Hm.

I added a pair of blog-links, updated the news feeds.

DAoC’s official feed doesn’t work for some unknown error at line 48 (invalid token). Same for Gamasutra’s job feed (line 55). The aggregator is damn picky.

I also tried to add Warcry but it’s stupid. It has a general feed for gaming and separate feeds for each game. It’s damn spammy and with images too. Perhaps I’ll make a special group for it to see how it goes (for now the general one is accessible only on the “news aggregator” module on the sidebar on your right).

And I still need to do the main work about the structure of the site. Plus fight IE because it doesn’t like my layout but I don’t think I can do much in this case.

Posted in: Uncategorized |

Less biased than me

Over @ Anyuzer’s lair:

World of Warcraft is actually brilliant on a lot of levels. Brilliant. Wish I could tell you why, but it�s complex (like 10 pages complex) and I�m too annoyed at losing my little manifesto to tackle it right this moment.

I�m indescribably impressed though, so it will be interesting to see how the other games fare against this juggernaut. And by other games, I mean EverQuest II. I ragged on Blizzard for so long, and they�ve managed to impress me. Now I�m looking at EQII and the beta which is supposed to be around the corner, and wondering whether they are really prepared to meet the newfound bar that Blizzard has set for the industry. I damn well hope so, because if they can, we�re going to have two amazing MMOGs come out this year. And let�s face it, that�s just good for everybody.

Posted in: Uncategorized | Tagged:

I plan WoW

I posted this raving bit about a PvP system that would fit in WoW:

I’ll try to not be too boring like I usually am (and despite the horrible english). The idea comes from a long experience in DAoC, from its mistakes and what could be taken and developed from there to build something different but more fun and compelling. I’ll take an idea that went terribly wrong in DAoC: the Master Levels. Everything, from their achievement till their role in the game are seen by the community more or less as a disaster. What I think is that the idea is awesome but it had an awful implementation. Now I thought about “salvaging” what’s good and use it to “fire” my imagination and suggest a new system for WoW so that I could also be able to “fix” a few problems that are already in the game. Because WoW needs:
– A reward system
– A better dynamic system that adds some depth to epic encounters between armies

In DAoC the reward system is based on Realm Points. By killing enemies you earn these points and by collecting more of them you earn ranks and cumulative points that you can spend to gain directly new skills. This system works nicely because it gives you a concrete reason to go fight in a PvP environment. The “treadmill” feeds the fun as the levelling does in the standard PvE: killing monsters must be fun but you also need to provide reasons to excuse the gameplay and hook the players. Levelling and gaining skills are hooks. In PvP you need both the hooks and a reason to give depth to the PvP, like a conquering system where the battles have a purpose aside the single encounters.

Considering WoW, it’s obvious that copying DAoC’s system isn’t the best way to go. WoW will have Hero classes and they sound already a pain to design without destroying the game. Another new system that gives more skills to the players and that need to be extensively balanced isn’t a good idea. My opinion is that there should be a completely new “battle system” that will offer its own gameplay and rewards (and also define differences between battleground and a possible, different endgame). The idea comes from DAoC’s Master Levels because the purpose is to earn a set of skills based on ranks in a similar way to the Realm Albilities. But these skills won’t be designed to offer new sets of possibilities but, instead, to have a role ONLY in battles between armies. The good idea about the Master Levels is that they don’t affect only a player or a single party, but they spread out, like healing fields effective at a range. In WoW it will be a pain to invent and develop another new set of skills but this could be done if these skills will be really designed only around big battles. So that they will affect only this type of gameplay, while they’ll be completely useless in a single-party dynamics.

I’ll make a concrete example so that you can understand better the idea. One of the common ML Ability in DAoC is the healing field. You drop it and it will heal tot number of hit points every so seconds based on a range. Everyone inside the range is affected (aside the enemies). The implementation is horrible in DAoC because you cannot drop more than one field, because they don’t stack. So the situation is that: it is useful if you are in a single party, while it’s less useful in a zerg because someone else will probably have it anyway. My idea is to revert this horrible design so that it fits the real model. The healing field should be developped so that if a single player casts it, it will have a really worthless effect. To the point that noone should bother to cast it if playing alone in a normal group. But it WILL stack. Each player with that skill should be able to strengthen the effect by casting its own on top of the other. This means that these skills/spells will have a role only in the dynamics of a large PvP battles between armies, while they’ll be forgettable in 1 Vs 1 encounters. To fix the obvious balance issues the statistics of these spells must be variable. They should stack but in a progressive, diminished return. Each spell casted will strengthen the previous but not excactly doubling the effect. The purpose is to make every single spell be effective (opposed to DAoC where once one is casted all the others are ignored) but beneath a set cap that will mantain the whole dynamic under control, avoiding exploits.

This can be chained to different ideas to produce a really deep and interesting system. My suggestion would be to develop these new spells like an “alchemy system”. Listen. Instead of creating a spell with a set, precise effect, like it always happens in these games, you develop each one like an “ingredient” or “recipe”. You’ll be able to set various recipes (which should be linked to magic schools and player classes). When the “main recipe” spell is casted (perhaps as a commonal effort of different players), other players will be able to set and add their own spells to the main one, providing different effects or combining those to create new ones. The result is a mess but also loads of fun. It’s a battle dynamic absolutely original with a nearly infinite potential. While right now zerg battles feel absolutely dumb and boring, a system like this could provide not only the “reward” that the PvP needs (since these spells are aquired by practicing PvP) but it will also add depth to a battle system. It will actually create a battle system, as opposed to what the market offers. Easy to balance because it’s big-scale only and, above all, set with precise caps (as explained in the previous paragraph).

It’s not all :)
If you open up the system there’s a lot more to make WoW be original and innovative. If you implement at this point a conquest system where players will be able to conquer and control structures, you can develop, on top of that, a resource system similar to “geomancy”. Controlling nodes on the landmass will have an effect on the magic schools, boosting or hindering them. This means that the location of a battle will affect directly these “Realm Abilities”. Controlling a node will give resources and, at the same time, produce a weakness (or the system becomes too overpowering). And I could go on more and more to suggest the many possibilities a similar system has. After all the game will be developed even after its release, the idea is to set the framework where the PvP isn’t an afterthought but a compelling system that could push the genre, then you have endless possibilities till you have resources to expend on this part. The early goal shouldn’t be hard to achieve since it doesn’t seem to be “too much” demanding from a development point of view: something small and solid but with the design already projected toward the future.

To conclude this reasoning, a last (awesome, I think) note about different classes. The system I described revolves around spells but I don’t think that every class should follow this idea. Aside the recipe/ingredients system I think you can develop another one that I bet would be LOVED by the community everywhere. Spellcasting classes should use “mainly” the system described, they have their role in a battle due to that system. What do the poor tanks? They do something cool: the rank system won’t give them access to spells, it will give them access to vehicles. The idea is to plan a real battle system where tank classes will be able to fly or drive more or less large steampunk machines, from zeppelins and dirigibles to large motorized rams. Bring Warcraft’s soul to this game. Casters will use the “ritual system” described to produce collective spells, while the melee classes will have access to major engines to drive the sieges. The reward system needed in the game is exactly the access to these new gameplay systems, working only on these battles and leaving the normal PvE uneffected to the point that you can simply not care about the PvP. Even if I’m sure *you will* if such a system will be developed :)

The result is that we can forget about a dumbed down zerg-combat and really create an epic scale war with strategical and fun elements. And, once started, the possibilities are endless.

I hope it’s not too late for suggesting some ambition :)

General summary for who cannot be bothered to read all the above:

+ Reward system based on ranks
+ You can gain ranks by killing opponents and, in particular, by accomplishing set purposes (like specific missions)
+ Gaining ranks give each player access to a set of battle-related “skills”, coordinated to give each player a different role in a battle, based on the current rank (defining squads with different purposes)
+ The most common version of these skills is about spells that have *no* impact on a single party encounter but strong impact on large scale battles (by actually creating a complex “Battle System” with its own dynamics, as opposed to a pointless zerg rush)
+ Each spell is designed so that it will stack with a diminished return of effectivity below a set cap
+ The cap will prevent these spells to become too overpowering while the stack will give a sense to each player contributing to strengthen the spell effect
+ From a design point of view these new spells will work as an alchemy system. There are “recipes” (based on magic schools) that will be casted as a communal effort of more players, then others players will be able to add “ingredients” to the main spell, creating a bigger ritual with the time which will affect the whole area of the battle (you could define recipes that follow the leader of an army, recipes that will be casted on the ground to affect the zone and prepare ambushes or defend hotspots, recipes that can be used in sieges, recipes as divination to “see” what the opposite force is doing… and so on – where the ingredients add effects, increase the power, increase the radius, increase the duration, add movement, boost effectivity in rushes etc…)
+ This new spell system then should be linked to a resource system based on the possibility to conquer and control “nodes”, similar to geomancy zones
+ So, each geographical zone will have a different effect (and gameplay) by boosting or hindering the various “recipe” spells. This both based on the location of the battle (so, naturally) AND on who controls the various nodes
+ Nodes will provide different resources. The system could be complex since it could be used to expand a settlement, build bigger protections etc…
+ The reward system, then, isn’t limited to new spells. It should be planned with various possibilities, where casters will have a *prevalent*, but not exclusive, access to the ritual system and tanks to a different one (still not exclusively)
+ The prevalent reward system for tanks should be about the ability to use various war machines
+ The war machines go from zeppelins and dirigibles to large mechanical rams. The idea is that each of these war machines will need more than one player to be moved around
+ At this point everyone should still have something fun to do, like driving or commanding turrets or whatever. For sure not just standing there

The goals of the system I imagined are:

+ Provide a good reward system/treadmill for PvP
+ Develop a number of skills that will be used exclusively on large scale battles, leaving the PvE aspect alone
+ Add depth to the system so that it will involve a complex strategical gameplay and not a sudden zerg instant pointless battle
+ Give the players a reason and a concrete purpose to fight for (nodes and resources based on a conquer system involving land control on specific zones), avoiding to provide excuses to “host” completely faked and maningless battles
+ Develop this system so that it will be deeper than just access a set of determined skills. The idea is to build a battle system where everyone has a concrete different *role* based on the achieved rank
+ Epic feel, endless possibilities to expand the system and the sense of wonder that the current game misses

Then I could go on forever. For example you need to give a very important role to the guilds inside this system and the rank system should regulate not only the access to new spells but really different roles in the actual war. The idea is to shift the game toward an RTS where each player will still have fun by playing a single soldier/role.

I don’t really pretend someone to read all this and even comment but I think it’s not a bad work and perhaps it deserves another attempt at visibility (ahh, stupid hopes..). It provides what a PvP system needs, from the general gameplay system, to the fun, the endgame, the rewards, huge selling points like vehicles, etc…

Even if it needs a lot of work it’s still a skeleton that could become rock solid easily, with a huge potential for being expanded as you like, with whole expansions or patches. Plus it’s not a problem because it coexists with the PvE flawlessly and without consequences.

I really would like to receive some kind of feedback:
– You think it’s too ambitious?
– You think it’s out of the aim?
– You think it’s written so bad that isn’t even readable?
– You think that it sounds horrid and stupid to say the best?
– You think it’s the most foolish thing you have ever heard?
– You think it’s a “convoluted ESL brain twisters”? (this is J.)
– Your eyes simply glaze over pages of dense posting on game theory? (This is Lum the Mad)
– You think it’s simply not possible?
– You think it’s simply broken and confused?
– You think that you don’t care simply because it’s a complete waste of time since Blizzard has its own plan and won’t change it even if a fool posts something (horribly written and confused) on a forum aimed to invent a completely new game just a few months before the launch?

(well, my opinion is the last one)

I like a lot “playing designer” but it’s also something that frustrates me a whole lot because I know that I’m only playing with impossible, distant dreams. If someone at Blizzard is reading: I envy you.

P.S.
Yes, I’ll resist the temptation of using my 20 characters to simulate infinite praises to what I wrote here. I don’t really like talking with myself. I’m another kind of fool, but this is another story that will be told in another occasion.

-HRose / Abalieno
http://www.cesspit.net/
In testing: http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/

Star Wars Galaxies

geldonyetich
We’ll see post space expansion if the verdict is the same…

Jump To Lightspeed:

X-Wing Versus Tie Fighter…

…with a universe as open-ended as Freelancer/Privateer/Elite…

…massively Multiplayer.

Rasix
Made by a dev team about as competent as the turdburglars that gave us AC2..

Posted in: Uncategorized | Tagged:

Valid XHTML 1.0!

Finally the site passed the check. To achieve that I had to remove all the target=”_blank” links that I often use. I hope to integrate the BBcode module so that thing had to go anyway.

I’m also working on the structure of the site to understand how Drupal works and how I can manage at best the four-page layout I had in the other MT-powered blog (Cesspit, F00lies, Ravings and Bloggie). Then the hardest part will be about moving the MT database to Drupal since I don’t want to keep both.

Posted in: Uncategorized | Tagged:

Messing with feeds

I’m still messing with the feeds. I’ve added a general gaming news site that was linked at Q23 and I hacked the code in the “aggregator.module” to discard the dates of the feeds completely. This because the parser doesn’t consider the timezones so the news go all mixed and it’s impossible to sort them in an useful way.

Right now I’m using a workaround to call the module since I don’t have acces to cron. So each time someone enter this site, the site checks if the news feeds have been parsed recently. If they were parsed more than one hour before the module is called and updated. This means that now the news will tend to have a similar timestamp but at least NEW entries will appear at the top and not randomly.

If noone accesses the site the module isn’t called at all, so it could update only every many hours, all at once. I’m currently searching a solution.

Posted in: Uncategorized |

Lum, on economic systems.

Related to my “article”. This is Lum discussing economic systems in games. Precious:

Well, if there was ever proof needed as to my idiocy, jumping into this thread is probably it. That being said:

Every MMO economy is false. Duh. Trust me, you don’t want a real economy in an MMO. It will, with stunning rapidity, result in a tyranny of a very small minority. Much like, well, real economies.

Quote:
EQ, UO and DAoC prove this out. You can craft great stuff or you can buy it, and you can be both a crafter and a hunter either by virtue of having crafting linked to a combat template (EQ and DAoC) or with multi-character servers (UO).

The problem with the typical MMO economic model is that crafting items compete with dropped items. Literally: crafters are in competition with the items that world builders are crafting to make hunting attractive. The problem is that one “faction” in this equation is always losing; either craftsmen complain (justifiably) that the results of their labors are marginalized because the Shiny New Sword from Deepest Dungeon is better than anything they make, or everyone else complains (justifiably) that the stuff they’re getting from monsters is worthless, because it isn’t as good as the stuff crafters are making.

The SWG model (I don’t know if anyone else has as radical an economy so let’s use them as an example) is that players make everything. Boom, the end. Well, that certainly solves a lot of problems. It also makes a lot of people who are used to the kill-things-and-get-stuff metaphor (a metaphor, I might add, that is not unique to MMOs) unhappy. The economy may be far more realistic than most (in that it has a working model of supply and demand and requires a bit of resource management) but the guy who logs in for a couple hours to plink at things with a blaster is either going to be (a) twinked or (b) unhappy, because the player economy has progressed past a point where the artificial elements (quests, drops from monsters, etc) can keep up.

The same thing happens in kill-things-get-stuff games, of course; try playing EQ or DAOC for a couple hours, then taking the money you’ve made and buying anything in the player markets. You’ll find that the money you’ve made is an order of magnitude lower than anything you can buy – again, because the player economy has detached itself from the artificial one. However, in the kill-things-get-stuff game you can concievably live completely apart from the player economy – existing off of quest rewards, items that you’ve looted yourself, etc.

In an economy that is solely player driven (which, for reasons I’m about to demonstrate, very few actually exist), you don’t have that option. Your choices become – hmm, what low level menial tasks that other, richer players don’t want to do can I do that will give me a small amount of income, or what higher level players can I swear myself out to. Congratulations! You’ve created a feudal society! From an economic standpoint, it’s an accomplishment. From a standpoint of whether or not it is fun, not so much.

Now, I’m an advocate of, for lack of a better word, socialist tinkering in MMOs. (The spectacle of a radical libertarian in real life working towards the implementation of socialism never fails to amuse me, by the way.) There are things game creators can do to “tinker” with the economy that can create interesting challenges without completely making the game NotFun. Just for one example: track the total amount of money in your game (call it “M1” for giggles) and key the value of your prestige gold sinks off of that. Since, after all, the target of your prestige gold sinks is to soak some of the money out of the bank vaults of your wealthiest few, why not REALLY target them? Make the process transparent. Display the rise and fall of these prices (key it to in-game stock markets for even more fun). Watch your players game down the prices by flushing money out of their vaults… which is what you wanted to happen in the first place.

However, the significant portion of your playerbase that ISN’T level 50 RR10 or a Master Jedi or whatever isn’t a member of your player economy. More to the point, they don’t WANT to be, most of the time. They want to benefit from the economy, sure. Cheap stuff on the market? Yeah, gimme! Actually working to generate a small amount of value relative to their “worth” in the game world? Oh HELL no. At that point it becomes a job. And most of us already have one of those.

So the trick becomes allowing participation in the economy, without forcing full membership. Hm.

MMOGs and economies

Copying from a thread @ F13:

kaid
The only truly broken economy is one where either every single item in the game is so easy to come by there is no need or reason to trade

Oh, well. This could be a broken economy but it’s a very good game for sure.

See, everyone is missing the point because you really shift the focus on how to build a decent economy while I think Haemish point of view is way more worth of attention: You should shy away from creating and balancing a real economy.

I won’t go back with the discussion between “real simulation” Vs. “fun arcade” because it’s not the point. The point is that whatever you are going to build is still something that will involve “gameplay”. This gameplay could be a simple monster whack or a complex interaction but at the end the gameplay must be compelling and interesting. This is why I still find more fun and compelling to find the tools I need, like the equipment, along my normal play. With vendors and drops. It’s way more fun than trading. Remember that, often, trading is a way to bypass the game. Considering EQ or WoW you can see that what you need (loot) comes directly from your experience and normal play. If at some point the economy collapse with the inflation it will mean that you are able to max your equipment with very little money. And this means that noone will care about PLAYING to achieve what they need. You can sit and pay but you are also killing your own fun because what was hard and challenging has been now dumbed down by the money. The active gameplay has been erased.

This is why the economy brings more problems than benefits to the game. In the real world the economy born to exchange different resources. In the real word peoples specialize themselves in an activity (and then gain and use money) because someone else is doing something completely different. And there’s interdependence. In a mmorpg more or less everyone plays the same game, in the same way. The fact is that there’s no need to shift the resources because you aren’t FORCED to work (play), but you should love to do that. And you DON’T WANT someone else to do the work at your place. Because the point and the aim IS THE GAMEPLAY, and not just the loot at the end. If that loot is the result of a play session you have a good game. If the loot can then be achieved just by trading you are killing once again the fun. In DAoC the players are able to craft insanely powerful equipment and that asks just a ton of money. Well, this destroyed the epic quests. What required gameplay now requires just money. And the game is just more fucked up!

Economies, real or faked, aren’t needed in a game simply because there’s no sense in adding this layer of complexity. In a game like EQ or WoW the economy (a real one) simply doesn’t fit, because it has no purpose aside creating a tons of disasters.

Recently Mythic demonstraded how much the ideas about economic systems in games are completely messed. They introduced powerful objects (artifacts) very hard to gain, impossible to trade or sell, impossible to obtain again and STILL decaying and disappearing from the world. Where’s the sense? Why you need to erase an object from the world if it doesn’t circulate nor can be re-gained?

Sanya
Q: Why do artifacts decay?

A: We don’t ever want to put items into the game that don’t decay at all. Getting an item into a game is essentially a function of time. Without removing items somehow, an economy becomes completely clogged, and special things are no longer special.

Many people who have made something of a hobby out of game world economies have written essays on “mudflation” (MMORPGs have their roots in Multiple User Dungeons � text based games)

Now someone could explain me what relates artifacts to the economy? Or, even worst, MUDflation?

This is the whole point. Economies are unnecessary if the game itself doesn’t offer a very strict specialization in the possible activities. In a game like WoW, DAoC or EQ the economy is simply a burden and every attempt at adjusting it will destroy a bit more the fun in the game. The more the economy works the more the game will bleed. In other games (like Eve), the economy simply works because you have 80% of the game painfully boring. So that trading acquires a meaning. And this demonstrate how much a real economy defines an horrible game with faked depth.

My opinion is that the less the economy is real the better is for my fun. Let’s say that as I enter the game in WoW I have a friend that dump me a ton of money. Who the fuck cares? I’ll still be restricted to use equipment for my level and the difference between my twinked character and someone else with no external support will still be minimal. Rejoice! The fucking economy cannot screw me beyond every limit! THAT’s a working economy. An economy that doesn’t continuously enter the game to hinder my fun at playing it. Harvesting money ad infinitum is stupid and boring. Questing to achieve something valuable is WAY MORE FUN. If at the end you are able to put in the market what you achieved with the gameplay perhaps you are building an economy but you are also DEMOLISHING the game.

This is why I consider WoW’s economy one of the best in the market. Trading and crafting is damn FUN. At the same time the equipment is level restricted and usually bound to you. Yes, items don’t degrade simply because there’s no need to build a fucking economy. And I’m having fun because of it.

The slogan is: WE DON’T NEED THIS CRAP.

To conclude, let’s say that we don’t really want to develop another monster-whacking game and we’d like something deeper. Well, the resources (man-work I mean) are still not infinite. I think there are a tons of ideas that would require a lot of work a experimentation. So better use those resources at best, not at worst.

Dundee
I don’t really have an issue with anything else you wrote, if the goal is to create a realistic real-world style economy. I just disagree that it is necessary, or even a worthwhile goal, really.

/agree.

Destro
MMOG economies are broken because they aren’t fun.

No. When you aren’t having fun you can be sure that there is an economy perfectly working.

And since you like to babble about exploits and dupes: they are still the side-effect of a game where money has become more important than playing. Reduce the importance of the money and you’ll have an equilibrate game where duping and cheating aren’t even an issue. Because the aim of the game isn’t being rich.

And then Raph replied and I agree with him completely:

Hmm, I think that one thing that people who want to just axe economies are misisng is that economies can and DO provide gameplay. There’s strategic gameplay, large-scale cooperation gameplay, PvP gameplay, and other types of gameplay that kill-the-foozle doesn’t offer.

We may quibble all we want about whether harvesting is currently as fun as it should be (it isn’t), the act of crafting is as fun as it should be (it isn’t), or the juggling of inventory is as fun as it should be (it isn’t). But it’d be dumb to say that running a business in a game can’t be a fun endeavor or add gameplay–there’s entire single-player genres of game based on it, and they are some of the most popular games in the world–Rollercoaster Tycoon, anyone?

The reason to have game economies that have complexity to them is the same reason why you have PvE combat with complexity to it–to have it meet the minimum threshold bar of fun. Worrying about wwhether dupes unbalance your economy is the same as worrying about whether buffs are overpowered, frankly. It’s just another axis of gameplay.

Does your game NEED it? No. But given that it is one of the axes of gameplay that makes use of persistence, and persistence is one of the key things these games offer that other games cannot , well, leaving it out may be considered to be at least underutilizing the genre. Not a bad thing if you have a specific other area of focus, but not the One True Way either.