Author Archives: Abalieno

The LotR Online short-living bubble

by | 18 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s known that gamers have ADD. Especially those who go after the “shiny”.

Epic battle climax!

by | 2 Comments

Related to the discussion about how to make hopeless PvP defenses a bit more epic and fun.

Music

– Develop a system similar to Lucasarts’ iMuse (music tunes dynamically adapting to the situation in the game). The zerg approaches and you are outnumbered, and a special epic badass music starts to play.

War skills

– The Horn

Mechanic: This is a commander skill. It can only be used when the team in a zone is outnumbered. When used it works like a simple trigger, enabling the “Braveheart” skill on all the players in the same team and in the zone. The horn is also a huge physical object that cannot be transported, so a commander must reside at a castle in order to use it.

Metaphor: The horn is played and its deep sound will be heard through the valley. You hear the sound, your realm is calling you. Fight for your realm!

– Braveheart

Mechanic: after you hear “The Horn” your “Braveheart” skill lights up ready to be used. When pressed your character is locked into place, building up a morale boost that enhances your stats. If you are hit in combat you’ll be interrupted. This “buff” has a cap, so once filled it won’t pass that limit (you get the visual cue of a bar filling up, so you always know the status of this buff). Around five seconds to go from zero to cap. Your morale will then slowly decay over time and go down every time you deal damage, proportionally to the damage you deal.

Metaphor: You hear the calling, your realm is calling everyone to arms. Your character rises his fist into the air (animation) and SCREAMS THE HELL OUT OF HIS LUNGS (sound). You are answering the calling. In a castle “The Horn” is played and all defenders answer the call by screaming at unison.

Asymmetric PvP/warfare and processes of inclusion

by | 5 Comments

Taking from a thread on F13, mine and someone else’s quotes.

This addresses “the problem that isn’t a problem”, meaning the population unbalance in persistent PvP.

—
People fail to understand that population IS PART of this type gameplay. Those unbalances are part of the system because they ARE the system. We are simulating the “struggle of nations” and even in real history those unbalances existed. History would SUCK if every battle was fought by the exact number of people. Taking all your people into RvR to defend your realm was THE game. This social aspect was THE game. A real motivation: fight for your realm or watch it fall. The realm NEEDS YOU.

The second you have EXACT numbers on either side, this kind of real RvR is over. “Numbers” are the heart of this kind of gameplay, not something to eradicate. The second you decide to lock numbers on either side you don’t have anymore real warfare, you have something else.

So look at this from the other perspective: instead of locking numbers to erase this unbalance, why instead not trying to make the game fun and exciting when you are outnumbered?

This can be done by making correspond to asymmetric numbers also asymmetric objectives. So that these objectives (and victory points you earn) are measured on your *current* condition, and not on the unfair premise that everyone has an equal chance. We *know* that it’s improbable to obtain equal footing in real persistent PvP so we don’t make a game assuming that, we make a game anticipating those problems and around those conditions.

Mythic’s big mistake was to design RvR ideally assuming that the three realms were always symmetric. They are not. The game rules should anticipate and be based on this.

—

tazelbain: Now with Scenarios giving the most VP, teams with best PvP teams controls the zone. This is a preferable situation because individual players have a better chance of overcome a teamwork gap than the numbers gap.

Nope because this is exclusive PvP. And exclusive PvP means that it’s selective. And selective means that some players get in while other players are left out.

A successful mmorpg must promote inclusion, not exclusion. Battles, the real medieval battles were about inclusion and numbers. Grab a pitchfork and join to fight. But we all also just saw “300”. And we know that a good team CAN overcome numbers. Or at least that’s the myth that games should make us live, because that’s what makes games feel cool and involving. Giving us myths.

The problem of zerg vs zerg must be solved elsewhere. I always said that the game must provide paths (through directed/objective based PvP) so that the game is fun and exciting even and IN PARTICULAR when you are outnumbered, because there’s the potential for something truly “heroic” that the players would love (see 300 again). While it’s dead boring if you know you are winning and the victory doesn’t require any effort.

How to achieve this? Instead of locking the number of players who participate in a defense/attack (which negates the immersion and the WHOLE POINT of the warfare), you give teams different objectives that are balanced for that specific situation.

A concrete example for a taste of what I mean: the team with the large zerg will have the objective (and related victory points) to conquer a castle. The outnumbered defenders will have the objective to defend it *as long as possible*. The more they resist, the more points they earn, and the more they are outnumbered the more the points they earn over time scale up.

Asymmetric/immersive warfare is the whole point of RvR. You just need to make it correspond adaptive/reactive objectives that are balanced to the current status of the realm.

—
And to precise better: are the game rules to lead the players around and determine what they’ll do and what they’ll avoid. Carrots on a stick, goals, power-ups. That’s what the game is about and what the players chase. They simply go where the best points to be made are.

What’s bad in PvP when you are outnumbered is that you only waste time feeding enemies points without getting anything back. So it’s often better to just /quit.

If this is seen as a problem then you can use the rules to encourage and motivate players to defend. What I mean is that this is ENTIRELY a problem of game rules.

It’s about time that game design starts to “legislate” on this, start working on models, interactions. Because till now RvR was just a big zone with a keep in the middle, with some bleached, gimmick features tacked on it. Not much development went into the actual RvR and warfare, and that’s the main reason why all that potential is untapped.

Just think to what we could have now if RvR had received in the years the same focus and numbers of reiterations that went into PvE.

That’s what I’m saying. RvR is still a closed door. The first step.

—
eldaec:
On the first question, is open RvR ever going to have mass appeal? I don’t know. Indications from daoc were that it’s worth a try, the casual players genuinely liked 100 v 100 face offs at keeps. The hardcore liked the open aspect of RvR much less, because it diluted their individual advantages. Certainly RvR is the only major thing that is unique to Mythic and WAR – and it’s the only mechanism I’ve seen for having hardcore and casual players interact constructively – so it seems nuts to focus instead on something that is already the focus of games like GW. At the end of the day, what we do know is that meaningful sport pvp is an unlikely premise for a mass appeal game, while RvR is at least unknown.

First off, prep-work. The beauty of RvR prep work was that the double mega hardcore did (and enjoyed) the prep work for the casual masses. Casual players did not have to do prep work for RvR, but double mega hardcore players who wanted to get shit done in RvR had to communicate that prep work to the casuals, it wasn’t perfect, but I have yet to see a better MMOG model for getting hardcores to talk to casuals. Plus prep work was only necessary at all for the very largest RvR events, on your average night of RvR you just use the realm war map to go find the action.

Open RvR remains untested in the market since daoc. And that was pretty much a stealth product by recent standards, I don’t think you can automatically draw conclusions about how an RvR game would do today.

There is significant evidence that meaningful (as opposed to diversionary) sport pvp is hard to sustain in a typical mmog setting because it dramatically emphasizes differences in player skill, at the same time as limiting community size and so forcing the uber up against the noob too often.

But at the same time, the best you can say for RvR is that people who tried it usually liked it.

In daoc, assuming you survive to level 50 rr4 or so (ie. rvr viable, and yes, that needs to come sooner in WAR), your realm is, in effect, a form of guild.

But in a normal guild, the guild community can form around social links, and so it is naturally cohesive. In a realm on the other hand, the game has to build a community around the arbitary membership of the realm.

If people (scrubs included) don’t care that scrub participation in sport pvp hurts the realm, that means you didn’t set up an environment which builds the community right, and as such you already failed the most important precondition to make RvR work.

This is really key, if you make everyone believe they are involved in a genuinely realm versus realm competition, and believe that they can contribute, and believe that the rest of the realm is on their side; then tbh most other stuff falls into place by itself. DAOC was built entirely on that principle, in that game pve was ostensibly about building community, and open-RvR was how the community entertained itself on an open-ended basis.

A quote

by | Leave a comment

A quote from Scott Hartsman. One of the few devs I still respect and have esteem for.

In online games beyond the boutique scale, you are #1 or you are Everyone Else.

“#1” obeys certain rules that I won’t get into, but stability-to-growth becomes easier and you’re far more protected from loss, barring extreme triggers.

For “Everyone Else,” the converse is true: You are generally in a net state of subtraction over time. It’s just a matter of the rate. It takes extreme triggers to cause stability or gain.

For an MMO in the Everyone Else category, overall stability is actually a significant victory.

Therefore, saying that “EQ2’s investment isn’t paying off,” is most definitely incorrect — It’s paying off in that “stability” means we have a large percentage more subscribers right now than we would have had otherwise.

Worth quoting and giving it some visibility as it’s true in general and not just for EQ2.

Music Interlude

by | Leave a comment

For me Gomez are better than The Beatles. No one nowadays has their versatility and absolutely fascinating swing. And Ben Ottewell has The Voice. God in music.

They now have a decent website and they released a while ago a 2 CDs compilation of B Sides and rarities that packs their VERY BEST stuff. I always said that their rare songs were their best.

It also has one pretty cover:

EDIT: Woot! The second CD starts with the acoustic version of “Rhythm and Blues Alibi”. That’s one hell of a song.
EDIT2: Okay, last edit. iTunes has an exclusive worldwide “Live Session EP” with six songs. Go there and shill $1 for “Whippin’ Piccadilly”, because that version is superlative. And if you like it get also “Get Miles”, that’s Ben Ottewel and this version is exceptional again. The guitar in the second half is amazing.

36 songs. If you have iTunes you can go a preview them to have a good taste of their versatility. Or download them from the internet, but just listen all of them in a way or another because they are wonderful. Tomorrow for the first time since years I’ll drive to a CD shop and come out with 2 CDs. The other being Momo’s about which I’ve talked a little bit a while ago.

Today she was again on TV, with one charming song. You can listen it through this site (La Madonna di Pompei), or directly from here.

Listen it till its very end, because it’s there the best part. One little gem. With a vague Yann Tiersen reminescence in the music (the one from Amelie Poulain, I hope you know who she is).

Posted in: Uncategorized | Tagged:

Checkmate in two

by | 3 Comments

Nostalgia (and referring to this, there’s a rule: you only have nostalgia to things you lost, or traits of them that you lost, not to things that are done better). Then I’m done.

Mythic released today a patch with a few good changes (archer classes excluded) and I was writing a bit on the forums. It summarizes well my idea on the game (DAoC will remain my very own crusade and inspiration) and goes back to a lot of fundamental principles that I discussed on this site about mmorpgs in general.

—
One idea I’d propose if I was the producer (wink to Walt): plan a mini-expansion to be released this Fall.

– Price: $5.
– Purpose: completely scrap and reprogram/redraw the UI, with the goal of making it scalable so that it looks the same no matter of the resolution, which is a feature that should be STANDARD for every game. And then make it more functional, organized and responsive, with a fixed, well designed layout that leaves behind the old-style dockable windows and then buy a readable/polished/aliased font.

Giving DAoC a better “impact” while simultaneously work on the structure (meaning the PvE treadmill and a reorganization of task dungeons) would help greatly to make the game once again presentable and a first step to start drawing new customers.

—
Since they are retooling with the Frontiers. Redoing the keeps in order to fix LOS problems and make the client perform better is something I STRONGLY support, but it isn’t all that the game needs.

The two most important things from my perspective are:

1- Make once again the keeps the protagonists of RvR.
2- Work to remove stalemates at those keeps so that it’s fun to play there.

The bias toward 8vs8 groups made the game unplayable for me and, I’m sure, for many other players. But in particular it killed completely the accessibility for new players. When 90%+ of the RvR is accessible only in specialized groups the consequence is that a majority of players are flat out excluded.

What is left in the average experience is to sit LFG at a keep for hours. Or walk around solo just to feed points to a roaming gank group.

THAT’s the FIRST problem in DAoC currently: the game needs new players, and the very few players are turned off by the UI and boring PvE first, and the complete inaccessibility of PvP next.

That kills the game. Checkmate in two.

So for me the only solution is to bring back that cooperative feeling and realm pride that we had back then. When people grouped together to fight for communal objective. And when ALL the realm joined up for some crazy battles. Everyone grouped everyone else. Everyone was doing its small part. And there were BOTH specialized groups and casual groups working together. It was fun, exciting and it built the community.

The point is to make the RvR easily accessible and fun once again for all the players, while trying to make the battles at the keeps a bit more dynamic instead of boring stalemates where you wait, wait, wait and wait.

Two of my ideas “featured” in Guild Wars 2

by | 4 Comments

One is the server-travel:

Despite having several worlds, the game uses a global database so you can instantly transfer between worlds, Strain said.

Which brings me back to my concept of linked worlds.

Another is a way to carry over progress from the previous game to its “sequel”:

This hall will be located in a sort of base of operations you can establish in Eye of the North. The instanced base will allow you to store not only the Eye of the North achievements in the form of monuments but the achievements earned in all three campaigns.

Every monument earned will unlock something, from heroes and pets to weapons, clothes and miniatures, in Guild Wars 2.

Which brings me back to some thoughts about creating a sequel. In particular I was suggesting a currency system between the two games to carry over the progress:

Since the characters data is ported to the new game as the account is upgraded, all the progress made in the old world past that point will be likely lost. This will be compensated through a form of “currency” to which you can convert/recash your progress (loot, money and exp, for example) and that can be transfered to the new game. (recycle exp/money/loot gained in the old game by converting them into “currency” -> transfer currency between the two games -> convert currency into progression in the new game)

Sadly, the PvP in Guild Wars 2 will likely still suck:

“By achieving victories in these battles there will be benefits to your world,” Strain said. “Bonuses, advantages, maybe everyone gets increased energy regeneration or healing rate or enhanced loot drop rate.”

As I wrote on Q23: PvP to gain PvE bonuses? Yawn. Stop doing these gimmicks, they do not motivate anyone and never work as incentives.

Give back PvP to PvP. Not PvP tacked on PvE. Give us world conquest and territory control.

EDIT: And I was wrong. They are going to use even a third idea about adding a RTS layer on the world PvP, it seems. And with this, they basically made my “dream mmorpg”. Still assuming (and I dubt it’s likely) that they are in fact doing what I think:

I can’t give away too many details at this time but we are most assuredly NOT leaving the PvP alone. Persistence will carry over into PvP…go read the Kotaku stuff closely or find a copy of PC Gamer and you can pretty plainly see that. When Jeff Strain describes the world PvP as a “strategy game” in the Kotaku article he is talking about taking and holding territory in a persistent world. The Kotaku article is vague about this while the PC Gamer article is much more specific so if you really want to inform yourself I’d suggest grabbing a copy of PC Gamer.

Oh well

by | Leave a comment

I knew I should have closed the site when I had decided to.

If this is another bluff then I’d be glad, but for sure it’s not planned nor deliberate. So here I stop again. In the last couple of months I wrote less, but I gave up to the urge in many cases. This time I doubt I’ll write, no matter how big the news or short the comment. We’ll see. Maybe just another bluff.

I’m sorry for the few readers I have and even more sorry to see my own efforts come down to nothing.

Well, going back I’d still make the same choices. Please no comments, because after the third time they would be inappropriate.

/emo off

EDIT: So it looks like this isn’t going to be a bluff (things are unsure even for me). I take the occasion of an e-mail to repeat in short the reasons of the “I quit”, so they can stay up here.

—
I’ve written during the “original stop intention” (September 12) the reasons why I decided to stop.

It’s not because I’m not having fun anymore writing, but because I want to do it even more. I want it to lead somewhere, to be fruitful. I want to continue to learn and dedicate myself to it. I want to be part of it.

So more than a desire to do something else, I have the desire to persist. The problem here is just in the unwanted conflict between what I’d like to do and what I have to do. My “real” life asks me to betray my desires, because they lead nowhere and are that kind of childish wishes that should die as soon as possible.

I am the dreamer, I’m the one who chases the impossible. That’s why I lasted more and did much more than what was intended. But I’m also on a point where I don’t seem to have that luxury of choice anymore. I’m not anymore a kid, need to find a job, find something to do that is in the realm of “realistic” and all that. Even if it doesn’t correspond to what I want for myself.

I also don’t accept compromises. I don’t accept to write about games as an hobby. I don’t accept to do it in my spare time. I won’t let the site slowly decline because I have to do something else.

So. Or I continue (and this path seems closed now), or I betray myself.

That’s all.

Posted in: Uncategorized | Tagged:

Game Design challenge, for everyone

by | 4 Comments

Inspired by Psychochild weekly design challenges. Here’s one everyone can do.

Read the idea below (the one about the David Perry game). I just figured out that the concept has one MAJOR flaw. Figure it out what is it.

Hint: it’s about the market the game will have and it’s not a detail of game mechanics (so don’t look for exploits or incongruence, the flaw is somewhere else). The “Green Monster slogan” about “not designing a game for yourself” can also offer an hint as this flaw is an application of that rule.

Enough hints, I’ll write here the answer on Wednesday. :)

Answer –

Not really in the mood to talk today but I’ll finish this. Ubiq in the comments was the one who went nearer to what I meant. I don’t exactly agree with him because I believe in the validity of a product outside the marketing rules. Marketing rules may make a product enter the market more easily or not, but I don’t see those as determinant.

Ubiq in the past has wrote about games and localizations (for example I remember that post with the western and eastern types of castles). I’ve always criticized that position because I believe we are moving outside cultural ghettos. A franchise like Final Fantasy couldn’t be more foreign in the appeal to the western market, but today it is popular and recognized worldwide. There are of course many other examples even outside games like typical anime and manga but not limited just to the japanese culture. However it’s still valid the observation that you may “miss” on the theme if it’s not part of your culture, even if this still hasn’t stopped games like the latest Battlefield or Supreme Commander. In this case I think than more than themes that rule works for genres. It would be hard making a good JRPG for a western studios (the few I’ve seen were quite awful).

Instead the flaw I identified was about a division within. Males and females. Robots, car, machines have always been extremely male-oriented. As a kid you play with trucks, cranes, robots, muscled figures, things like that. Girls play with dolls, or at least this is the common place. Either way I doubt the gamer girl would find appealing a game about robots and mech parts. I believe that a good chunk of the potential, now dormant market is represented by those female gamers that today are increasing in number and that pretend to not be seen as weird exceptions. Hopefully till the point that we don’t even need anymore to remember that distinction.

So my idea is “guilty” of favoring just one half of the market. And, while this happens regularly, I still think it’s a relevant flaw especially for a game that is supposed to work on the “free” model, so trying to capture the attention of the casual players. A category that I believe can be also well represented by women.

Posted in: Uncategorized |