The actual definition of Grind is "a tedious task" and it's synonymous with Drudgery. Tedious, by the way, is defined as "boring, monotonous, time consuming". I think that pretty much sums up what most MMO players think of Grinding.

And yet... I always find it terribly surprising when someone speaks out in favor of the grind. "No. No." they say, "we like the grind. The grind is important. It provides meaning. Context for all our hard work."

You like boring, monotonous, time consuming tasks? Really? Forgive me while I display some skepticism for a moment. For I find it impossible that even a masochist would really enjoy tasks that, by definition, are uninteresting, repetitive and cause players mental weariness.

No. I don't think you really do like the grind. No one likes the grind.

I think you like the reward.
I think what players like is the sense of achievement that comes from overcoming difficulty. That and the shiny Pavlovian treat that usually accompanies that sense of achievement.

No. It's not the "grind" that players find rewarding. It's the reward that they find rewarding.

I'm convinced that if you created a "box" in the middle of Orgrimmar that players could jump on for free coins that players would happily jump on that box 24/7 and proceed to send Blizzard thank you emails for giving them that box. The "box" they would say is the smartest idea ever.

But, of course, it's not the "box" that players would enjoy but the Reward it provides.

We need challenge, but do we need Grind?
As MMO players, we crave challenge. We want challenge. It's what gives our virtual achievements context and meaning.

As I wrote in Mid-June, there are several ways to make your MMO more difficult:

Twitch Skills
Reactive Decision Making
Planned Strategic Thinking
Time Consuming
Severe Consequences
Organizational Structure

Of all six methods for making your game more difficult, the worst possible choice from a player perspective is to make it more time consuming. Difficulty, by virtue of only being lengthy, is a miserable and mind-numbingly boring way to make your game more difficult.

We don't need the Grind to make a game challenging. There are plenty of ways to increase the challenge without needing to make it monotonous or boring.

Because the trolls don’t necessarily stop – they just know who you are now.

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:13:00 +0000

The worst part about Blizzard's recent announced change is that they sincerely believe this will clean up the forums. Perhaps a bit, but at what cost?

The unfortunate reality is that Blizzard is simply arming the "trolls" with real information they can use to make the attacks more hurtful.

The real trolls, the ones who want to cause harm and mischief, just got a brand new way they can make your life miserable. If they don't like what you have to say, they don't need to post the hate, they can just call you on the phone and leave nasty messages.

My Mom started getting hate mail from someone in an internet group with a grudge against her. Real mail. Sent to her house with threats.

There are countless ways that the trolls can now inflict harm upon you if they know your real name. Get all their buddies to harrass you. Sign you up for magazines. Subscribe you to porn lists.

Or the other alternative I love is the “wrong guy” scenario. This is where the unlucky bastard who just happens to have the same name gets harassed in real life by some angry forum trolls. Calling his house. Leaving nasty messages. Sending him photos of his house with death threats.

Because the trolls don’t necessarily stop – they just know who you are now.

Kicking your ass in Real Life (courtesy of RealID)
I grew up in a small-ish town where there wasn’t much to do on the weekend. You either got drunk, got laid, or got into a fight. I’m also not a small guy and when I was in my teens and early twenties, I wasn’t always the best decision maker when it came to throwing a few punches. In one particularly noteworthy situation, I was carried out of a building by four police officers.

I’ve since matured quite a bit and been pretty subdued for the last 10 years. All of this ugliness was inside of a younger, less mature me. Outside of the occasional menacing glare, I haven’t been in a real altercation since the aforementioned police officer incident. The older me has too much to lose to ever behave that way again.

My point? Well, at one time in my life I was THAT guy. You know the guy I’m talking about... The one who snaps online and starts making the physical threats. “Where do you live? I want to kick your ass. Let’s meet somewhere.”

Thing is – I was serious. I really did want to kick their ass and had they been near my city... well, there would have been some vengeance for the online slights. Now I wasn’t always that angry. In all my years of gaming or participating in online activities I can only think of two instances where I would have been angry enough to take action.

But.. therein lies my point. I was angry enough to take action.

Look, in the grand scheme of things I’m not even the most likely person I know who would seek someone out to kick their ass. But I certainly know my younger self would have considered it. And my younger drunken self may have even acted upon it.

But what stopped me?

Anonymity.

As frustrated and angry as I might have been, I had no outlet. No way to act upon impulses that could have turned out badly. Impulses that were further inflamed because the source of my anger wasn’t physically present.

You see, the real Internet Dickwad Theory is only partly about Anonymity. Because part of what makes something so much more dick-ish on the Internet is that you don’t have any immediate personal feedback from people. If you are being a dick to someone in real life, even if they don’t know you personally, you can both use body language and vocal queues to keep the conversation from turning from just a civil disagreement to a raging war.

But if you are being a dick on the internet, their imagination supplies the tone. Words intended to be fair and considering can quickly be seen as hurtful and inflammatory. Removing the anonymity while keeping the same inflammatory problems is simply a disaster in the making.

Is the use of Real Names a good idea?

No.

And take that from the perspective of someone who is willingly admitting that they would likely have kicked the shit out of someone in real life had that anonymity not existed. That’s not fear-mongering. That’s just an honest appraisal from someone who knows himself well enough to know that this can only end badly.

The problem with PvP in MMOs

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:38:00 +0000

I think what took me a long time to realize is that not everyone wants equality in their PvP.

Too often, we label something as PvP and then just expect everyone to understand what that means. But PvP comes in lots of flavors and not all of it is the same. Back in January I wrote an entry about what I called the PvP Political Compass. That compass is my attempt to describe the flavors of PvP that exist in games.

What is interesting about the compass is that it also describes what people WANT out of these games. At one end of the spectrum, players want their actions to have an Impact. You play to win and you make your own fair play by carving out your own little place in the world. And in MMOs, this means grouping with other like-minded individuals for protection.

At the other end of the spectrum are players who take their meaning from the competition itself. They don’t want there to be any confusion caused by unfairness. Two people meet under equal terms and the person who emerges as the victor KNOWS they are the better player. No question. This is the same type of competitive spirit we crave in our sports teams.

As you can see in the PvP Compass, these two ideas are not compatible. By virtue of having Impact, you create an imbalance that is unwanted by the player who wants more competition. But it’s not entirely black and white. It’s more of a sliding scale. The more competitive you make it, the less impact exists. The more impact you create, the less competitive it becomes.

Can we make a Competitive PvP-based MMO?
It’s not much of a coincidence that the only successful MMOs which feature PvP as a prominent part of the game happen to focus on Impact-type PvP. MMOs, by the very nature of character progression, do not lend themselves towards equality. Thus, a PvP game which is very purposefully designed without the need for equality is going to feel like a more natural result.

The problem here is that Impact PvP isn’t the most desirable type of PvP for most players. Starcraft, Counter-Strike, Halo and countless other games in other genres have been immensely popular to the Competitive PvP crowd. Even Tobold (known PvP hater) recently admitted that “PvP games could be more successful if they would do a better job of pairing people with similar skills and abilities against each other.”

Impact PvP, by contrast, appeals to a much smaller group of players. It takes a certain type of player who is willing to both risk the consequences of negative sum PvP and has the skills to master the “social” part that these games require to find some measure of safety in a group.

So, in my opinion, it’s not that PvP isn’t a popular option. It’s that the type of competitive PvP that more players would enjoy has never been implemented in any MMO. Which begs the question, is it even possible?

Half empty or Half full?
Presumably, in a world of perfect equality, an average skilled player would lose just as many fights as they won. I think intellectually that most people can grasp that idea. But emotionally and subjectively, I think it becomes an incredible complex problem.

Because, in practice, most people will react emotionally. He must have cheated! We got nerfed! Laaaaag!

Further complicating the issue is self-perception. Would a person be happy they are winning half the time, or pissed off that they are losing half the time?

Countering the Character Progession
I sincerely wish that more games used a method of “tiering” players into relative power groups. WAR comes immediately to mind but they did it badly. For one thing, I wouldn’t “uprank” players to a new level. I would “downrank” more advanced players when they entered an area intended for characters who were less powerful.

Or as I suggested on Syncaine’s blog yesterday:

No upranking for low level characters into high level areas. Just downranking if a high level character chooses to visit an area that is not intended for them.

The key point here is that it’s an area NOT intended for them. Low level mobs they want to safely grind on? No. Sorry. Not intended for you.

Newbie players trying to figure out how to PvP? Sorry. Not going to be an easy gank because while you are more knowledgeable, you are not more powerful.

Everyone is welcome to travel anywhere they want, but if you choose to visit places that aren’t for you than there are consequences.

A low level character going into a high level area risks getting one-shotted. A high level character going into a low level area risks having to actually fight a new player on more equal footing.

Oh. And, sorry. No power leveling your buddy because you aren’t much more of a bad ass.

Now you obviously put all the best and most worthwhile stuff in non-protected areas. If the interesting stuff is not in these areas, then people will be motivated to move out of them quickly.

The real benefit of all this is that new people of similar power levels get to bang heads against each other instead of getting ripped up by the veterans.

I feel if you want to see a ‘popular’ implementation of PvP in an MMO that it has to address this competitive spirit. No MMO has done this well yet. Perhaps it’s impossible. But I’m holding out hope.

Online Privacy

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:46:00 +0000

TAGN has an interesting read up about privacy and Blizzard's new REAL ID offering.

The overall thrust of the entry is that despite all the benefits that the REAL ID system offers, it comes with a price tag of associating your real identity to that of an online community.

Why is this an issue? Because you begin to lose control of the information that can be found out about you on the internet. And as TAGN writes, there is a high probability your name will be Googled by prospective employers, clients, customers, or even just some guy trying to sell you stuff.

A lesson learned
For the last 10 years or so I have been guarding my real identity in online games and communities. My last name is just not that common and a Google search will pretty much pop up anything related to me in microseconds.

I have no illusions that if someone wanted to figure out who I am and post my identity that they could do so without much trouble. So the reason I keep my identity guarded isn't because I don't want YOU to know.

The reason is fairly simple and can be best illustrated by this story.

After Warcraft 3 was released (not the MMO, the RTS), I worked on WC3 maps and mods. Being the generally helpful guy that I am, I wrote some guides and posted them on some forums. I never posted under my real name (just a nick) but I did sign up for the forums using my real name.

So imagine my surprise when 6 or 7 years later, upon Googling my name, I find another post on an entirely different website in which MY REAL NAME is credited for writing a guide. Again, remember that the only place I ever posted my name was on the signup page for the forum.

Even today, this is one of the top 30 or so Google results for my name. Ironically, the guides themselves no longer even exist anywhere.

I'm of the opinion that my virtual identity is one that I want to control. As much as I love MMOs, I simply don't want to be asked why I consider myself to be a SERIAL GANKER in a job interview.

And even when it's controlled, it's uncontrolled
I Googled an ex-girlfriend of mine maybe a year ago. No particular reason other than boredom and perhaps a morbid curiosity.

The search results didn't turn up anything that she wrote or that she associated herself with directly. But what it did turn up was pure gold. Basically, she had some type of domestic problem with her roommate.

The pissed off roommate, in all her glory, decided to blog about it. In detail. In which my ex was painted as one of the worst villains in roommate history.

Needless to say it was a great read and my morbid curiosity was well satisfied. Thankfully, I've never pissed off someone in such a way that they've wanted to document it for all the world to see.

Disturbing trend
I don't know if you've noticed it, but there is a trend happening that is moving us AWAY from privacy. Which, to me, is incredible considering that identity theft has become such a common financial risk.

The driving force behind this trend is two-fold. The first is that the under-25 generation doesn't care much about privacy. The second is that it's good for business.

Facebook, Blizzard, Amazon, Google -- they all want to know as much as they possible can about you. Facebook, in particular, is already the world's largest data repository for personal information.

They know who YOU are, who your friends are, what you like, and depending on how much you filled out on your profile -- where you work, went to school and live.

And, of course, all this information is made more useful to them if you give up the fight to control your privacy and let them decide what's important to you and who should be allowed to know things about your private life.

Even scarier is the long-term plan which Raph posted in which they become your single login and wallet for all things on the internet. If that happens, they'll also know all the sites you visit and where you buy stuff.

/tinfoil hat off

Define Hard: Six ways to make your MMO difficult

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:06:00 +0000

The problem with calling something hard or easy is that it's a subjective opinion. What is easy for one person might be hard for someone else.

When I was younger, I had a very narrow definition of things I considered to be important attributes. If you were talented in those attributes, I respected you as a peer.

As I grew older, and particularly as I began managing employees, I learned that there isn't just one set of skills that are superior to others.

People are diverse and can be absolutely brilliant in one area and very obtuse and ignorant in another. As a manager, it became important to recognize these talents in order to set people up for success.

Today, I have a different outlook. I believe that all people are talented, not just in the same ways.

Some people are mechanical. Some people are intellectual. Some people are athletic. Some people are charismatic. Some people are beautiful. Some people are atristic. And so on.

The result of all this diversity is that there is no universal definition of HARD or EASY.

Why is this important for MMOs? Because one thing we consistently do as a group is rate content as either DIFFICULT or EASY.

Types of Difficulty in MMOs

Twitch Skills

Reactive Decision Making

Planned Strategic Thinking

Unlike reactive decision making, some situations require you to think deeply about the problem before you encounter it. The best example here is min/maxing your damage/healing output, thinking through how your character will progress, making equipment decisions and so forth. The downside here is that it's very easy for others to provide "cookie-cutter" solutions to these problems. The result is a lot of pressure from peers to make use of these "cookie-cutter" examples as the optimum solution. Individuality is crushed by the professional theorycrafters.

Time Consuming

There can be no doubt that making anything take twice as long makes it twice as difficult to complete. The downside here is that making something more time consuming doesn't necessarily make something more fun. It's an artificial difficulty that most people, myself included, find cumbersome.

Severe Consequences

More severe consequences is an interesting way to add challenge in that it doesn't directly add difficulty to the task. It simply adds consequence for failure which, in turn, alters your behavior in how you approach the task. The effect is that it adds caution to the approach. The downside is that it's very possible to make the consequence so severe that it entirely deters any attempts.

Organizational Structure

And finally, there is significant challenge in creating and managing an organization large enough to accomplish group tasks. In many ways, I find this is perhaps the most difficult type of challenge because it relies on players to play a meta "social" game to either lead or become part of a group that can work together effectively to complete the goals. The downside here is that the ability to operate as a group is completely independent from someone's individual effort and ability. A talented player with untalented friends may never progress.

For myself, I think I prefer increasing difficulty by making things more reactive and twitchy.

Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:31:00 +0000

Pablo Picasso is famously attributed the quote "Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal". Copying, or emulating, is when you try to be like someone else. Stealing is when you take it and make it your own.

In the MMO space, we have seen plenty of examples of MMOs copying World of Warcraft. And they fail. And everyone is left scratching their head and discussing what went wrong.

By contrast, Warcraft stole from Everquest (and other games). They took these ideas and internalized them. They didn't just copy the idea, they took ownership of it. Then improved upon it.

Consumers don't want copies
A copy is never as good as the original. When a company copies a work, they aren't thinking about the consumers. They are thinking about the product. It's all "look we have these too" because it's become a standard feature.

That type of thinking just doesn't leave room for thinking about improvement.

This is why I ultimately believe WoW has been so successful. Take Warhammer, for example, which introduced an innovative new MMO feature in the Tome of Knowledge. WoW took that same concept -- internalized it -- and created their Achievements system. They made it their own.

And having played both games, I can say that the Achievements systems for all it's shortcomings is widely more popular and used than the ToK.

You might disagree with Blizzard's vision, but let me assure you that this ability to take ideas and make them their own is the real reason they are so successful.

They steal ideas, they don't copy them.

My book
One day I'm going to write a fantasy trilogy. It might not ever be published, but I'm going to write it. :)

I think one of the reasons that I identify with this "stealing" concept is because of how I've approached creating the world and story for my trilogy.

I'm not going to discuss the specifics of my fantasy realm, but there are several core elements that were "inspired" by other fantasy works. Things I really enjoyed in other books I've read that I felt would have a great place in my world.

But I didn't just copy the idea. As I said, I was inspired by it. I took ownership of the idea and turned it into something that felt right for my world.

And it wasn't just one idea. But lots of them from lots of different inspirations. The result is something entirely different and I think only I would make the connection to what originally inspired my world.

This is how I believe an MMO developer needs to approach designing an MMO. They need to take lots of different ideas from lots of different games. Think about what they enjoyed about these games and then meld them into something cohesive that they own.

Something new. Something different. Something that those of us looking for that next cool MMO would want to play.

Not just innovation, but evolution as well.

Quick Hit: Equipment which breaks

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:26:00 +0000

The first thing you need to understand when I talk about equipment breakage is that I’m not talking about destroying all of your rare and difficult to acquire equipment.

Or I suppose I am, just not in the same sense that you have come to understand “rare and difficult to acquire” relative to a game like Warcraft. If one boss drops three items for 25 people each week, it’s not very good game design to destroy that item a few hours later.

Now let me ask, should the "challenge" in acquiring a difficult or rare item be in "winning the roll" or in fighting the boss itself? In Warcraft, many boss fights are trivialized and the challenge itself is in the "roll" and not the "boss". As evidenced by the fact that many raiders will kill the same boss 25+ times before getting that Best In Slot item.

But what if each player got their own loot table and item for each boss. One drop every boss for each player involved in the raid. Instead of a 13 boss dungeon that provides 1 drop for each player, you have a 13 boss dungeon that provides 13 drops for each player.

Suddenly, an item that “breaks” after several hours of play is not such a huge obstacle.

Rarity is a relative term. You can make things difficult to acquire by making the boss fights themselves more difficult and challenging. And since the items themselves don't "last" or persist forever, getting that +1 upgrade doesn’t mean you throw out your old sword.

The advantage of such a system is that you don’t need “Gear Resets” to create equality. By virtue of simply playing the game, the content can be tuned so equipment simply wears out over time.

The consistent and constant loss of equipment created by breakage also provides a lot of value to your crafting system and economy. Why? Because the consumption creates a loss that needs to be replaced. An economy only works if that which is being used is consumed.

Quick Hit: Spontaneous PvP

noreply@blogger.com (sid67) — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:05:00 +0000

I’m always surprised that I don’t get asked why I titled my blog Serial Ganker when I don’t write much about Ganking other people. You would think that such a blog would be filled with tales of my exploits (much like EVE Pirate).

The actual reason has more to do with my self-identity in online games. I’m aggressive and not ashamed of it.

I’m always prepared to drop whatever I’m doing to engage in spontaneous PvP. And well, when two people happen to meet spontaneously in the world, the two are rarely on equal terms. Even if they have relatively the same power score, the person who prepares for the fight and engages first is the one with a significant advantage.

But it’s not just about being the hunter. It’s also about being the hunted. My most memorable Spontaneous PvP moments are the ones where I escaped overwhelming odds in grand fashion.