f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Warhammer Online => Topic started by: Arthur_Parker on October 17, 2008, 06:40:52 AM



Title: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 17, 2008, 06:40:52 AM
Linky (http://herald.warhammeronline.com/warherald/NewsArticle.war?id=386)

Quote from: Mark Jacobs
Folks,

   After over three years of work and one of the smoothest launches in MMORPG history, WAR is moving quickly towards the end of its first month.  This is a perfect time to take a look at where we were, where we are and where we are going.  First, on behalf of everyone at Mythic, I would like to thank you for your interest in our game.  While it is impossible for me to personally thank all 750K+ worldwide account holders, please know that we are grateful for your support to date and the support we hope you will show us in the future.  It’s been a long road to get where we are today but it has been a worthwhile journey.  While I might be tempted to say that the future’s so bright we have to wear shades, as you’ve seen from our podcasts, we’ll even wear those indoors. 

    So, as to where we are today, WAR is doing fabulously.  We are one of, if not the, fastest selling MMORPG out of the blocks and we are also one of the most highly rated MMORPGs of all time.  While the game is off to a great start, we still have a long way to go before we can declare WAR a major long-term success.  That success will only come by being focused on making a great game even better. How we are going to accomplish this begins with our first major patch (1.1), the subject of this State of the Game message.  While WAR is truly a glorious MMORPG, it is not perfect and over the last month our primary focus has been to correct bugs and tweak a few things here and there.  We’ve stayed away from major feature or career changes until we’ve had plenty of time to gather and analyze the data from our players.  Having done that, we can now move on to what we are going to do over the next couple of months, culminating with the release of patch 1.1 later this Fall.

  Let’s start with what we know is some truly exciting news.  I’m happy to announce that in December, the Black Guard and the Knight of the Blazing Sun will officially be part of WAR.  We have very special plans around their appearance and in our next newsletter we will provide full details about that exciting and rather novel event.  When they were cut from the game launch plans earlier this year, I said that the Black Guard and the Knight would be part of WAR only when they were great and deserved their place alongside all of WAR’s other compelling classes.  I also said that we would not charge any additional fees for this new content or put it in a separate expansion pack; that’s not how we operate.  We’ve kept to that plan and with the introduction of these two classes, Mythic shows that once again we are happy to keep giving players more value for their subscription dollars than any other MMORPG developer.

    Creating an MMORPG, especially an RvR-focused MMORPG, which runs perfectly on all types of PCs, is one of the most challenging technical aspects of game development.  While the performance of WAR is great on most higher spec machines, we know that we can improve its performance on lower spec machines.  We’ve been working non-stop to improve that performance and we’ve got a number of things going into the game between now and 1.1 that we expect will help to address everything from crashes to desktops (CTDs) to stuttering.  We have a number of other client changes that will improve things such as propagation and ghosting.

    Thanks in part to WAR’s success; our mail system that worked well in Beta has been straining to keep up with the heavy demand placed on it.  It’s functional and it works, but it can also be slow and cumbersome to use.  In all fairness to the team, the system’s problems have been magnified by the demand of having so many servers and players using it at the same time.  That’s not an excuse though and we are working hard on deploying a substantially improved mail system for this patch. We will continue to enhance WAR’s mail system until it is one of the best mail systems found in any MMORPG.

    Moving on to some more good news for our RvR players; we have brought additional resources to bear on, and augment, our RvR gear and overall itemization.  In 1.1 (and beyond) we will be doing a myriad of things for our RvR players, including improving gear drops, increasing drop rates, and implementing an RvR-influence system to compliment the current PvE-influence system.  We will also be giving players more incentive to engage in open RvR by improving the rewards for both assaulting and defending in RvR.  WAR is an RvR-centric game and we will continue to do whatever is necessary to encourage people to join in RvR and reward them when they do so.

   Other changes for 1.1 include major additions to the chat system (item linking and more) as well as continued work on our targeting system, including adding Main Assist and Target of Target.  In addition to the server balancing methods that have worked so well over the last week, we will also be offering the first server transfers to our players to continue to help even out the server populations.  These transfers will be free of charge but they will be limited to moves off high-population servers to select mid-population servers or off of low-population servers to a selection of mid-population servers. Much like we are doing now, we will select certain mid-population servers and let people transfer there.  Once they reach a certain population level, we’ll remove them from the list and give their spot to another server.  We will publish the list ahead of time so players can plan their moves accordingly.

   While that might seem like a lot for a month, we’re not done yet! We’ll also be adding more exciting content to the game, including fourteen entirely new quest chains, two new Lairs, and many more Tome of Knowledge unlocks!  This is only the first of what will be our ongoing content updates to WAR and it is a great start.

   So, that about wraps it up for this first annual State of the Game, so without further ado…

   Okay, so I was joking, we’re still not done.  Over the last month the team has been looking at all the careers and building up a list of issues/concerns to address.  Almost every career is going to see some changes and love coming their way and there are very, very few changes that will be seen as reductions to a career’s abilities.  The Combat and Careers team has spent the last month looking at the changes that they want to make with an eye towards making improvements and buffs, not removing or weakening abilities.  I won’t go into details here but the vast majority of careers all have nothing but love coming their way.  Of course, we will continue to monitor and track all the class data so expect, like every other MMORPG, changes to the careers to be an ongoing process.

   Well, that just about wraps my first WAR State of the Game and I hope that it has given you some insight into what we are going to be doing over the next month or so.  This is by no means a comprehensive list of everything we are working on and I won’t go anywhere near talking about general bug fixes.  The items mentioned above are just some of the highlights of our first major patch and I hope you agree that there is a ton of good stuff coming down the pipeline.

As required by lawyers everywhere, here’s the usual disclaimer that this letter is a guide to what we hope to include in this upcoming patch and not a guarantee of any kind. We are working on many things right now and my letters, as always, are just the tip of the iceberg.  Fellow WARriors, we have a lot more big surprises coming your way that I will address in my next State of the Game message and it’s going to be a doozie.

Once again, I thank you for your support, patronage and interest in WAR.

Mark Jacobs

VP, GM Mythic Entertainment

Hmm, I was hoping for some kind of "invite a friend" system to help balance the servers.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Khaldun on October 17, 2008, 06:47:12 AM
"Moving on to some more good news for our RvR players".

What other kind of players do they have? Do they seriously think there are other kinds of Warhammer players? "For our players who prefer PvE" is like McDonald's announcing a new line of fast food for vegans who only eat bok choy and lentils.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 17, 2008, 06:49:27 AM
Good to hear that the missing tanks will be coming back sooner than later and that itemization is going to be addressed. Amusing that he accidentally (?) called it "first annual State of the Game" - or is that accurate given Mythic's legendary disdain for communication?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 17, 2008, 06:51:21 AM
Good to hear that the missing tanks will be coming back sooner than later and that itemization is going to be addressed. Amusing that he accidentally (?) called it "first annual State of the Game" - or is that accurate given Mythic's legendary disdain for communication?

Somebody on vn boards mentioned something about it being once a year, I didn't see the quote myself though so I'll try to track it down.

Quote
These transfers will be free of charge but they will be limited to moves off high-population servers to select mid-population servers or off of low-population servers to a selection of mid-population servers.

Let me be the first to say server merges.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 17, 2008, 07:13:21 AM
Doesn't moving off of low pop servers seem like an idea that will make those low pop servers even worse? Unless, of course, they really mean server merges. Curious.

Adding in the new tanks? Good. Don't really care about the new lairs and Tome unlocks yet, because really... they are much less important than the RVR changes. If it means the RVR changes come quicker, forget the PVE stuff. PLEASE.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hayduke on October 17, 2008, 07:19:33 AM
Doesn't moving off of low pop servers seem like an idea that will make those low pop servers even worse? Unless, of course, they really mean server merges. Curious.

That's kind of the point of offering free transfers off those servers though isn't it?  I mean if things get worse at least you have an out now.  And it's probably for guilds and individuals if they can chose the servers they get transferred to instead of being party to a merge.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 17, 2008, 07:40:46 AM
But shouldn't everyone just be moved from High to low instead of medium? If you're going to offer moves off of low servers, you might as well just close those servers and forcibly move those communities onto medium servers, because if the lows are ghost towns NOW, wait until 1/4 of the meager population moves off of them.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 17, 2008, 07:42:15 AM
Quote
In all fairness to the team, the system’s problems have been magnified by the demand of having so many servers and players using it at the same time.


is it common to use one server to handle mail for all your game servers?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 17, 2008, 07:43:23 AM
Server mergers send a bad signal this soon after release.  Offering free character movement sounds much nicer.  

You're right Haem, consolidating wholesale is the best solution.  I think they are balking at the image it could produce.  


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arrrgh on October 17, 2008, 07:55:55 AM
Which servers are too highly populated? I'm on one of the original servers that got cloned and it could use a few more now.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: murdoc on October 17, 2008, 08:18:08 AM
No Choppa  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hayduke on October 17, 2008, 08:20:59 AM
But shouldn't everyone just be moved from High to low instead of medium? If you're going to offer moves off of low servers, you might as well just close those servers and forcibly move those communities onto medium servers, because if the lows are ghost towns NOW, wait until 1/4 of the meager population moves off of them.


Nobody wants to move from high pop to low pop.  They tried that with the clones and it just didn't work.  High to medium might not be very attractive either, but again it's an option (unnecessary though it may be).

I guess I just don't see the problem.  If I was on a ghost town server and a quarter of the people picked up and left I wouldn't be sitting on my hands bemoaning the lack of players.  I'd hit /transfer as well.  And I expect the other three quarters would do the same.  You'll have a choice where to take yourself or guild without being merged on a server you don't really want to go to.  If those servers are left with 2 holdouts running Phoenix Gate against each other, good for them, that's the choice they made and they can leave whenever they want.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 17, 2008, 08:22:29 AM
Quote
In all fairness to the team, the system’s problems have been magnified by the demand of having so many servers and players using it at the same time.


is it common to use one server to handle mail for all your game servers?

Common systems are normally a server just for it, like chat, DB, and mail AFAIK.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Brogarn on October 17, 2008, 08:23:05 AM
Server merges lead to their own set of problems and don't always guarantee proper population balance. At least this is what I've been witness to in the past when having been a part of a merger. I like it this way because you're not forced to join with another specific server but can freely choose your destination (obviously within limits) or choose not to transfer at all..

I think it's worth a try anyways and if it doesn't work, then they'll either have to make up something else or go with server mergers at that time. I'm also positive this is an attempt to avoid saying those dreaded words of "server merge". I'm cool with having the choice, though.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Brogarn on October 17, 2008, 08:23:43 AM
GAH! Fail on my part. Hit quote instead of modify.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 17, 2008, 08:36:17 AM
linky (http://vnboards.ign.com/Message.aspx?topic=109029595&brd=22997&start=109031274)

Quote from: MarkJacobsEA
Folks,

Well, thanks everyone for having the reaction I thought you all would:

1) Trolls - OMG, is this all there is? WTF, addition of two new classes, new content, new influence system, mail system fix, class balances and more, to the game? Is that all you guys can deliver in a month? Yawn

2) Objective folks - Sounds good but still need to deliver on it as well as the other issues with the game!

3) Fans - YIPEE!

So, to the trolls, well, you've shown why you should continue to be ignored here. Please show me another MMORPG which has added new classes to the game without charging the players through an expansion pack. I can't think of one right now but even if there is one that I am forgetting, the vast majority don't. I made a promise that when we cut the content, that it would come back as part of the ongoing patches and not charge players. I'm not surprised that the people who said that when we cut it out, that Mythic would bring it back and charge for it. Well, I kept my promise and I seriously doubt that any of the people who said we were going to charge for it will have the decency to admit they were wrong about me/Mythic once again.

As to the objective folks and the fans, well, this is only part of what will be in 1.1 but we will continue to patch as quickly as we have been the last week. We've already got 1.0.4 in the hopper and I hope we will be able to continue to do a patch a week until 1.1. We have a lot more going in during this time and over the coming weeks I'll talk about our other longer term objectives for the game. We have a lot to talk about and this is only the beginning of some major additions we are going to be making to the game.

As to not going into a lot of detail about the classes or the event surrounding that introduction, we'll be doing that in our next newsletter.   My SoGs are not intended to go into great detail about every thing in them. Since the DAoC days I have been using them to present an overview of the game in terms of where it stands and where we hope to go with it in the near future. They are not intended to be War and Peace, but simply as the title says "State of the Game."

So, expect a lot more from us over the coming weeks in terms of patches, bug fixes, balancing, etc. We're in this for the long haul and as I said in an interview yesterday, success in the MMO world should be seen as a marathon and not a sprint. We're off to a great start but we're not there yet. No successful MMORPG hit its peak within the first year, let alone the first month and that's the approach we're taking with WAR. Tons of new stuff coming and I expect to do more SoGs in the next 9 months to talk about them.

Mark

Mark needs to chill out a bit.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 17, 2008, 08:38:14 AM
I'm having many flashbacks to 6 years ago.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HRose on October 17, 2008, 08:40:03 AM
Ugh. I was really expecting something interesting.

Instead now I know now I'll wait two full months to get new classes I couldn't care less and better loot, that sits at the very, very bottom of my list of priorities.

The only hope is Open RvR, and even there he made sure to not say anything concrete. Nor anything about when we can expect SOMETHING.

For those players who were on the brink of canceling I don't think this message will do any good. It basically says: we are doing great and continue doing what we've been doing. No surprises.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 17, 2008, 08:41:35 AM
He needs to stop talking.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 17, 2008, 08:46:18 AM
He needs to stop talking.

Lum needs new material, for the children.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 17, 2008, 09:07:34 AM
Quote from: MarkJacobsEA
Please show me another MMORPG which has added new classes to the game without charging the players through an expansion pack.

Horizons. Yeah, that's not the best company to be keeping there. Hey, he asked.


is it common to use one server to handle mail for all your game servers?

There's no reason that you can't. If you were considering the number of simultaneous users that WoW China or Lineage Korea has, you might want to distribute it or build a cluster to allow you to use commodity hardware and simpler storage solutions. I've built bigger mail systems that handle more users than than WAR's before - the tools are fairly trivial to implement even on monolithic mainframe and minicomputer systems. The. Speed. Of. WAR's. Mail. Suggests... ... ... That. They... Are. Constrained. By. Database... Writes. Or. Something... Equally. Ugly.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 17, 2008, 09:22:20 AM
Quote from: MarkJacobsEA
Please show me another MMORPG which has added new classes to the game without charging the players through an expansion pack.

Horizons. Yeah, that's not the best company to be keeping there. Hey, he asked.

Also the classes were just getting finished off, not made from scratch for free (WaR).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: fuser on October 17, 2008, 09:26:52 AM
Quote from: MarkJacobsEA
Please show me another MMORPG which has added new classes to the game without charging the players through an expansion pack.

Horizons. Yeah, that's not the best company to be keeping there. Hey, he asked.

EQ2 Frogloks, that wasn't an expansion was it? nevermind


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 17, 2008, 09:33:19 AM
Quote
"I also said that we would not charge any additional fees for this new content or put it in a separate expansion pack; that’s not how we operate. We’ve kept to that plan and with the introduction of these two classes, Mythic shows that once again we are happy to keep giving players more value for their subscription dollars than any other MMORPG developer."

Mythic has to be real careful saying that.  The company that wins HANDS DOWN for added content free of charge is Turbine with LOTRO.  This content they are adding was taken out before release because it wasn't ready and everyone knows that.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 17, 2008, 09:41:46 AM
Wasn't there like 600k people in the beta? Considering how close that is to 750k, you've got (again, since I said this earlier) a lot of people who know that a lot of the future features announced were those always planned and in some cases half done but cut. So when MJ gets called on this, it isn't because "trolls" are disappointed there's not more. It's because they're not seeing actual current issues being specifically mentioned as being specifically addressed.

I feel for MJ but agree with others here. Do NOT get in an internet argument, particularly when you don't have o-boards. You'll never convince anyone, and your redname posts will always be bug lights by nature. It's not worth your stress nor potential brand/IP/company dilution.

It's too early to talk server merges. While I've never felt an MMO is a good holiday gift, WAR is the only one with a good shot of benefitting from a big uptick between now and Christmas. As such, they could still break the million-person actual paying subscriber mark, which could change the face of the game a bit. Already their character creation screen is pretty aggressive at recommending servers and factions. If they can get a surge of new invites that are coming alone or in small groups, maybe they can hope to funnel people the right way.

If not though, then they're really going to need to make some unpopular population balancing tricks. Otherwise they'll fall into the old school trap of 27 different rules-type servers and further player compartmentalization at odds with a type of game that requires funneling to let players do what they've come here for.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 17, 2008, 09:51:43 AM
Few things.

First off WAR is not getting a million subs ANY time soon. The very fact MJ is so unhinged makes me believe that they have already started to hemmorage from that 750k instead of seeing steady growth. Not that 300-500k isn't a respectable number but I bet you MJ thought 1mil was gonna be easy.  You know for all the talk of "blizzard really grew the industry" I think other developers think they can just put out the same medium-rare mmo's and print money hats cause the industry grew. What's funny is it didn't grow as much as they thought it did and if you want 1mil+ subs you will have to *gasp* make an awesome game. Warhammer is a good game but it's simply NOT an awesome one.

This part really pisses me off the more I think about it, MJ's comment about trolls. You know who complains about your game the most? The fucking paying customers of it. Those statements about trolls/playa hatas are speaking directly to YOUR customer base you fucking douche. Maybe people are passionate about things and yeah maybe they rag on it but it's because they want to keep giving YOU money. The unmitigated nerve or perhaps ignorance it took to make those statements appalls me.

Just go home Mark, the internet is not for you.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HRose on October 17, 2008, 10:04:08 AM
Hey, let's remember he fired IainC because he spoke the truth to the paying customers.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: kaid on October 17, 2008, 10:11:15 AM
I am glad to see at least the tanks are getting put back in. Right now in a lot of BG teams have some problems pushing to flags because 80 percent  of the people are healers and ranged nukers. We need more melee folks to push the pile so any new melee classes are good things.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 17, 2008, 10:17:01 AM
I'm having many flashbacks to 6 years ago.

I'm getting that sinking feeling of deja vu when I think about all those "State of the Game" addresses that promised playable mounts right around the corner.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Evildrider on October 17, 2008, 10:20:08 AM
Quote from: MarkJacobsEA
Please show me another MMORPG which has added new classes to the game without charging the players through an expansion pack.

Horizons. Yeah, that's not the best company to be keeping there. Hey, he asked.

Hey DDO added the Monk and are planning to add the Druid for free... they will also have about 3 new races in since launch by next year.  As a matter of fact they haven't charged for any of the content they have added since launch beyond the regular monthly fee.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Evildrider on October 17, 2008, 10:21:18 AM
Quote
"I also said that we would not charge any additional fees for this new content or put it in a separate expansion pack; that’s not how we operate. We’ve kept to that plan and with the introduction of these two classes, Mythic shows that once again we are happy to keep giving players more value for their subscription dollars than any other MMORPG developer."

Mythic has to be real careful saying that.  The company that wins HANDS DOWN for added content free of charge is Turbine with LOTRO.  This content they are adding was taken out before release because it wasn't ready and everyone knows that.

I think that's just Turbine's business model.  They do add alot of content to their games free of charge.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 17, 2008, 10:29:36 AM
You know for all the talk of "blizzard really grew the industry" I think other developers think they can just put out the same medium-rare mmo's and print money hats cause the industry grew.

Yep. The part that some of these people miss is that WoW's "growth" is predominantly in the Far East. They grew NA and EU a lot more than SOE did before them, but it wasn't like EQ1s 525k to WoW's 11mil and therefore there's 10mil people up for grabs. Part of the expense of these games is all of the relationships needed to launch in all of the same countries WoW is. I don't see anyone doing that anytime soon.

A million subs is still today what a million subs used to be if you're just talking NA and EU launches. Therefore, as you said, even "just" 500k is huge for a second to fourth place title.

I think the part that might be tweaking Mythic more is that at this point the number they can float isn't that much more than what AoC could brag about for a brief period. THAT has got to inspire a "get off my lawn kid" McCain-to-Obama feeling for a company who's first launch such an abject trainwreck (AoC by comparison was so very not a wreck).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 17, 2008, 10:37:39 AM
Quote
"I also said that we would not charge any additional fees for this new content or put it in a separate expansion pack; that’s not how we operate. We’ve kept to that plan and with the introduction of these two classes, Mythic shows that once again we are happy to keep giving players more value for their subscription dollars than any other MMORPG developer."

Mythic has to be real careful saying that.  The company that wins HANDS DOWN for added content free of charge is Turbine with LOTRO.  This content they are adding was taken out before release because it wasn't ready and everyone knows that.

I think that's just Turbine's business model.  They do add alot of content to their games free of charge.

Its also because of the incredible asset design. Bree town is brilliantly constructed.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Evildrider on October 17, 2008, 10:41:17 AM
I never played AC or AC2 but I'm a pretty big fanboy of Turbine after my experiences in LOTRO and DDO.  DDO's content may be on the slow side, but it's also a niche game without a huge playerbase.  Yet they continue to support and add to the game every few months.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Threash on October 17, 2008, 11:17:16 AM
Quote
In all fairness to the team, the system’s problems have been magnified by the demand of having so many servers and players using it at the same time

Who could have ever expected customers.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tazelbain on October 17, 2008, 11:57:16 AM
The general opinion is turning against WAR.  Mythic needs to do something drastic ASAP while players are still looking their way.  They need to learn from LotRO/CoH/DAoC/EQ2 and fix things sooner rather than later.  These games have made great changes to make them on par or better than WoW in many ways.  But these changes came long after the popular opinion solidified against them and only the die-hards noticed. Even if all the issues for WAR are resolved by this coming spring, it'll be far to late.

Tripling the xp from RvR may not be best solution, but they can implement it today, it could get people attentions focused back on WAR and be a good stop gap until their real solution is ready.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 17, 2008, 12:05:51 PM
Mythic has to be real careful saying that.  The company that wins HANDS DOWN for added content free of charge is Turbine with LOTRO.  This content they are adding was taken out before release because it wasn't ready and everyone knows that.
CoX, too.

I'm happy about the addition of the tank classes, since I prefer durable over pew-pew-boom and the missing third of the Holy Trinity is one of my gripes, but yeah,  Jacobs needs to give Lum less material.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Montague on October 17, 2008, 12:13:54 PM
From Lum's blog, quoting MBJ:

Quote
“The corollary to that is if you’ve seen a game consolidate servers, you know it’s in deep, deep trouble — that’s not a healthy sign for an MMO,” he said, citing Sony’s January-released “Pirates of the Burning Sea” as a recent example. “It will be the same for ‘Warhammer.’ Look at us six months out. Look at us six weeks out. If we’re not adding servers, we’re not doing well.”

Whooops...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 17, 2008, 12:16:32 PM
I think the part that might be tweaking Mythic more is that at this point the number they can float isn't that much more than what AoC could brag about for a brief period. THAT has got to inspire a "get off my lawn kid" McCain-to-Obama feeling for a company who's first launch such an abject trainwreck (AoC by comparison was so very not a wreck).
Jacobs has been very open about expecting WAR to easily have 500k subscribers.  I'm guessing between current retention, WotLK releasing next month, and knowledge of how long it takes to patch things in, he's a bit nervous about maintaining that right now.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nevermore on October 17, 2008, 12:46:04 PM
Quote from: MarkJacobsEA
Folks,

Please show me another MMORPG which has added new classes to the game without charging the players through an expansion pack.

City of Heroes, you fucking drama queen.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ingmar on October 17, 2008, 12:47:23 PM
DDO just added monks too.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 17, 2008, 12:59:53 PM
Quote from: Mark Jacobs
- smoothest launches in MMORPG history
- the future’s so bright we have to wear shades 
- WAR is doing fabulously
- fastest selling MMORPG out of the blocks
- most highly rated MMORPGs of all time 
- WAR is truly a glorious MMORPG
- giving players more value for their subscription dollars than any other MMORPG developer
- performance of WAR is great on most higher spec machines
- enhance WAR’s mail system until it is one of the best mail systems found in any MMORPG
- ongoing content updates to WAR and it is a great start.
- a ton of good stuff coming down the pipeline.
- it’s going to be a doozie.

I've isolated the parts of the State of the Game that jumped out to me. The whole time I'm reading the message, I can't get the ridiculous hyperbole out of my mind. It sort of overshadowed the improvement message with a theme that "EVERYTHING IS FINE, IT'S GREAT, YOU ALL LOVE IT!"


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Soukyan on October 17, 2008, 01:08:26 PM
From the sounds of it, WAR will follow roughly the same development as DAoC. There are a lot of bugs and incomplete systems, missing classes (which were promised and revoked), other mechanics needing adjustment. In about six months, WAR will be at its prime.

Regarding the whole "free" classes thing, I think it's funny. Mythic took them away pre-release and is now selling it as free content. Umm, no. You do not remove content and then put it back in with some marketing fanfare. I'd like to think we're not that stupid.

If they were to charge for the classes, there would be an uproar from the players. That's really why they are free. But what do I know. I hung up my MMOG hat a while ago. Back to cleaning the litter boxes I go.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Soln on October 17, 2008, 01:20:26 PM
EA needs to replace Jacobs ASAP.  He delivered and that's really it.  He shouldn't be left to manage this service now.  And certainly not keep being the mouthpiece for it. 

Jacobs is still stuck in 1998 and doesn't get current expectations for consumers. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 17, 2008, 01:41:53 PM
Quote
"I also said that we would not charge any additional fees for this new content or put it in a separate expansion pack; that’s not how we operate. We’ve kept to that plan and with the introduction of these two classes, Mythic shows that once again we are happy to keep giving players more value for their subscription dollars than any other MMORPG developer."

Mythic has to be real careful saying that.  The company that wins HANDS DOWN for added content free of charge is Turbine with LOTRO.  This content they are adding was taken out before release because it wasn't ready and everyone knows that.

CoX has a bid for that as well. And they ALSO added archetypes (the goofy alien one) free of charge, so there goes the OMG BUT IT'S CLASSES winging. I'd say LotRO adding more things to play in their wacky PvP counts too. :P


EDIT: I should probably read the entire thread before posting, huh.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Draegan on October 17, 2008, 01:42:11 PM
Last two nights have had horrible queue times in T3.  My server went from High/High to Med/Med.  Damn WOW 3.0


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 17, 2008, 01:53:48 PM
Last two nights have had horrible queue times in T3.  My server went from High/High to Med/Med.  Damn WOW 3.0

That's just the patch too, imagine the expansion...MJ is.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: d4rkj3di on October 17, 2008, 02:25:48 PM
Wait, IainC got fired?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nija on October 17, 2008, 02:28:11 PM
Last two nights have had horrible queue times in T3.  My server went from High/High to Med/Med.  Damn WOW 3.0

The past two nights on my server, Praag, there have been fuckin' enormous RVR lake battles at and around Keeps. Mostly Avelorn.

While you're picking your ass up there at the warcamp, look at the map.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: IainC on October 17, 2008, 02:39:09 PM
Wait, IainC got fired?
No.
And that's the only comment I can make on the subject.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Phunked on October 17, 2008, 03:02:25 PM
So MJ is butthurt again because his game isn't capable of beating the other game that's in the MMO market because that other game does pretty much everything with more polish than WAR.

Face it, all we want it the RvR. If I want PvE I'll play EQ2/WoW/LOTRO for fuck's sake.

Polish the shit out of the RvR, cut all other systems. Add them in if you want at a very slow pace as they become polished. No, then we won't be getting the full MMO experience, but what we will be getting will be very good. As it stands now, we don't get a full MMO experience either, and what we get is passable in some places, decent in others and terrible in the rest.

Face it MJ; YOU NEED TO MAKE A GAME THAT'S FUN NOW, NOT FUN IF IT CAME OUT FOUR YEARS AGO.

Current WoW is not the same game as the release WoW. Release WoW wasn't as good. WAR is probably a bit better than release WoW. Current WoW is substantially better in a lot of aspects than current WAR.

I know you stole systems almost completely. Why couldn't you just steal them right? Hell, that's pretty much all Blizzard does, and they have the money hats.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ingmar on October 17, 2008, 05:17:42 PM
It occurs to me PotBS is also adding 2 new classes for free.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on October 17, 2008, 05:24:17 PM
Quote
Please show me another MMORPG which has added new classes to the game without charging the players through an expansion pack. I can't think of one right now but even if there is one that I am forgetting, the vast majority don't.
City of Heroes did (Kheldians in Issue 3).

Edit: whoops, dup


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nevermore on October 17, 2008, 06:15:31 PM
Also: Soldiers of Arachnos

And as someone else already pointed out, it doesn't count when all you're doing is putting back in classes you had earlier yanked out.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kageru on October 17, 2008, 06:43:07 PM

Adding new classes would seem to be a bit less tempting when the game is based around having a large player population at your level. That would restrict you to levelling via PvE which I believe is somewhat short on the "fun". Of course new players who missed the initial population surge are probably experiencing the same. I can't see this helping them attract and retain population.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 17, 2008, 07:58:33 PM
He needs to stop talking.

New classes? He's not introducing the fucking Death Knight or something that was unplanned from release. He only cut those classes like 2 months ago. edit - ok, I see a bunch of others picked up on this and posted as such as well before I got on today.

Also, he really needs to stop talking. He's turning into Smed.


Last two nights have had horrible queue times in T3.  My server went from High/High to Med/Med.  Damn WOW 3.0

That's just the patch too, imagine the expansion...MJ is.

WotLK is going to annihilate WAR.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arrrgh on October 17, 2008, 09:42:35 PM
DDO just added monks too.

Gnome monks?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Triforcer on October 17, 2008, 09:56:40 PM
EMERGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT:  ATTENTION CHILDREN, ALL IS WELL IN THE SCHOOL.  MY AUTHORITY AS PRINCIPAL IS TOTAL. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 17, 2008, 10:38:29 PM
So, let me get this straight.  I've got the COO of the major competitor saying things that make it *look* like 1/2 of our players have left (which is ridiculously untrue), talks about our European launch being bad (oh yeah, WoW's launch in NA and Europe was flawless right?)  while his game director spins BS about how the way Blizzard runs its beta shows its confidence in the game (forgetting of course the large internal alpha with paid employees that the games goes through and only then has a short public beta) while our beta, which has the general public in it for years, shows our lack of confidence.  He then goes on to say that "he's thinking of quitting our game" (and by inference, saying that other players might want to as well) and that our interface looks like his (forgetting how many interfaces were done before WoW) and generally pissing on our game and when I respond, I'm the jackass?  I had the following choices:

1) Say nothing - Of course, by saying nothing I validate Paul Sams' (COO) comments about our numbers and the Internet would have been full of "Blizzard must be right, no response from Mythic" and then I would have to explain to EA why I didn't respond (which I have in a followup interview with GamesIndustry) and if its true (which its not).  In terms of Kaplan's comments, sure, I could have said nothing about them but again, people would have wondered why I said nothing.   

2) Come out with guns blazing - By doing so I expected to get slammed in certain places (no surprise) but at least I get to respond.  Of course, the only comments I made were on the Vault and to the reporter when she called me up and asked if I wanted to comment.  I did not post anything on my blog, didn't go all over the Internet posting the same stuff but simply responded to a thread on the *one* place where I'm spending my time right now.

3) Come out but a bit more gently - Possibly but I'm sorry, I care about my game and since I do admit when we screw up or something isn't working, I also feel I have the right to defend it myself.  If I let a CM or PR person do that, places like this would, of course be saying, that's just the PR flack/CM doing his/her job and, probably, the same line about it being true because after all, if it wasn't true why would they send the poor CM/PR guy out to take the heat.

In terms of whether I should be doing this or not, or how EA feels, well, since I talked to them before I responded, I know that they are fine with it.  This gets back to the whole "Shouldn't a CM do this stuff" stuff and no, I don't think so.  Our CMs are already doing more on WAR than they did at launch but when it comes to stuff like this, I expect to take the lead and the heat for it if I screw up.  I'm not going to throw Bob or Missy out there to respond to this type of stuff because I don't want them to have to take the heat if something goes wrong or have abuse heaped on them because they couldn't say much without risk.  I could frankly care less about the publicity since I'm neither a conference-whore (I barely go to one a year anymore and at most ever went to 3 a year) or press-whore and as the development of WAR has shown, guys like Paul, Jeff and Josh have spent like 10x the time I have in the spotlight.  And if you go back to DAoC, well, this is the exact opposite of how things were then in terms of publicity as Matt and I and Sanya really did almost all of the press stuff.  And certainly if you go back to my older posts early in the DAoC days, I was more outspoken, vocal and absolutely was willing to get into a tussle with people but how often have I done that in the last say, 5 years?

And for those that say I should always just keep my mouth shut, even when competitors (or people) say things that are wrong about us.  Ask yourself how you would feel if you or something you cared about was getting attacked unfairly?  Would you sit back and never say anything about it?   Would you simply ignore it and move on?  Maybe some of you would but that's not how I am.  I usually go out of my way to praise most other games and developers  (with a few well known exceptions) as I did today in 2 separate interviews.

In terms of me having a thin skin, LOL.  In the 20+ years I've been making games, I've been called more obscene things, accused of being responsible for every thing that went wrong in DAoC (even when I wasn't involved in the game at all after a few years because of Imperator or WAR), blamed for the state UO is in (except thatEA wanted to shut down UO when they gave it to us but I convinced them to spend more money on the game), gotten death threats (and had to call in the FBI), told that I should "shut up and die" more times than I can remember, criticized because I want to start a blog, had someone wish that my son and I should die in a car accident because we changed how one of the classes in DAOC worked, get hate mail on said blog (I know, I expected it) and my personal email constantly and generally blamed whenever possible for everything that is wrong in Mythic, Imperator, WAR, DAoC, UO, etc. and I almost always (especially nowadays) ignore them.  I'm not saying this to be whiny or complain but simply to point out that when some people say I have a thin skin that I ignore 99% of the things that are said about me and Mythic especially when they are said by anonymous posters on the Internet so my skin can't be that thin.  And BTW, when things did go wrong with those games, I took full responsibility for it because as CEO/GM both externally and internally at EA as well, because I consider it part of my job (even if I had nothing to do with the decision at any level like changes to classes past a certain point or statements made by Mythic guys) unlike many both in our industry and in our world who never take responsibility.  And somehow, some say I should say nothing ever in response and that I have a thin skin when I respond once in a blue moon.  I'm not expecting one iota of pity or sympathy for that stuff because I know as the frontman for Mythic, I'm going to take the heat but not being able to say anything, ever?  That's not fair and it is a double-standard. 

So, I'm sure I'm going to get flamed here by some of you as well.  But I'll say the same thing I said years ago and that is why is it okay when everyone else can say whatever they want here and in other places (no matter how untrue, vulgar or rude) about me, Mythic, WAR, DAoC, life, etc. without consequence but when I express an opinion or respond in any way, I get flamed for it.  And before anyone says "Because you're GM of EA" the same thing held true when I was head of a company that had a few employees and I was probably making less than the a assistant manager at a fast food restaurant.

Mark

P.S. And in terms of the added classes to a couple of other games, I honestly didn't know that and nobody pointed that out to me either unfortunately.  I'll correct the SoG because if it's more than one, which it certainly appears to be, then I really should change my statement even though I had a bit of a disclaimer on purpose in regards to that statement itself.  As to whether they were cut and should have been added, well, my point was that when we cut them, there were a lot of posts on the WHA and Vault that we were going to save them for an expansion and then charge for them "because that's what Mythic does!!!"  and "Mythic is greedy!" were the standard lines. I think I was well within my rights to be proud that we didn't do that.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: rk47 on October 17, 2008, 10:44:29 PM
How do you solve this Mark?
5 orders cap BO : 800 RP each  / Total 4000
30 destro caps BO :800 RP each / Total 24000


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 17, 2008, 10:49:55 PM
I have no way to be kind about this, so I'll just spit it out.

The EXP grind post-20 to get to 40 and only worry about PVP/Renown is mind-numbing and worse than anything CoH ever threw at it's users. The tiered beta testing, unfortunately, had no way of really revealing that and the open beta wasn't long enough. And those that realized it figured out how to AoE grind before you fixed it. The level disparity, populations, and BLARGH HORRIBLE CRAP SHIT PvE really buggers up the whole equation.

</insanity>

The changes being made and the fixes being applied are not playing enough to the game's stronger qualities. Please revert your attention to shortening the road to 40 and making the journey a leisurely one instead of a head-banging-against-concrete uphill battle against the EXP bar.

Also:
1. Too many scenarios.
2. Too many RvR lakes.
3. Too many ways to split apart the playerbase.
4. Not enough ways to bring them together and focus on the PvP.
5. Someone needs to get punched for 90% of the scenarios, just say the name.

Edit: I feel like I've typed all of this before. Oh, I have, in like 50 threads. /sigh Oh, and NEVER ask the Vault for anything. Christ, they advertise your competitors over there. It's a cess pit. WHA or in Game, thx.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 17, 2008, 11:05:27 PM
I have no way to be kind about this, so I'll just spit it out.

The EXP grind post-20 to get to 40 and only worry about PVP/Renown is mind-numbing and worse than anything CoH ever threw at it's users. The tiered beta testing, unfortunately, had no way of really revealing that and the open beta wasn't long enough. And those that realized it figured out how to AoE grind before you fixed it. The level disparity, populations, and BLARGH HORRIBLE CRAP SHIT PvE really buggers up the whole equation.

</insanity>

The changes being made and the fixes being applied are not playing enough to the game's stronger qualities. Please revert your attention to shortening the road to 40 and making the journey a leisurely one instead of a head-banging-against-concrete uphill battle against the EXP bar.

Also:
1. Too many scenarios.
2. Too many RvR lakes.
3. Too many ways to split apart the playerbase.
4. Not enough ways to bring them together and focus on the PvP.
5. Someone needs to get punched for 90% of the scenarios, just say the name.

Edit: I feel like I've typed all of this before. Oh, I have, in like 50 threads. /sigh Oh, and NEVER ask the Vault for anything. Christ, they advertise your competitors over there. It's a cess pit. WHA or in Game, thx.

I don't disagree with some of the things you are saying and we are taking a serious look at pretty much all of your points and already taking action on some.  I would try to spend more time here but as this thread proves, it wouldn't be much better here once it was known I was spending time here.  As you know the SoG is meant to be short, sweet and deal with only a handful of issues.  It is not meant to cover all the issues that the game has or even all the things we are working on.  Every time I talk about what we might do, that automatically becomes what we will do and then if we don't do it, well, it's Bash Mythic time so I've learned to keep things like the SoG as short and yes, predictable, as possible.

Oh, and BTW, the Vault folks have been extremely helpful in finding bugs very quickly.  The Vault is not perfect, has plenty of trolls but has a dedicated core of people who are happy to tell me about bugs and issues and I can't count the number of times that they have pointed out new bugs.   Of course, they also have their "Nerf every class but mine!" folks but there are some really good posters there and the mods are trying hard to keep the signal to noise down to a dull roar.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Evildrider on October 17, 2008, 11:07:03 PM
Omg..

Please fix Electromagnet and Rift so they can't be used to pull defenders through the keep doors.  That is just absolutely retarded. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Wasted on October 17, 2008, 11:09:21 PM
I think most people would sympathise with the amount of internet retardation you are exposed to Mark, the message still remains though - play it cool.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 17, 2008, 11:13:18 PM
You seem to think this is about bashing Mythic. No, not really, this is about getting as many people to 40 as possible so the full populations of servers can take part in the best part of the game. Sure, it doesn't help that the vast majority of the scenarios are only exciting to those who drool when they hear a bell, but at the same time. Well, hell. If you can datamine a specific character, go ahead and scrape Tryst. See how many times I ran Mourkain and then Tor Anroc and then (now) Serpent's Passage, just to get through the end of t2/t3 and as I trodge through tier 4. It's fucking harsh man and the last thing I'd want to be compared to is City of Heroes - fortunately you have an interesting endgame whereas they had and still have a nebulous factory for me to fuck up Cloned Thug B with a pipe wrench or whatthefuckever.

Basically, apologize to your quest writers, PvE folks, and such for me - but it's all crap keeping me and everyone else from getting to the Awesome. And have someone reitemize the stats on uhhhh everything?

In other words, find bugs, sploits and stopping gold sellers and finding out where things need to be nerfed and attempting to find out what's missing from the game is fine and all - but if the churn on players that keep their already 40 AOE grind characters vs the number of people that leave once they start troding through the 30s is out of wack, well the problem explains itself. I'm sure you all have the metrics, but I can tell you first hand that the PvE is like, 1/1,000,000th as fun as the PvP. Which is a good thing for the design and a terrible thing for the execution and presumably subscription base once WotLK drops.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 17, 2008, 11:35:27 PM
You seem to think this is about bashing Mythic. No, not really, this is about getting as many people to 40 as possible so the full populations of servers can take part in the best part of the game. Sure, it doesn't help that the vast majority of the scenarios are only exciting to those who drool when they hear a bell, but at the same time. Well, hell. If you can datamine a specific character, go ahead and scrape Tryst. See how many times I ran Mourkain and then Tor Anroc and then (now) Serpent's Passage, just to get through the end of t2/t3 and as I trodge through tier 4. It's fucking harsh man and the last thing I'd want to be compared to is City of Heroes - fortunately you have an interesting endgame whereas they had and still have a nebulous factory for me to fuck up Cloned Thug B with a pipe wrench or whatthefuckever.

Basically, apologize to your quest writers, PvE folks, and such for me - but it's all crap keeping me and everyone else from getting to the Awesome. And have someone reitemize the stats on uhhhh everything?

In other words, find bugs, sploits and stopping gold sellers and finding out where things need to be nerfed and attempting to find out what's missing from the game is fine and all - but if the churn on players that keep their already 40 AOE grind characters vs the number of people that leave once they start troding through the 30s is out of wack, well the problem explains itself. I'm sure you all have the metrics, but I can tell you first hand that the PvE is like, 1/1,000,000th as fun as the PvP. Which is a good thing for the design and a terrible thing for the execution and presumably subscription base once WotLK drops.

Hey, now who's being sensitive guy?  I never thought you were bashing Mythic with what you said.  I know you mean it and you care.  I honestly don't know why you think I thought you were bashing us?

My comment on this thread was just the personal stuff about me.  Say whatever you like about the game that you think can help, it doesn't bother me.  What did bother me was the attitude of "Jacobs is a XXXX" stuff just because I stand up and respond to a fellow developer and his COO who's talking trash about our game.  If I had jumped down the throat of a player posting on the boards about why he didn't like the game, well, then I would be worthy of some fair amount of ridicule but to say I can't respond or when I do, I'm mocked when the response is to another developer (especially if they might be other reasons behind the comments) or company, just feels wrong to me.  And I am a little steamed that everyone seems to forget all the extremely nice things I've said about the competition, time and again, even though it's been suggested to me over the years by PR and management, that I should never say anything nice about the competition.  That frustrates me too since if you counted the number of times I've said something bad about a competitor versus the number of times I said nice things (or even done nice things to help them) the scales would be so unbelievably unbalanced on the side of being the nice guy versus being the jerk.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 17, 2008, 11:42:42 PM
Mark,

So, it's REALLY obvious you're passionate about Warhammer. Which is entirely justified. In many ways it's your baby.

Doesn't that mean you should NOT be the one responding to various slings and arrows about it in public?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 17, 2008, 11:45:07 PM
I think most people would sympathise with the amount of internet retardation you are exposed to Mark, the message still remains though - play it cool.

And I do, 99.9% of the time when it is a user or forum warrior but in this case it was different, it was the COO/Game Director of our #1 competitor.  That makes it a very different situation in my eyes and the few times I've said something uncomplimentary about another game/company, I would have no problem if the other guy responded.  A good example of this is when I made my comments about EQBay.  John responded publicly and then he and I talked and we're still on good terms.  If I make comments about something or somebody, I'm fair game for them to respond to and I won't get all pissy about it.  

But honestly, I don't think that all of you do know just how much IR I've seen over the years and totally ignored.  I've learned a lot over the years contrary to what some people have said.  Again, it's not a plea for sympathy but simply a defense to the whole thin skin thing.  And in this case what really pissed me off was because of all the nice things I've said about WoW and Blizzard over the years and the fact that we let them visit our shop and talk to us about our tech and about launching MMOs as well as some conversations I had with the VUG CEO about Blizzard/WoW when we were working with VUG.  It just felt like a really crappy move to me and it did rile me up quite a bit but there was more to the story than just the comments.  

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 17, 2008, 11:53:34 PM
Mark,

So, it's REALLY obvious you're passionate about Warhammer. Which is entirely justified. In many ways it's your baby.

Doesn't that mean you should NOT be the one responding to various slings and arrows about it in public?

When it comes to slings/arrows from a competitor, no Scott, I think I really do need to be the one.  I'm not going to put Bob/Missy/James on the frontline when it comes to responding to a competitor, that can be a very dangerous career move and if someone is going to mess it up, I'd rather it be me than them.  In terms of on the boards, yes, it should be the CMs now that we've launched and they are already starting to take a bigger role but we are doing it slowly.  I expect that by next year I won't be posting much on the forums and I will let the CMs do their jobs.  Since you know what I've said on the Vault, the attitude I take towards the guys on the forums is very different than I took with Kaplan and Sams.  Other than the occasional troll comment or when I know someone is lying and I can prove it, I don't get very angry in the way I did at the Blizzard guys.  And I like talking to the players because I do believe that they have something useful to add to the process but unlike with DAoC, we have the tools that we didn't have then to look at what is really going on with the game and not just react to what people are saying on the boards.  And as GM of Mythic, when I say to the players that we intend to do something, most of them take that seriously.  And if we are wrong or have to admit a mistake, I don't send the CMs in to clean up our mess, I take the heat myself.

Does that make sense?

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 17, 2008, 11:56:56 PM
I don't understand why it matters who said what.

I mean, so what, the guy is a dick. A rich dick with a game that has 10M subs. He can say whatever he wants, he's the king of the castle and his players don't care if he's crapping on the competition. He could say just about anything and not hurt his game. In fact, it's probably in his best interest to shit on other titles/companies in terms of being the BIGGEST MEAN BULLY on the block.

At the same time, he is just another dick on the internet. It doesn't matter if it's a CEO or a QA guy or a CRM or a forum member going around flame warrioring it up. They're still just assholes on the net.

Aren't there more pressing matters than even wasting a breath on that schmuck let alone the written word?

Also: Just because I posted again, let me reiterate - the PvE grind is crap. Kill it with the fire of a thousand suns.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 17, 2008, 11:59:01 PM
Oh, and by more important matters I mean the first day subs are due for the game. As in the day that's REALLY the most important day for any MMORPG? :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 12:04:08 AM
I don't understand why it matters who said what.

I mean, so what, the guy is a dick. A rich dick with a game that has 10M subs. He can say whatever he wants, he's the king of the castle and his players don't care if he's crapping on the competition. He could say just about anything and not hurt his game. In fact, it's probably in his best interest to shit on other titles/companies in terms of being the BIGGEST MEAN BULLY on the block.

At the same time, he is just another dick on the internet. It doesn't matter if it's a CEO or a QA guy or a CRM or a forum member going around flame warrioring it up. They're still just assholes on the net.

Aren't there more pressing matters than even wasting a breath on that schmuck let alone the written word?

Also: Just because I posted again, let me reiterate - the PvE grind is crap. Kill it with the fire of a thousand suns.

If he had posted on his own forums, I wouldn't have said anything but the comments were in two industry publications which means it's not only fair game but also material that will get back to EA's management and investors.  Both Activision and EA are publicly traded companies and as such, executives of the game need to be a bit more careful about what they say about a competitor.   I don't want to say "I had to say something" because I didn't have to but no matter what I did, it would have had consequences to it.  I know you know the difference between a forum troll on the Vault and the COO of a competitor talking in a major industry publication followed by another member of management talking about the same competitor for an outlet like MTV.  That's what made it so different this time.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 12:06:37 AM
Actually, I'm seeing the lines being blurred here.

He representing Activision/Blizzard. You represent EAMythic.

He trolled you. I mean, I hate to say it but he trolled you. Just like I trolled the ever living shit out of Brad McQuaid. it's just the unfortunately reality of the situation. Suffice it to say, he also seems to have distracted you since we're over here piddledicking about this situation instead of addressing the fact that you're in a forum with a 100+ person guild/200+ person alliance that's on the verge of falling apart because the PvE grind is giving us a "Pool's Closed" sign.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 18, 2008, 12:07:08 AM
I'm not going to put Bob/Missy/James on the frontline when it comes to responding to a competitor, that can be a very dangerous career move and if someone is going to mess it up, I'd rather it be me than them.

Agreed, that part does make eminent sense. From the outside, I just wonder if a lead designer's random snark about NDAs and bitchiness about not being allowed in a beta (a sentiment I can understand for some odd reason!) at a fan fair and an executive's boilerplate comment about not being affected by churn (I remember an almost identical to the word interview response, I think from Pardo, regarding Age of Conan a month after its ship) calls for such a... vehement response.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 18, 2008, 12:10:43 AM
he also seems to have distracted you since we're over here piddledicking about this situation instead of addressing the fact that you're in a forum with a 100+ person guild/200+ person alliance that's on the verge of falling apart because the PvE grind is giving us a "Pool's Closed" sign.

Stop trolling the nice man. You made your point already, do you want him to break into the server room tonight and recompile the game servers to boost XP gain or something?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Rasix on October 18, 2008, 12:11:38 AM
Pretty please?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 12:12:24 AM
he also seems to have distracted you since we're over here piddledicking about this situation instead of addressing the fact that you're in a forum with a 100+ person guild/200+ person alliance that's on the verge of falling apart because the PvE grind is giving us a "Pool's Closed" sign.
Stop trolling the nice man. You made your point already, do you want him to break into the server room tonight and recompile the game servers to boost XP gain or something?
What, you don't?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 18, 2008, 12:14:28 AM
No words, only  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 18, 2008, 12:14:40 AM
Well, I want angels to descend from heaven and give me strawberry ice cream, too, but I'm not going to hector people on message boards until that happens!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 12:17:12 AM
Well, I want angels to descend from heaven and give me strawberry ice cream, too, but I'm not going to hector people on message boards until that happens!

You would if an angel was posting.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 18, 2008, 12:18:09 AM
You would if an angel was posting.

In that unlikely event, I would probably assume the angel had better things to do than save me a trip to the freezer.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 12:19:47 AM
I'm not going to put Bob/Missy/James on the frontline when it comes to responding to a competitor, that can be a very dangerous career move and if someone is going to mess it up, I'd rather it be me than them.

Agreed, that part does make eminent sense. From the outside, I just wonder if a lead designer's random snark about NDAs and bitchiness about not being allowed in a beta (a sentiment I can understand for some odd reason!) at a fan fair and an executive's boilerplate comment about not being affected by churn (I remember an almost identical to the word interview response, I think from Pardo, regarding Age of Conan a month after its ship) calls for such a... vehement response.

When they made the original comments about AoC it was in an earnings call I believe and I think it was Mike, not Rob (though I could be wrong).  At least in that context, it was almost a required comment given the forum and the time.  Paul's comments were not necessary in that same way and given that we were less than 3 weeks into our launch, could be seen as sending out a message that WAR was already a dead game and that people shouldn't bother playing it.  Mike comments came on August 1st more than 2 months after AoC had shipped and Blizzard had hard data to support that statement.  The way Paul worded his statement was different as was the situation.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 18, 2008, 12:21:25 AM
he also seems to have distracted you since we're over here piddledicking about this situation instead of addressing the fact that you're in a forum with a 100+ person guild/200+ person alliance that's on the verge of falling apart because the PvE grind is giving us a "Pool's Closed" sign.

 do you want him to break into the server room tonight and recompile the game servers to boost XP gain or something?

FUCK YES.

We just lost our 20% bonus on Uthuan/Order, and its really bad now. We have like 0 RVR and I can go for hours questing in t3 / t4 and maybe see one other person cause they are all in scenarios.

My 100 person half of Schilds alliance is also breaking apart as people smash their heads in to the PVE grind. They all came on the promise of awesome RVR and are very let down.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 12:28:48 AM
he also seems to have distracted you since we're over here piddledicking about this situation instead of addressing the fact that you're in a forum with a 100+ person guild/200+ person alliance that's on the verge of falling apart because the PvE grind is giving us a "Pool's Closed" sign.

 do you want him to break into the server room tonight and recompile the game servers to boost XP gain or something?

FUCK YES.

We just lost our 20% bonus on Uthuan/Order, and its really bad now. We have like 0 RVR and I can go for hours questing in t3 / t4 and maybe see one other person cause they are all in scenarios.

My 100 person half of Schilds alliance is also breaking apart as people smash their heads in to the PVE grind. They all came on the promise of awesome RVR and are very let down.



What was your server population tonight when you logged in?

So, let me ask you, would you prefer a server type where there are no scenarios and everybody has to open RvR?

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 18, 2008, 12:30:29 AM
I love overreaction theatre.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 18, 2008, 12:33:56 AM
Edit:  Gah!  Total thread explosian.  This is written 18 posts prior:

Speaking as a gaming plebian, I'd rather see you take the high road.  If something needs to be refuted then give us the facts and let us make that call.  Letting your passion cause you to sink to their level or worse gives what they say more credence.  It may not be right or fair, but it's how people's minds work.  Unfortunately we often care more about how something is said than what is said.

Thanks for listening from an internet nobody.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 18, 2008, 12:35:45 AM
No I wouldnt Mark, what I want is rewards that give people incentive to RVR more. Right now because of the horrible return on RVR, people are ether in scenarios, or doing quests while waiting for scenarios.

This leads to a feeling of an empty world and no RVR.

I think you need to DRASTICALLY increase quest exp, and RVR exp, right now it is HORRIBLE in RVR. People totally avoide it while leveling up, as its basically a waste of time to any one that feels even slightly like a min/maxer.

You added a bonus to keep taking, and while that is the right step, the diminishing returns and the low amount of exp make it like it wasnt even added. at level 28-30 I can get 12,000 to 16,000 exp every 10 minutes in Tor Anroc. If I went RVRing, I would be extremely lucky to get 10,000 exp in an hour.

People will gravitate to what offers them the best returns. Right now it is Scenarios, and its sucking all life out of the world, and making it a FPS game with a boring PVE lobby.

*edit*

As I told my friend, right now I spend my time 5% RVR, 35% PVE and 60% Scenarios. Thats not what I want. I want 50%+RVR, 30% PVE and 10% Scenarios. I like them, I do. But I didnt sigh up to play Capture the Flag Online (Now with Warhammer skins). In beta there was a lot of RVR all the time cause people didnt worry about leveling, and it was much more fun.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 18, 2008, 12:40:42 AM
So, let me get this straight.  I've got the COO of the major competitor saying things that make it *look* like 1/2 of our players have left (which is ridiculously untrue), talks about our European launch being bad (oh yeah, WoW's launch in NA and Europe was flawless right?)  while his game director spins BS about how the way Blizzard runs its beta shows its confidence in the game (forgetting of course the large internal alpha with paid employees that the games goes through and only then has a short public beta) while our beta, which has the general public in it for years, shows our lack of confidence.  He then goes on to say that "he's thinking of quitting our game" (and by inference, saying that other players might want to as well) and that our interface looks like his (forgetting how many interfaces were done before WoW) and generally pissing on our game and when I respond, I'm the jackass?  I had the following choices:

Actually, I really can't ignore this completely. The bulk of WAR's did NOT have the general public in it, and in fact you couldn't even tell anyone you were even freaking in it. It had EXTRA SEKRIT servers (the Elder crap) even. NDAs within NDAs! And comparing it to Blizzard's alphas makes no sense to me. That's an ALPHA. We're discussing BETAS and their various NDAs. And like it or not, when Blizzard throws open its beta boards for anyone to read while they're still dicking around with stuff, it DOES show enormous confidence in their game, because the consumer (remember us?) gets to see the process and know what's coming down the pipe before making their purchase.

This has always been a problem with Mythic, I knew that when I bought WAR. I had made peace with it because I really, really loved DAoC's RvR and really loved Warhammer's once I got to try it. But I can't say I blame anyone, including people from other companies, for saying a lack of NDA over a crazy tiered NDA system shows a lot of faith in one's product and how it will be recieved by the masses, even when it isn't done yet.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 12:42:44 AM
Quote
What was your server population tonight when you logged in?

So, let me ask you, would you prefer a server type where there are no scenarios and everybody has to open RvR?

Mark

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh man, that is totally missing the point.

That's not the problem. Like, not even a LITTLE BIT. Here, gonna bullet this out so nothing gets lost in the shuffle. That's like the sort of solution Vault readers would think is applicable, but it's not. As such:

Scenarios:
  • The majority of the scenarios suck a big one. They're either too big and you can't use a horse or they're too lopsided to the point that certain powers rule the day (Tor Anroc and knock back, etc). Also, there's simply too many and none of them are really applicable to training for oRvR once you hit 40.
  • I've laid it out in other threads, but as I see it, the scenarios should be - as mentioned - a training ground for the real meet - realm control. As such, cater to that. Also, have a reasonable number. I've come to terms with that number probably being around 3 - 2 - 2 - 1, each representing a tier.
  • The scenarios themselves are another pack of angry bees altogether. Where are the scenarios that mimic realm situations? Attack/Defend a keep, Attack/Defend a Battle Objective, etc. All this Warball/Capture the Flag shit is for the birds. If i wanted that I'd just go back to TF2. Sorry, but it just doesn't cut it, it's bad and lazy design. These scenarios practically write themself, I'm just not seeing how the current ones came to be.
  • It's a natural reaction of the players to join the queue that has the most players at any given time - that being Nordenwatch, Mourkain, Tor Anroc, Serpents Passage - in that order on most of the servers. Not because they don't suck - most of them do, Nordenwatch being the best of the four, none of them really train you for the real endgame.
  • This might hurt: There aren't enough goddamn players on each server to support the current number of scenarios. It's obscene.
  • Having this many scenarios breaks up the populations too much to actively participate in Open RvR and to make that the focus.

Open RvR:
  • Why do you have so many goddamn lakes? For real man, there's just too many. Talk about splitting up the playerbase.
  • A possible solution, GET RID OF MOST OF THEM. Alternatively, why have them be little piddledick zones in each area? Don't you want large scale battles? Why isn't there just one full area in each tier that's just open RvR? The current design is just harebrained and does absolutely nothing but remove players from action. Not to mention the zones are BALLS OUT HUGE.

PvE
  • Sucks. Kill it with Fire.
  • Unfortunately, it provides the best loot since renown gear eats ass and the good sets are nearly impossible to obtain due to keep drops and the structure of bag distribution
  • We're bordering old school horrible EQ design on the loot distribution, if you want people taking part in RvR, stop removing them from it so goddamn much by making them hunt out the best equipment. Why can't players get a piece of Equipment after every scenario? Sure they'll farm it, but who cares, more people PvPing. Why can't everyone in a PQ get an item - A GOOD ITEM - why can't everyone who takes down a keep lord get a bind on pickup fantastic set piece? Just make it worth nothing, so they'll either trash it or keep it - money already means nothing in the game, so the economy can't be hurt by it.

Tip of the damned iceberg here. TIP.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Triforcer on October 18, 2008, 12:44:29 AM
Is it too early for this thread to count as a Christmas miracle? 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 12:44:41 AM
tl;dr

Take actions to keep people from dicking around with PvP, give them the loot they need to be competitive from casual guild grouping and PQs/Keeps - easily acquired - and boost the ever living fuck out of EXP. You don't see people here complaining about the RP distribution, do you? No, because we see it as pissant slow, but reasonable as it's the LONG-TERM goal to really acquire the best the game has to offer. The PvE/EXP grind and crap loot distribution is just getting in the way of, well, everything.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 12:44:50 AM
he also seems to have distracted you since we're over here piddledicking about this situation instead of addressing the fact that you're in a forum with a 100+ person guild/200+ person alliance that's on the verge of falling apart because the PvE grind is giving us a "Pool's Closed" sign.
Stop trolling the nice man. You made your point already, do you want him to break into the server room tonight and recompile the game servers to boost XP gain or something?
What, you don't?

I Fucking Do. And I'm a Mythic Fanboy.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 12:46:26 AM
No I wouldnt Mark, what I want is rewards that give people incentive to RVR more. Right now because of the horrible return on RVR, people are ether in scenarios, or doing quests while waiting for scenarios.

This leads to a feeling of an empty world and no RVR.

I think you need to DRASTICALLY increase quest exp, and RVR exp, right now it is HORRIBLE in RVR. People totally avoide it while leveling up, as its basically a waste of time to any one that feels even slightly like a min/maxer.

You added a bonus to keep taking, and while that is the right step, the diminishing returns and the low amount of exp make it like it wasnt even added. at level 28-30 I can get 12,000 to 16,000 exp every 10 minutes in Tor Anroc. If I went RVRing, I would be extremely lucky to get 10,000 exp in an hour.

People will gravitate to what offers them the best returns. Right now it is Scenarios, and its sucking all life out of the world, and making it a FPS game with a boring PVE lobby.

*edit*

As I told my friend, right now I spend my time 5% RVR, 35% PVE and 60% Scenarios. Thats not what I want. I want 50%+RVR, 30% PVE and 10% Scenarios. I like them, I do. But I didnt sigh up to play Capture the Flag Online (Now with Warhammer skins). In beta there was a lot of RVR all the time cause people didnt worry about leveling, and it was much more fun.

I've already said something along those same lines to the guys.  We're working on it but you're right, in beta people weren't worried about leveling so they played open RvR a lot.  That looks like it was quite misleading when it comes to the general populace.  However, there are also a ton of people who are having fun running the scenarios so we have to deal with two very different populations in terms of what they consider fun.  It's why I'm not going to nerf scenario exp. but am willing to raise the rewards substantially for open RvR.  It's just not something we can do overnight and even if we do it, I'm concerned that some people may still stick with scenarios even if the return on open RvR is 2x that of scenarios because they are quicker, safer and more predictable.  It's why the concept of a no scenario server is appealing because that way you know you are playing with the people who only want to open RvR.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 12:51:16 AM
The "No Scenario" concept isn't appealing at all.

It's a forest for the trees issue. Having more than one RvR lake per tier just seperates people from each other. There isn't just a magic fix. Serious shit has to be revised. I don't know if I have to carve it into my arm with a fucking pen knife, but at this point I'm about ready to carve out "TOO FEW CONCURRENT USERS, TOO MANY AREAS FOR THEM TO BE IN 666"


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 12:52:39 AM
It's why the concept of a no scenario server is appealing because that way you know you are playing with the people who only want to open RvR.

Mark

No god no, bad idea. And I hate scenarios. Reward with rewards, don't re-invent your game. Your playerbase is already to spread out both amongst servers and playstyles. Don't introduce DAoC Classic server solutions when you don't have a classic game to do so with. Look, players will go where the rewards are - why do you think my SM "Tronk" has run Mourkain Temple and now Tor Annoc 5,000 times? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE GAME REWARDS - and that's where the people are. Don't make "NEW IMPROVED SERVERS" a month after launch, that's crazy. Reward people for doing what you want them to do for the good of the game. C'mon man, you know this shit cold, don't fold on this kind of problem.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 12:53:23 AM
Quote
What was your server population tonight when you logged in?

So, let me ask you, would you prefer a server type where there are no scenarios and everybody has to open RvR?

Mark

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh man, that is totally missing the point.

That's not the problem. Like, not even a LITTLE BIT. Here, gonna bullet this out so nothing gets lost in the shuffle. That's like the sort of solution Vault readers would think is applicable, but it's not. As such:

Scenarios:
  • The majority of the scenarios suck a big one. They're either too big and you can't use a horse or they're too lopsided to the point that certain powers rule the day (Tor Anroc and knock back, etc). Also, there's simply too many and none of them are really applicable to training for oRvR once you hit 40.
  • I've laid it out in other threads, but as I see it, the scenarios should be - as mentioned - a training ground for the real meet - realm control. As such, cater to that. Also, have a reasonable number. I've come to terms with that number probably being around 3 - 2 - 2 - 1, each representing a tier.
  • The scenarios themselves are another pack of angry bees altogether. Where are the scenarios that mimic realm situations? Attack/Defend a keep, Attack/Defend a Battle Objective, etc. All this Warball/Capture the Flag shit is for the birds. If i wanted that I'd just go back to TF2. Sorry, but it just doesn't cut it, it's bad and lazy design. These scenarios practically write themself, I'm just not seeing how the current ones came to be.
  • It's a natural reaction of the players to join the queue that has the most players at any given time - that being Nordenwatch, Mourkain, Tor Anroc, Serpents Passage - in that order on most of the servers. Not because they don't suck - most of them do, Nordenwatch being the best of the four, none of them really train you for the real endgame.
  • This might hurt: There aren't enough goddamn players on each server to support the current number of scenarios. It's obscene.
  • Having this many scenarios breaks up the populations too much to actively participate in Open RvR and to make that the focus.

Open RvR:
  • Why do you have so many goddamn lakes? For real man, there's just too many. Talk about splitting up the playerbase.
  • A possible solution, GET RID OF MOST OF THEM. Alternatively, why have them be little piddledick zones in each area? Don't you want large scale battles? Why isn't there just one full area in each tier that's just open RvR? The current design is just harebrained and does absolutely nothing but remove players from action. Not to mention the zones are BALLS OUT HUGE.

PvE
  • Sucks. Kill it with Fire.
  • Unfortunately, it provides the best loot since renown gear eats ass and the good sets are nearly impossible to obtain due to keep drops and the structure of bag distribution
  • We're bordering old school horrible EQ design on the loot distribution, if you want people taking part in RvR, stop removing them from it so goddamn much by making them hunt out the best equipment. Why can't players get a piece of Equipment after every scenario? Sure they'll farm it, but who cares, more people PvPing. Why can't everyone in a PQ get an item - A GOOD ITEM - why can't everyone who takes down a keep lord get a bind on pickup fantastic set piece? Just make it worth nothing, so they'll either trash it or keep it - money already means nothing in the game, so the economy can't be hurt by it.

Tip of the damned iceberg here. TIP.

I've also suggested a tiered approach to scenarios but my concern is that even if we do that, that in a few weeks people will be complaining that they want to add more scenarios.  The nice thing about a no-scenario server is that again, everybody there wants to RvR without scenarios.  In terms of your other points, we're really looking at all the data for some of them.  In terms of design of the scenarios, I'd love to say that we got lots of data in beta that said to kill the scenarios or that most sucked but we were not hearing that at all.  If we had, we would have cut them out.  If I wasn't afraid to cut classes, we wouldn't have been afraid to cut some scenarios either.  Your point about more scenarios that mimic the open RvR situations is a really good one though and I'll talk to the team about it this weekend.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 12:55:14 AM
Mark I know it's a wall of text so I'll just re-iterate my above post. A No Scenario server rule set co-existing with your current rule-set will kill your game. Read up for why. You know better. Drive the playerbase with rewards and adjust your environments to allow that to happen. Do Not Fracture Your Base More. Really - BAD IDEA.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 12:57:09 AM
People will always complain. That's part of the job. But frankly, you want people to RvR, realm control, flipping keeps, flipping BOs, etc etc etc. All that hot shit. Right now, at least at tier 3 and 4, it's just a wasteland of depression and angst. Maybe with more fun scenarios and less of these shitass once it wouldn't be so bad. But honestly, I think the biggest concern of all is that PvE is just soul-suckingly horrible and loot distribution for PvP is all of just about dick and that even then, wandering into an RvR Lake won't yield any competition because there's just so goddamn many of them. WAY TOO MANY.

Really, there's too much of everything. Consolidate the game itself, not the servers. Spreading people out in this game sucks the soul directly the hell out.

Quote
Then I noticed Mark Jacobs was bashing *me* along with some plain LIES on the Vault. He's definitely out of his mind.

Or maybe what I write is too explicit and he'd like that some things are better unsaid.

Despite my yelling at Mark, I'm not too busy that I can't remind you that you're still the mayor of crazytown.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 12:59:03 AM
It's why the concept of a no scenario server is appealing because that way you know you are playing with the people who only want to open RvR.

Mark

No god no, bad idea. And I hate scenarios. Reward with rewards, don't re-invent your game. Your playerbase is already to spread out both amongst servers and playstyles. Don't introduce DAoC Classic server solutions when you don't have a classic game to do so with. Look, players will go where the rewards are - why do you think my SM "Tronk" has run Mourkain Temple and now Tor Annoc 5,000 times? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE GAME REWARDS - and that's where the people are. Don't make "NEW IMPROVED SERVERS" a month after launch, that's crazy. Reward people for doing what you want them to do for the good of the game. C'mon man, you know this shit cold, don't fold on this kind of problem.

LOL, not folding but I have to wonder if what we are seeing is a split between the DAoC/SB/etc. type of RvR player and the MMO newbie players who came from WoW.  I think it is entirely possible that these groups might have some issues being on the same server.  What I'm beginning to think is that a large percentage of the WoW players simply want to play in the same way that they play in WoW and may not be open to the true open RvR style.  I'm not saying we are going to do it but I have to ask myself if that is a possibility?  We are going to significantly up the rewards first but I also want to be prepared for the possibility that many of the players will love WAR as long as they can run scenarios as much as they want.

Do you think I'm really offbase about this?

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: nefar on October 18, 2008, 01:00:58 AM


What was your server population tonight when you logged in?

So, let me ask you, would you prefer a server type where there are no scenarios and everybody has to open RvR?

Mark
[/quote]


I play on this server as well on order.

Quite honestly I would prefer a no scenario server, I loathe these scenarios in fact they seriously make me nauseous just thinking I have to play them. I signed up for siege warfare dammit not "wow / fps" chase your tail battlegrounds.   The xp gain in scenarios is so ungodly high that it has done nothing but make the rest of the game a ghost town and quite honestly has me ready to hit the cancel button.

When I signed up I was thinking of the old DAOC days when we would be battling for hours taking and defending keeps. Keeps that would actually help the faction out and served a purpose, we would also receive  good gains for rp/xp for our time.  I have many fond memories of relic raids, massive outdoor battles, and great times in the battle grounds. Battlegrounds that actually prepared you for the end game job of siege, not chase some damn fool with a bauble or some such nonsense.  With War I am forced into a FPS/Wow BG system to get any type of decent gains, a customer base that can care less about keep sieges,   rewards that I can completely care less about.   


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 01:01:58 AM
Uhhhhh. Yes, we do think you're offbase.

Your PvE sucks ass compared to WoW. And their PvP sucks ass compared to your title. What's not clear about this? Getting rid of scenarios is not playing to your strength, it's folding to people that'll probably walk when Wrath comes out and you'll be left with barren Kneejerk Reaction  No Scenario Servers.

Even the most mouthbreathiest of players are going to get tired of the scenarios by the time they hit tier 4 by the way. When only one or two pops and their horribly boring or horribly lopsided and favor certain player types, it's going to fragment shit even more.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 01:05:53 AM
It's why the concept of a no scenario server is appealing because that way you know you are playing with the people who only want to open RvR.

Mark

No god no, bad idea. And I hate scenarios. Reward with rewards, don't re-invent your game. Your playerbase is already to spread out both amongst servers and playstyles. Don't introduce DAoC Classic server solutions when you don't have a classic game to do so with. Look, players will go where the rewards are - why do you think my SM "Tronk" has run Mourkain Temple and now Tor Annoc 5,000 times? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE GAME REWARDS - and that's where the people are. Don't make "NEW IMPROVED SERVERS" a month after launch, that's crazy. Reward people for doing what you want them to do for the good of the game. C'mon man, you know this shit cold, don't fold on this kind of problem.

LOL, not folding but I have to wonder if what we are seeing is a split between the DAoC/SB/etc. type of RvR player and the MMO newbie players who came from WoW.  I think it is entirely possible that these groups might have some issues being on the same server.  What I'm beginning to think is that a large percentage of the WoW players simply want to play in the same way that they play in WoW and may not be open to the true open RvR style.  I'm not saying we are going to do it but I have to ask myself if that is a possibility?  We are going to significantly up the rewards first but I also want to be prepared for the possibility that many of the players will love WAR as long as they can run scenarios as much as they want.

Do you think I'm really offbase about this?

Mark

Honestly yes I do. Really WAY OFF BASE. That's just my opinion but here's why:

* Open RvR is your (and the games) forte. It's awesome. It's fun and challenging and exciting and nirvana type shit.
* Scenarios play a important role in transitioning some users from 'instanced' pvp to 'world' pvp - this is useful
* Players will change their behavior based on rewards. WoW BG players will start to do Arena's when the gear differential forces them to.

Point being, you can keep scenarios and still have RvR as your focus, if scenarios are the LEAD IN to world RVR. Right now they're the most effective way of getting ahead in the game bar none. That's crazy.

New server rule sets at this point are a bad idea - i'd write out why but it would be a long diatribe, suffice to say it's not the solution and I think you know that.

EDIT: I really think you guys are 80% there - "NO SCENARIO" servers just force a reset across your playerbase that will only hurt. Instead, guide us to Open RvR through rewards. You can't believe that WoW Noobs new how to Raid before WoW? But they learned. They'll learn here too, but only if you don't fuck it up.

And HRose - STFU. Seriously dude, we know. WE KNOW


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 01:06:25 AM
Despite my yelling at Mark, I'm not too busy that I can't remind you that you're still the mayor of crazytown.
Because it's not about *you* that he's spreading lies.

He continues to say I create accounts on the forums where he posts when there isn't a single real case to prove it true. Then goes on to attack me personally while claiming I do the same with him.

Gee, I can't come up with a solution for you other than to like, ignore mythic games and to stop magically appearing whenever Mark shows up. Now go away, don't bugger up this thread. I'm too frothy to deal with you right now.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: nefar on October 18, 2008, 01:14:33 AM
Quote

 What I'm beginning to think is that a large percentage of the WoW players simply want to play in the same way that they play in WoW and may not be open to the true open RvR style.

Mark

Ok, come on now. You going to tell me that the scenarios were not designed to cater to the wow masses?  I would find that extremely hard to believe.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 18, 2008, 01:15:29 AM
LOL.  Was that you posting under a different name on the Vault Hrose?  I thought it was and was hoping that my statement would draw you out.  That post (from a new member) was a link to the Cesspit extolling the virtues of Hrose's writing and how insightful, positive and illuminating it was.  My comment back was simply "Alabieno = Hrose" and that he has been bashing Mythic and I for years.  I also went on to say that Hrose was at times intelligent but that when we didn't agree with him, his posts turned negative and personal.  Another poster linked to here and one of Hrose's comments about how I abused the community.

Now, what part of what I said wasn't true?

Mark

wtf

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nerf on October 18, 2008, 01:18:54 AM
Oh man, this thread is fucking great, I'm really enjoying the Schild/MJ "Yeah, but who's on first?" bit.  Comedy gold.

Seriously though, let me know when theres not a soul-crushing grind, I did that shit in DAOC, 3 fucking times, I'm not doing it again.  I'll sub to war when I can blow through PVE and RvR to my hearts content.

(Soul crushing grind to the fun, the reknown point grind should take a long fucking time, as that's your PvP epeen)

Fake Edit:  Someone ban HRose for a couple days so Mark can make the game fun enough for me to play, Eve is boring me again.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 01:19:16 AM
Mark, stop worrying about HRose.

Hrose, go the ever-living fuck away back to your cesspit.

Don't make me put you two in seperate corners.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 18, 2008, 01:21:17 AM

Do you think I'm really offbase about this?

I also do. I think what you are seeing, like I said, is all the players going where they can realistically advance their characters.

I do NOT agree with Schild about the RVR Lakes needing to be smaller, I think what we need is more players in the world. Transfers like you said in the SoG from low pop to medium is a good idea. I think my guild would move to a medium or high pop server in an instant. From what I can see, one of the major problems you are facing is the population of the server. If there was triple the amount of players on my server, PQs would be easer, RVR would be easer, the world would feel more alive.

I know its early, and I dont know what kind of load is possible, but here is my ideal solution with out a huge game rewrite.

1) Boost all quest exp rewards by 2x to lessen the feeling of grind.
2) Merge servers to give the average online population of each side between 1000 (low pop) and 2000 (full) while shooting for 1500 to 1800 average per side. I know this is more than you want on a server, but I think thats needed to fill out the world.
3) Huge boost to RVR Exp, I mean huge. The amount of exp earned for ether attacking of defending a keep should be the same as you get from 50:50 wins in Tor Anroc of Serpents, or even higher as it takes more people and more time for capture or defend.
4) Add PQ mechanics to Keep defending.
5) Add a LOT more PQ loot bags per capture or defense. Maybe 20 loot bags. Its not like you can get much benefit from having the same item, so this just insures people get a pices of loot.

There is it. Thats what I think.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 01:22:48 AM
Quote
I do NOT agree with Schild about the RVR Lakes needing to be smaller, I think what we need is more players in the world.

Not smaller, just less of them. If I said smaller, whoops.

Also, 2x still isn't enough for quest rewards in t3/t4. The only way for blizzard types to progress and for PvE to be palatable, the increase would have to be somewhere around 4x. There's no real way to fix the PvE, it just sucks, you just have to make the reward great enough that no one gives a shit.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 01:23:40 AM
It's simple really:

* DO NOT Fragment your playerbase at this stage with new NO SCENARIO!!?!! Servers. Do you really want all of us DAoC/SB types moving there alone?
* DO REDUCE THE PVE GRIND. The Quest XP issues in T3/T4 are silly and you know it needs fixing
* DO REDUCE SCENARIO IMPORTANCE as people progress. T1/T2? Go nuts. T3/T4 - no honey you aint getting love for that alone.

It's pretty much what I've seen most of the playerbase recommending all OVER THE PLACE. Here, on brokentoys, at Warhammeralliance. Just do it to start and let God sort it out shortly thereafter.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 01:26:22 AM
LOL.  Was that you posting under a different name on the Vault Hrose?  I thought it was and was hoping that my statement would draw you out.  That post (from a new member) was a link to the Cesspit extolling the virtues of Hrose's writing and how insightful, positive and illuminating it was.  My comment back was simply "Alabieno = Hrose" and that he has been bashing Mythic and I for years.  I also went on to say that Hrose was at times intelligent but that when we didn't agree with him, his posts turned negative and personal.  Another poster linked to here and one of Hrose's comments about how I abused the community.

Now, what part of what I said wasn't true?

Mark
Look, I'm more interested to talk about the game and not derail this discussion. I replied to you on my blog, if you care reading.

I don't want to pick a fight because I rather certain that *you* are misunderstanding the whole thing, as I'm rather sure you misunderstood all I wrote for a very long time.

I post on the Vault as Stephaan (since DAoC days), and HRose on Q23 (where I arrived A LONG TIME BEFORE YOU) and here. That's it. I don't create fake accounts, nor I'm responsible of misspelling my own nickname and posting that thread today on the Vault.

I don't have "a tendency to create new accounts and post where you posted". You are just too egocentric and taking personally what personal isn't.

So, when I was on WHA in the beginning and you came over to post there and complain about me and Mythic and DAoC, you were there why exactly?

Or when years ago you posted under alias at the Vault and I called you on it when the alias said the same stuff about me?

Or all the columns you wrote saying I should be fired, I was liar and a cheat?

No, I'm not misunderstanding anything.  Based on some of what you had written, I really thought you had gotten past doing this sort of stuff but apparently not.  And again, it's a shame because at least I was willing to say in my posts that you are intelligent and you have some good ideas.

Mark

Should you two get a room?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2008, 01:26:39 AM
People follow the rewards. Is this where I say obvious design is obvious?


No one ENJOYS BG farming in WoW. It's just leaps and bounds the best reward path. It's practically the ONLY reward path for PvP for the masses.



WAR Scenarios seem like they have the same problem. They simply out weigh everything else reward wise. Buff the world RvR up, consolidate it, profit?


I played DaoC for a really long time, I WANT to like WAR, but you are making it very hard as things stand. "Soul crushing grind doing shit I don't want to do to get to the parts I want to do? Sign me up!  :awesome_for_real: "


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 01:28:13 AM
People follow the rewards. Is this where I say obvious design is obvious?


No one ENJOYS BG farming in WoW. It's just leaps and bounds the best reward path. It's practically the ONLY reward path for PvP for the masses.



WAR Scenarios seem like they have the same problem. They simply out weigh everything else reward wise. Buff the world RvR up, consolidate it, profit?


I played DaoC for a really long time, I WANT to like WAR, but you are making it very hard as things stand. "Soul crushing grind doing shit I don't want to do to get to the parts I want to do? Sign me up!  :awesome_for_real: "

Which is what - about the 10000th post that basically says "FIX THE REWARDS AND WE WILL FOLLOW."

Ok, now I'm just getting annoyed. It's not that hard.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 01:31:23 AM
People follow the rewards. Is this where I say obvious design is obvious?


No one ENJOYS BG farming in WoW. It's just leaps and bounds the best reward path. It's practically the ONLY reward path for PvP for the masses.



WAR Scenarios seem like they have the same problem. They simply out weigh everything else reward wise. Buff the world RvR up, consolidate it, profit?


I played DaoC for a really long time, I WANT to like WAR, but you are making it very hard as things stand. "Soul crushing grind doing shit I don't want to do to get to the parts I want to do? Sign me up!  :awesome_for_real: "


Look, I agree with you in theory 100%.  However, what we've seen so far is that a sizable percentage players don't want to leave the scenarios.  We will keep upping the rewards but my concern is that a sizable percentage will still want to stay in the scenarios because that is what they are used to doing so I want to be prepared for that.  It doesn't mean we will do it but it would be foolish of us not to prepare for it. 

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 01:34:06 AM
People follow the rewards. Is this where I say obvious design is obvious?


No one ENJOYS BG farming in WoW. It's just leaps and bounds the best reward path. It's practically the ONLY reward path for PvP for the masses.



WAR Scenarios seem like they have the same problem. They simply out weigh everything else reward wise. Buff the world RvR up, consolidate it, profit?


I played DaoC for a really long time, I WANT to like WAR, but you are making it very hard as things stand. "Soul crushing grind doing shit I don't want to do to get to the parts I want to do? Sign me up!  :awesome_for_real: "


Look, I agree with you in theory 100%.  However, what we've seen so far is that a sizable percentage players don't want to leave the scenarios.  We will keep upping the rewards but my concern is that a sizable percentage will still want to stay in the scenarios because that is what they are used to doing so I want to be prepared for that.  It doesn't mean we will do it but it would be foolish of us not to prepare for it. 

Mark

Ok but keep in mind that if you won't commit to the game why the fuck should I? This is my money and time. I AM THE DAOC/SB guy you're talking about. So I don't want to fuck around for a few months only to find out that there's a "REAL WAR SERVER" coming in January. Are you sure you want to fracture your base that way?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 18, 2008, 01:37:09 AM
Can you imagine trying to level on a "No Scenario" server with the way EXP is right now?

 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HRose on October 18, 2008, 01:37:57 AM
So, when I was on WHA in the beginning and you came over to post there and complain about me and Mythic and DAoC, you were there why exactly?
What is WHA? Warhammer Alliance?

I don't have an account over there, never made one. You mistake me for someone else.

Quote
Or when years ago you posted under alias at the Vault and I called you on it when the alias said the same stuff about me?
I only have a forum account on the Vault and it's "Stephaan". That was, I think, before I used HRose or Abalieno as nicknames. Incidentally it was my character name in DAoC and the reason why I registered there since it was the "official" forum.

It's not like I hide my identity as in my signatures I have the other two nicknames I use.

Quote
Or all the columns you wrote saying I should be fired
I doubt I wrote something like that. I try to be careful on that front.

Quote
I was liar and a cheat?
On specific issues? I may have written it. And motivated it.

Quote
Based on some of what you had written, I really thought you had gotten past doing this sort of stuff but apparently not.
Yep, "gotten past" because I dropped my wishes to step in the industry and so was mostly using the blog to write about fantasy books and only about games from time to time.

If for "this sort of stuff" you mean being harsh and unforgiving, yes, I still am when writing about games. I stand behind all I wrote recently and hope I well motivated it. After all it's similar to what everyone else is writing here now.

In regards to "personal attacks" they aren't personal. I've criticized your work, often harshly and inappropriately, sure, but not to bash the man outside his public role. I don't know you personally and I don't judge you personally.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2008, 01:39:38 AM
Quote
Look, I agree with you in theory 100%. However, what we've seen so far is that a sizable percentage players don't want to leave the scenarios. We will keep upping the rewards but my concern is that a sizable percentage will still want to stay in the scenarios because that is what they are used to doing so I want to be prepared for that.  It doesn't mean we will do it but it would be foolish of us not to prepare for it.

... because the other portions of the game do not reward enough?

Box A gives out Candy
Box B gives out Poop Nuggets

Which box will be more popular?  :oh_i_see:


The "WoW MMO Noob" crowed follows the fucking candy. If you don't put Candy in the other parts of the game, they won't leave the part that has it!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 01:40:26 AM
People follow the rewards. Is this where I say obvious design is obvious?


No one ENJOYS BG farming in WoW. It's just leaps and bounds the best reward path. It's practically the ONLY reward path for PvP for the masses.



WAR Scenarios seem like they have the same problem. They simply out weigh everything else reward wise. Buff the world RvR up, consolidate it, profit?


I played DaoC for a really long time, I WANT to like WAR, but you are making it very hard as things stand. "Soul crushing grind doing shit I don't want to do to get to the parts I want to do? Sign me up!  :awesome_for_real: "


Look, I agree with you in theory 100%.  However, what we've seen so far is that a sizable percentage players don't want to leave the scenarios.  We will keep upping the rewards but my concern is that a sizable percentage will still want to stay in the scenarios because that is what they are used to doing so I want to be prepared for that.  It doesn't mean we will do it but it would be foolish of us not to prepare for it. 

Mark

Ok but keep in mind that if you won't commit to the game why the fuck should I? This is my money and time. I AM THE DAOC/SB guy you're talking about. So I don't want to fuck around for a few months only to find out that there's a "REAL WAR SERVER" coming in January. Are you sure you want to fracture your base that way?

Wait a second.  How does me saying "Yeap, we are going to buff up RvR rewards, gear, itemization, new influence system, etc." + "Hey, by the way, would people like a no scenarios server or a tiered scenario server, just curious?" somehow translate to not committing to the game?  Again, let me say again that I'm just concerned even if we do all these things that a sizable portion of our players are so WoW-trained that they will prefer scenario based RvR to open RvR and if that is the case, that we have an option for the player who want to play open RvR more than scenarios.  

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 18, 2008, 01:41:22 AM
Look, I agree with you in theory 100%.  However, what we've seen so far is that a sizable percentage players don't want to leave the scenarios. 

They don't want to leave because taking time to RVR would be detrimental to them leveling or gearing. And there are two things ALL Diku MMOG players love, leveling and gear.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: nefar on October 18, 2008, 01:43:11 AM
Can you imagine trying to level on a "No Scenario" server with the way EXP is right now?

 :ye_gods:


It would have to be boosted extremely high to compensate for the loss of the scenarios.  However, if the choice is sit on servers with all the wowheads playing sport pvp or move my ass to a server where people do real RVR I'd have to move.  Though, I do agree with most here, I would rather have the balance issues fixed, rewards that entice people  to rvr then have to split off on to a new server type.  So far though all I see out of warhammer is a bunch of scenarios designed to attract the wow sport pvp customer base.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 01:45:20 AM


Wait a second.  How does me saying "Yeap, we are going to buff up RvR rewards, gear, itemization, new influence system, etc." + "Hey, by the way, would people like a no scenarios server or a tiered scenario server, just curious?" somehow translate to not committing to the game?  Again, let me say again that I'm just concerned even if we do all these things that a sizable portion of our players are so WoW-trained that they will prefer scenario based RvR to open RvR and if that is the case, that we have an option for the player who want to play open RvR more than scenarios.  

Mark

Well without invoking the VisionTM - who designs the game - you or the WoW noobs (to quote) that you want to attract? It's pretty clear to me and everyone else in this thread. And Mark - we like you - you make games we enjoy - but you're wrong on this one. New server types will only drive away your fans who already sub and won't grab anyone with WoTLK coming.

WE FOLLOW THE CARROT. ALL OF US. WOW NOOBS INCLUDED.

Get rid of the bullshit restrictions, the bad PvE quest limitations and let us MAKE WAR. We will. I swear. WoW noobs included - no new server types needed.

EDIT:


It would have to be boosted extremely high to compensate for the loss of the scenarios.  However, if the choice is sit on servers with all the wowheads playing sport pvp or move my ass to a server where people do real RVR I'd have to move.  Though, I do agree with most here, I would rather have the balance issues fixed, rewards that entice people  to rvr then have to split off on to a new server type.  So far though all I see out of warhammer is a bunch of scenarios designed to attract the wow sport pvp customer base.

So would I. I'd have to move. And how is that going to help the game - with WoW BG players isolated on 40% of the servers, and us DAoC2/SB wannabee's on 40% and 20% rotting away. Not at all - that's how.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 18, 2008, 01:47:04 AM
Get rid of the bullshit restrictions, the bad PvE quest limitations and let us MAKE WAR. We will. I swear. WoW noobs included - no new server types needed.

Amen!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 01:47:55 AM
The "No Scenario" idea is dimwitted, short-sighted, easy-way-out design, and pretty much retarded.

There's no nice way to say it.

Solving the problems presented to players of the game is pretty damned easy right now, it just seems Mythic as a whole has no real interest in approaching them from the Reward angle.

Mark can SAY it all he wants, but this incremental shit is for the birds.

20% more of nothing is still nothing, as someone else put it in another thread.

Open RvR doesn't reward in loot or experience, it should reward massively in both.
Scenarios don't reward in decent loot but they have the best exp return (and even that level of EXP return by tier 4 is shit).
PvE has the best loot but by far the most boring gaming experience and crappy EXP gain compared to scenarios.

Loot distribution and itemization, while pretty and well-named, is basically shit.
There's too much too spread out and too everywhere and it's all just turned itself into a nightmare scenario.

I really don't know how else to say it, but the skinner box is fucked up atm.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 01:48:46 AM


Wait a second.  How does me saying "Yeap, we are going to buff up RvR rewards, gear, itemization, new influence system, etc." + "Hey, by the way, would people like a no scenarios server or a tiered scenario server, just curious?" somehow translate to not committing to the game?  Again, let me say again that I'm just concerned even if we do all these things that a sizable portion of our players are so WoW-trained that they will prefer scenario based RvR to open RvR and if that is the case, that we have an option for the player who want to play open RvR more than scenarios.  

Mark

Well without invoking the VisionTM - who designs the game - you or the WoW noobs (to quote) that you want to attract? It's pretty clear to me and everyone else in this thread. And Mark - we like you - you make games we enjoy - but you're wrong on this one. New server types will only drive away your fans who already sub and won't grab anyone with WoTLK coming.

WE FOLLOW THE CARROT. ALL OF US. WOW NOOBS INCLUDED.

Get rid of the bullshit restrictions, the bad PvE quest limitations and let us MAKE WAR. We will. I swear. WoW noobs included - no new server types needed.

I want to do just that and that's what I told the team last week.  However, don't you think I should be prepared just in case we're all wrong and the ex-WoW players  would rather play more scenarios no matter if the experience, gear and leveling speed is faster in open RvR and the RvR guys want to do more RvR and less (or no) scenarios?

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 01:50:17 AM
Man, fuck, you can't please everyone all the goddamn time. Stop trying.

Ex-WoW players will STILL go back for Wrath. If they don't good on you, but you'll never ever be able to cater to them with PvE that has shit for a reward/time ratio. If you somehow magically think in their heart of hearts they're PVPers, you're doing it wrong.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2008, 01:51:48 AM
WoW players do not enjoy BG farming. It's like, complaint #1 in WoW PvP. Well, maybe it's tied to "Arena or GTFO" complaints in PVP.

They do it because it's the only means for the Ding Grats Shiny Purple reward.






Schild is frothy, but the stuff he's outlined in this thread isn't wrong.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Velorath on October 18, 2008, 01:53:40 AM
We just lost our 20% bonus on Uthuan/Order, and its really bad now.

Yeah, that was pretty painful actually.  At a time of the year when a lot of single player games are coming out and competing for my attention, it was a drag to log on today and find my character leveling slower.  It's especially bad during times when Order is getting steamrolled in scenarios.  If I log on and the first couple rounds I play aren't remotely competitive (which is often the case), it's easier for me to just log off and go back to playing Dead Space.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 01:56:15 AM
Dude what you're telling us - the people who bought in - is that we're going to have to re-roll because you don't have the balls to offend the WoWheads with a game-style they're not used to. Who the fuck do you think is going to populate your NO SCENARIO servers anyway? The WoW players? Apparently not. No, it's us, the people who are giving you the advice that it's a bad idea. Think about it man, seriously.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 01:58:52 AM
The "No Scenario" idea is dimwitted, short-sighted, easy-way-out design, and pretty much retarded.

There's no nice way to say it.

Solving the problems presented to players of the game is pretty damned easy right now, it just seems Mythic as a whole has no real interest in approaching them from the Reward angle.

Mark can SAY it all he wants, but this incremental shit is for the birds.

20% more of nothing is still nothing, as someone else put it in another thread.

Open RvR doesn't reward in loot or experience, it should reward massively in both.
Scenarios don't reward in decent loot but they have the best exp return (and even that level of EXP return by tier 4 is shit).
PvE has the best loot but by far the most boring gaming experience and crappy EXP gain compared to scenarios.

Loot distribution and itemization, while pretty and well-named, is basically shit.
There's too much too spread out and too everywhere and it's all just turned itself into a nightmare scenario.

I really don't know how else to say it, but the skinner box is fucked up atm.

Look, since you're being blunt, so will I.  Do you think that I can just snap my fingers and all of a sudden loot drops, new gear, stat changes to current itemization, exp. boosts can happen in one day?  You're a hell of a lot smarter than that.  Let's say I'm in 100% agreement with you.  So, I walk into the EPs office, say that to him and tell him I want it on Monday.  WTF do you think his reaction would be?  Frankly, he would think I had lost my mind just like HRose said I did.   Do you really think that doing all that in a few days is simple?  What do you think it would go like this "Yeah, sure, Mark.  I'll get the team right on it and they will go through every RvR item in the game, boost stats, create new items, redo all the loot tables, change the experience/renown gain on every kill, change the exp. and renown gain on taking RvR objectives and do it perfectly well the first time, no testing necessary!  We'll start right away!  Is tomorrow morning too late?"

You're way off base here.  You're pissed off and it's early in the morning.  You're talking about making sweeping changes to every aspect of the RvR game and expect us (if you're right) to do that all at once and right away.  Please, let me know what team on this planet could possibly do that in the space of a few days, let alone a week.  We've already boosted RvR, we're going to boost it more this week and continue to boost it through 1.1 and beyond. 

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 18, 2008, 02:01:46 AM
The ex-WoW people are not playing your game for PvE, so you can stop trying to make everyone do it if they don't wanna.

I think wringing your hands about the GOD WHAT IF THEY STAY IN SCENARIOS without even TRYING to make the world RvR really, really, REALLY rewarding (and FOR TEH REALM is not enough reward, sorry. We're greedy.) is ... stubborn? Perhaps that's the word. Make the open RvR stuff reward the crap out of people, and most people, even the "WoW noobs" (be more condescending, I know you can!) will do it. Shit, that's why Blizzard has been TRYING to put more world PvP in (and not doing so hot, in my opinion), people have asked for it because they're sick of BGs and open world PvP is often pretty fun. But if you get more shiny stuff from BGs or whatever ... well, that's what people will still do.

Will there still be people in scenarios? Sure. That's OKAY. I don't think anyone here (or in the game) is really mad people play and enjoy scenarios, we're just annoyed that the part some of us think is way more fun doesn't reward us nearly as much. Scenarios have some things that automatically make it "better" ... the sides will be even and you get to teleport there and back automagically. But if you get reeeeeally sweet stuff from open RvR, people will do that more.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 02:04:03 AM
Dude what you're telling us - the people who bought in - is that we're going to have to re-roll because you don't have the balls to offend the WoWheads with a game-style they're not used to. Who the fuck do you think is going to populate your NO SCENARIO servers anyway? The WoW players? Apparently not. No, it's us, the people who are giving you the advice that it's a bad idea. Think about it man, seriously.

Who said anything about re-rolling?  If I put up a new server rule set I damn well better have free transfers to it.  And I'm not worrying about offending the WoWheads but if you think I'm going to do something like cut scenario exp/renown in 1/2 or anything like that, you also must think I'm nuts.  I'll boost RvR like mad, make it the place to level and gear up but all I'm saying is that I want to be prepared for the possibility that a lot of players still may want to stick with scenarios.  I'm not burying my head in the sane and saying everything is great and we don't need to change anything but I also don't want to bury my head in the sand and say that if I do all these things, everything will be great.  I just want to have options in case we all are wrong.  How is that crazy or having no balls?

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 02:05:25 AM
Ah no wrong. Sorry Mark but you set this hurricane in motion with your brilliant VNBoard poll. Don't worry about Schild, worry about people like me. I played DAoC for 4 years. It's not about snapping fingers or turning the ship around - YOU ASKED FOR THIS. IN A POLL.

Jesus dude - this is what I meant about commitment. You want my $ and time to level a character - answer this:


EDIT: SEE MARK'S RESPONSE ABOVE. FAST THREAD LOL.

Dude what you're telling us - the people who bought in - is that we're going to have to re-roll because you don't have the balls to offend the WoWheads with a game-style they're not used to. Who the fuck do you think is going to populate your NO SCENARIO servers anyway? The WoW players? Apparently not. No, it's us, the people who are giving you the advice that it's a bad idea. Think about it man, seriously. /EDIT

Don't blame critics for your missteps Mark. And again - you are a player here - we like you and your games, but you need to pull the trigger on this.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 02:06:13 AM
Actually, if you're even in theoretical 100% agreement that would be at the very least the tiniest glimmer of hope. But you've brought up the No-Scenario server more than once in this thread alone (which was once too many as we lolled about it in another thread). It's totally not a solution.

I don't think any of it is simple. In the least.

But you still, even in that response, haven't addressed the simple fact that PvE is the best way to get loot, scenarios are the best way to get experience, and RvR is too fragmented. I mean, comeon friendo, you're killing me here. Even if you boost RvR by 300%, the diminishing returns on multiple kills due to the tiers being so removed from eachother is going to kill that fast. And it would basically require that euros and such on US servers play during our peak hours.

RvR is awesome. You're right. Scenarios are pretty great too! PvE could be pretty great if it wasn't so mind-numbingly non-rewarding. Fuck yea I'm pissed off. I did Tor Anroc some odd 200 times to get from 23-32. The fact I'm here arguing should tell you you're on the right path, I've already lasted here longer than any MMOG in the last oh, 5 years. But there are things at stake here, most notably the player base as the clock is ticking on Wrath and you keep referring to WoW players wanting a specific type of game. I'm not even sure Blizzard knows what they want. AFAIK most of those people are there because of the community, because that game is just not very good - it's just very polished. Obviously WAR isn't there yet, but you excel in other areas and unfortunately it seems like the steps being taken are... short-sighted.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 02:10:05 AM
Dude what you're telling us - the people who bought in - is that we're going to have to re-roll because you don't have the balls to offend the WoWheads with a game-style they're not used to. Who the fuck do you think is going to populate your NO SCENARIO servers anyway? The WoW players? Apparently not. No, it's us, the people who are giving you the advice that it's a bad idea. Think about it man, seriously.

Who said anything about re-rolling?  If I put up a new server rule set I damn well better have free transfers to it.  And I'm not worrying about offending the WoWheads but if you think I'm going to do something like cut scenario exp/renown in 1/2 or anything like that, you also must think I'm nuts.  I'll boost RvR like mad, make it the place to level and gear up but all I'm saying is that I want to be prepared for the possibility that a lot of players still may want to stick with scenarios.  I'm not burying my head in the sane and saying everything is great and we don't need to change anything but I also don't want to bury my head in the sand and say that if I do all these things, everything will be great.  I just want to have options in case we all are wrong.  How is that crazy or having no balls?

Mark

Ok I made an assumption there. Glad to hear you've thought of it. The ORvR game is great, I think you need to find a way to drive players there, and I don't think a no scenario server helps. I mean what are you going to do - have a no RvR server? It just doesn't make sense. Trust us, make the rewards matter, drive the base with the carrot and we'll do the rest. Experienced players, DAoC, SB, SWG, all of the people who are not new to this, will help the WoW folks step outside. And then what do you have? $hats, that's what.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 02:13:01 AM
The ex-WoW people are not playing your game for PvE, so you can stop trying to make everyone do it if they don't wanna.

I think wringing your hands about the GOD WHAT IF THEY STAY IN SCENARIOS without even TRYING to make the world RvR really, really, REALLY rewarding (and FOR TEH REALM is not enough reward, sorry. We're greedy.) is ... stubborn? Perhaps that's the word. Make the open RvR stuff reward the crap out of people, and most people, even the "WoW noobs" (be more condescending, I know you can!) will do it. Shit, that's why Blizzard has been TRYING to put more world PvP in (and not doing so hot, in my opinion), people have asked for it because they're sick of BGs and open world PvP is often pretty fun. But if you get more shiny stuff from BGs or whatever ... well, that's what people will still do.

Will there still be people in scenarios? Sure. That's OKAY. I don't think anyone here (or in the game) is really mad people play and enjoy scenarios, we're just annoyed that the part some of us think is way more fun doesn't reward us nearly as much. Scenarios have some things that automatically make it "better" ... the sides will be even and you get to teleport there and back automagically. But if you get reeeeeally sweet stuff from open RvR, people will do that more.

And that's exactly what I said we'd do.  We're going to boost it like crazy.  Maybe I would have been better off just saying:

We are going to boost RvR like crazy, it's going to be the place to be.  You'd have to have 10 tons of brain damage not to go open RvR.

And left it at that.   OTOH, I thought apparently foolishly, that by talking about the possibility of having a server where there are no scenarios would be worth talking about.  However, now it appears that even talking about something means that I am refusing to commit, have no balls and no vision.  What's up with that?  So I should never throw out an idea for consideration?  I hate the Vision stuff more than most designers so I like to throw out ideas for consideration by others whether on my team or elsewhere.  I thought that blindly following a Vision was bad but is it okay now? 

Look, I'm not saying your wrong but if I can't even talk about an idea or even consider that you/I/anybody could be wrong no matter how much experience we have, then we are all in real trouble.  Because nobody is right all the time, nobody.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 02:15:28 AM
Squirrel is notably crazy, to be fair, because he talks calm when what he means to say is:

MAKE THE REWARDS MATTER.

The way he says it makes it seem like 20, 30, or even 40% better is a step in the right direction, when the steps that should be taken need to be much, much more.

Again though, don't increase renown, long-term success there for players. That's the journey. 1-40 player rank is the tutorial - and it not being that is probably where the biggest misstep was taken.

Quote
We are going to boost RvR like crazy, it's going to be the place to be.  You'd have to have 10 tons of brain damage not to go open RvR.

Mark, how do you plan on getting people in tier 3 and tier 4 into the proper RvR zones (as there are what, like 3,286 different lakes?) and what's the plan for off-peak hours? That's the big problem I have with a pure direct focus going into RvR. It's why I bring up scenarios and PvE so much - and why you snapped at me for suggesting sweeping changes. Awesome RvR is awesome RvR, and that's great. But that's what, 3-4 hours each night where that's plausible? Is that really enough?

Edit: Also, f13 and the people here aren't the ones inflicting the time-table on you, Blizzard is. And sure, it's OK to talk about theoretical shit, for sure, in fact players fucking love it - we love it. But doing so a month before a 600lb gorilla drops 8 tons of banana-stank shit on your doorstep? That's the sort of thing that will set us off like a pack of chupacabras under a full moon.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 18, 2008, 02:17:12 AM
It's not that you can't entertain ideas, but you have to be OK with people rejecting an idea, even if it is your very favoritest one.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 02:20:40 AM
As Schild says - I am actually certifiable. But I'm Canadian, we hide it well.

Look man, even with free transfers do you really want a PvP game with everyone like me on one server and all the BG instance lovers on another? NO YOU DON'T. Not good. Not good for the game. you want us psycho DAoC2/SB guys mixing with your new players. You know you do. IT'S a BAD IDEA.

EDIT: And all the shit Schild and I and others said before. Fix the fucking carrot and it's gold.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2008, 02:23:04 AM
You threw out your idea, we considered it stupid.

You threw out the same idea, we still considered it stupid.

You threw it out AGAIN, and behold, we considered it stupid.

You threw it out yet AGAIN and people started to get pissy, then you got pissy at people getting pissy at you.

 :dead_horse:


Quote
And that's exactly what I said we'd do.  We're going to boost it like crazy.  Maybe I would have been better off just saying:

We are going to boost RvR like crazy, it's going to be the place to be.  You'd have to have 10 tons of brain damage not to go open RvR.

Umm... yes? Now you can maybe expand on how your going to make the rewards awesome too! Or maybe answer how you intend to make sure there is RvR to actually be had, had on servers that currently exist!

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 02:24:47 AM
Actually, if you're even in theoretical 100% agreement that would be at the very least the tiniest glimmer of hope. But you've brought up the No-Scenario server more than once in this thread alone (which was once too many as we lolled about it in another thread). It's totally not a solution.

I don't think any of it is simple. In the least.

But you still, even in that response, haven't addressed the simple fact that PvE is the best way to get loot, scenarios are the best way to get experience, and RvR is too fragmented. I mean, comeon friendo, you're killing me here. Even if you boost RvR by 300%, the diminishing returns on multiple kills due to the tiers being so removed from eachother is going to kill that fast. And it would basically require that euros and such on US servers play during our peak hours.

RvR is awesome. You're right. Scenarios are pretty great too! PvE could be pretty great if it wasn't so mind-numbingly non-rewarding. Fuck yea I'm pissed off. I did Tor Anroc some odd 200 times to get from 23-32. The fact I'm here arguing should tell you you're on the right path, I've already lasted here longer than any MMOG in the last oh, 5 years. But there are things at stake here, most notably the player base as the clock is ticking on Wrath and you keep referring to WoW players wanting a specific type of game. I'm not even sure Blizzard knows what they want. AFAIK most of those people are there because of the community, because that game is just not very good - it's just very polished. Obviously WAR isn't there yet, but you excel in other areas and unfortunately it seems like the steps being taken are... short-sighted.

First, I'm glad to know that you realize how complicated changing things is.  Just so you know, I've already had this exact same conversation with the key guys twice in the last week.  And when I talk about baby steps or doing things slowly it is precisely because I know WotLK is coming.  If we jump the gun (or jump the shark) now, it will be hard to get people to come back even after the ice melts.  OTOH, if we take a little longer, make the right changes and don't FIU, then people will either stay and play both or leave and then come back.  But, if we FUBAR, they won't.  Ask yourself this, if you were me, would you take a long-term approach to this game's success or a short-term?  If it's the long-term, well, you would look at everything carefully.  You would take safer steps while you plan out the bigger steps.  You would spend more time polishing key things and have more surprises in the wings.  You would do everything you could to keep the game going nicely but expect the worst and be ready for it.  If you take a short-term approach, you would immediately rush to action like the world is coming to an end.  You would too quickly nerf and add just to keep players happy because you believe that they are right and you didn't gather enough evidence because you didn't have the tools or the time.  You'd make all sorts of promises that you believe in and hope you can deliver but then reality rears its ugly head.  You'd spend a ton of time trolling the forums and spending way too much time listening to what is said there and make other changes accordingly.  You'd be looking for the modern equivalent of bread and circuses.

Now, which sounds like a better plan?  And which sounds more like 2001?

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 18, 2008, 02:26:58 AM
If I were you, I'd have official forums.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 02:27:42 AM
If I were you, I'd have official forums.  :awesome_for_real:

FAK YOU BIATCH. THIS LEGANDARY THRED NOW.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 02:28:38 AM
There are some things, problems that is, with the game that are patently obvious that you could increase in say, as you said, 2 days.

Seriously, go look at T3 and T4 quests. Why haven't those been increased in value by 3-400%? Is there any reason at all?

Why haven't - at the very least - set items been reitemized to be in line with the classes they support. I don't want intelligence or wisdom on my damned shadow warrior - and it's not just a localized issue to that class. It's _EVERY_ class. There really aren't that many set items.

Why hasn't the amount of loot in RvR lakes and Scenarios been doubled or triples?

Simple things man, keep that loot slot machine going. Keep people PvPing. Make the RvR the best thing during peak hours. Make the scenarios the best thing during off-peak hours. Hell, if you have to shut down Scenarios from 5-8PM eastern, I'd even understand that move. It would ALMOST make sense. Actually, now that I think about it, it kinda does.

We're talking simple numerical changes to exp across the board though. Because right now, it is like 2003, and I'm playing City of Heroes and getting bugfuck insane about it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 02:30:59 AM
It's not that you can't entertain ideas, but you have to be OK with people rejecting an idea, even if it is your very favoritest one.

Reject away.  All I ever said was that I put it out there (VN) for people to consider and I talked about it here as a *possibility* and nothing more.  Where did I take anyone to task for rejecting the idea?  All I've said is that I want to consider the possibility that even if we boost things like crazy, it still may not bring people out of the scenarios.  Somehow, that got translated into me trying to convince you/people that it was my favorite idea and that I wanted to do it.  

If I have the right to entertain ideas and share them and you have the right to reject them then shouldn't I also have the right to defend/explain them without people thinking that a) I want to do that; b) I don't see how the idea could be a bad one; c) that I think you're wrong simply because I'm making a counter-argument.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2008, 02:32:03 AM
Really, how many MMO's have Crashed and Burned because "OH LORD I CAN LEVEL TOO FAST AND HAVE FUN!" ?


Seriously, when has that ever happened?


Like Ever?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 02:33:52 AM
I've said it countless times in this forum, Scenarios up to tier 4 should've been the training wheels. They should mimic - and you agreed earlier - real RvR. Get people excited about Tier 4 RvR. Now, I still think at least one scenario should be necessary in Tier 4, but perhaps there's a better way to get around that. For example - and I'm just throwing shit against the wall here - when you click the scenario button in tier 4, it isn't actually a scenario button. Designate maybe, a new RvR area that effects the entire region, with a bunch of BOs and maybe a keep in the middle or something - and when you click that button, it takes you to that RvR lake. Or maybe the most populated RvR lake.

Long term wise, steps need to be taken to BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER.

Short term, move the decimal point on the goddamn EXP gain.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 02:34:01 AM
Really, how many MMO's have Crashed and Burned because "OH LORD I CAN LEVEL TOO FAST AND HAVE FUN!" ?


Seriously, when has that ever happened?


Like Ever?

I think all our other arguments have been made and really this is a big one. WE WANT TO MAKE WAR! Let us.

Sincerely
F13


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 02:36:19 AM
Stop saying We Want to Make War. That's not really the point. The point here is to alleviate the mind-numbingness. I agree with Mark, kneejerk chanages to the WAR structure would result in an absolute clusterfuck. But keeping people around with proper rewards/slick-as-hell-level-advancement (as in supa fast) and a working skinner box will let them implement those long term stages.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 18, 2008, 02:36:27 AM
I wasn't aware saying, "No seriously, don't you think no scenario servers would help?" was really an explanation, exactly. Just restating the same thing ("C'mon, at least KINDA admit no-scenario servers could help!!!!") does, indeed, make it seem like you aren't listening at all. If you can see the issues with the idea, you might want to mention them in your defense, and say what benefits there would be to, you know, balance those. People have brought up a LOT of reasons it would be a bad idea, you have not really "defended" why it isn't besides "It's hard. :("

'Course, it's REALLY LATE now. Maybe it's time for bed. At least for me.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 02:39:25 AM
There are some things, problems that is, with the game that are patently obvious that you could increase in say, as you said, 2 days.

....

Simple things man, keep that loot slot machine going. Keep people PvPing. Make the RvR the best thing during peak hours. Make the scenarios the best thing during off-peak hours. Hell, if you have to shut down Scenarios from 5-8PM eastern, I'd even understand that move. It would ALMOST make sense. Actually, now that I think about it, it kinda does.

We're talking simple numerical changes to exp across the board though. Because right now, it is like 2003, and I'm playing City of Heroes and getting bugfuck insane about it.

>>>>Seriously, go look at T3 and T4 quests. Why haven't those been increased in value by 3-400%? Is there any reason at all?
Well, let's start with the fact that we have more than a few quests.  So we would have to either review them all individually or simply say all quest experience is upped by a certain percentage.  And, we have always spoken about the amount of time it would take to level and, on *most* servers, most players are leveling exactly as quickly as we said they would.  Some servers are different and that's what we are trying to pin down.  Also, we've found a disparity in some of the T3/T4 quests based on location as well.  I wish it was as simple as you think it is. We've got reports from all of our servers with graphs showing the exact amount of time that people have spent doing rvr, pve, pqs, etc. and how long it took them to level.  There is a wide disparity on the servers and we are looking at that.

>>>>Why haven't - at the very least - set items been reitemized to be in line with the classes they support. I don't want intelligence or wisdom on my damned shadow warrior - and it's not just a localized issue to that class. It's _EVERY_ class. There really aren't that many set items.
You really don't think the team thought they did that.  Of course they did and they are trying to figure out what went wrong.

>>>>Why hasn't the amount of loot in RvR lakes and Scenarios been doubled or triples?
Again, we're looking at doing that but you can't just snap your fingers and say 2X and its done.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2008, 02:42:58 AM
I wanna dub it, CoH Syndrome.

"I want to enjoy your game, but you make it so fucking hard!"


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 02:43:12 AM
Stop saying We Want to Make War. That's not really the point. The point here is to alleviate the mind-numbingness. I agree with Mark, kneejerk chanages to the WAR structure would result in an absolute clusterfuck. But keeping people around with proper rewards/slick-as-hell-level-advancement (as in supa fast) and a working skinner box will let them implement those long term stages.

Actually yeah dude it is the point. It's a fucking game. RAR. We do want to make war, or at least I do. I don't fucking care how many douchebag liners WoTLK has supplied to make they're game smooth. I really couldn't care less. I'm not asking for knee-jerk changes to anything, but you know all the promotions with the whole "War is Everywhere" shit? Yeah, ok, where the fuck is it? You and I are in agreement on this but yes, I DO WANT TO MAKE WAR. FOR ME THAT"S THE FUCKING POINT.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 02:46:05 AM
For every person that quested to level 40 quickly, I'm pretty sure I can point you at 10 people that AoE grinded to 40. I find it hard to believe that those numbers aren't lying there.

Point being, the PvE isn't fun. We can talk about cluster density and player progression and how fast it goes, but PvE in this game really does boil down to, press strongest attack, repeat. You could increase it a thousand% across the board and honestly, I'd probably still be banging my head against the wall if I had to do it. Hell, if you made it so that every single little town/hovel gave me at least 1 level from quests that all took me to the same location, I'd still be like WHY THE HELL AM I DOING THIS. To which I'd response "Oh, right, it's offpeak hours" and then a moment later I'd think "Well, at least it's going fast."

As Fordel said, leveling too fast has never killed an MMOG. And he's right. I think maybe, perhaps, you missed the part where I said Player Rank 1-40 should've been the tutorial whereas renown shouldn't be changed. As I've said, no one minds a grind, but the grind has to have meaning. 1-40 is a grind for the sake of grind, the proof is in what you just said:

Quote
And, we have always spoken about the amount of time it would take to level and, on *most* servers, most players are leveling exactly as quickly as we said they would.

/snoresville on that man. It rips me apart to read shit like that. This isn't a PvE game. What's it going to hurt if the entire playerbase is level 40?

This is where I'd normally go into a diatribe about this game even having levels being a cop-out design decision, but no, that's not my style tonight. Because I'm exhausted. Suffice it to say, I have 40-50 hours logged on my character. I am VERY good at PvP and I'm not level 40 year because I didn't abuse an AoE grind/exploit, I refuse to take part in T4 questing now, and there's no RvR to speak of because it's either join the zerg and get no reward at T4 or do scenarios and questing. And scenarios just ain't popping outside of select hours.

Out of curiosity, have you done the check on people who canceled their sub for the second month? What percentage of them hit 40? I'm guessing somewhere between 0% and 5% and only because they're broke from the economy kicking them right in the ponch.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 02:47:21 AM
I wasn't aware saying, "No seriously, don't you think no scenario servers would help?" was really an explanation, exactly. Just restating the same thing ("C'mon, at least KINDA admit no-scenario servers could help!!!!") does, indeed, make it seem like you aren't listening at all. If you can see the issues with the idea, you might want to mention them in your defense, and say what benefits there would be to, you know, balance those. People have brought up a LOT of reasons it would be a bad idea, you have not really "defended" why it isn't besides "It's hard. :("

'Course, it's REALLY LATE now. Maybe it's time for bed. At least for me.

My defense was this:

What if we do all the things that people here want (other than cutting scenario exp/renown) and players still won't leave the scenarios.  If this is the case, wouldn't having a scenario-free server work for those players who want non-stop RvR action?


And I've said the same thing more than once.  Again, it's very early now as it past late 3 hours ago, but all I've said and said and said was that *if* we are wrong about the WoWheads and they don't want to move out of scenarios and at the same time we care about our open RvR players, would a no scenario server work?  Nothing more complicated than that.  Because really, if we do everything people think is a great idea and people don't move we only have a limited set of choices:

1) Force them to move out by cutting scenarios at certain levels (tiered)

2) Cut experience/renown from scenarios

3) Try something different like no-scenario server

4) Do nothing


I don't like 2 at all, I truly hate 4, 1 is a possibility and 3 was the no-scenario server or something else like that.  Did I miss anything?

Mark
Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 02:49:59 AM
Uhhhhh, yea, you missed choices 5 and 6.

5) Increase RvR to the point that scenarios are something you do during offpeak hours.

6) Figure out a way to make sure everyone in any tier knows exactly which RvR zone to go to and offer an instant button-press to get there.

I'm sorry, but some things just have to have the training wheels slapped on them so that people can skip the bullshit (this includes walking across a zone to a damned warcamp).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 02:50:39 AM
For every person that quested to level 40 quickly, I'm pretty sure I can point you at 10 people that AoE grinded to 40. I find it hard to believe that those numbers aren't lying there.

Point being, the PvE isn't fun. We can talk about cluster density and player progression and how fast it goes, but PvE in this game really does boil down to, press strongest attack, repeat. You could increase it a thousand% across the board and honestly, I'd probably still be banging my head against the wall if I had to do it. Hell, if you made it so that every single little town/hovel gave me at least 1 level from quests that all took me to the same location, I'd still be like WHY THE HELL AM I DOING THIS. To which I'd response "Oh, right, it's offpeak hours" and then a moment later I'd think "Well, at least it's going fast."

As Fordel said, leveling too fast has never killed an MMOG. And he's right. I think maybe, perhaps, you missed the part where I said Player Rank 1-40 should've been the tutorial whereas renown shouldn't be changed. As I've said, no one minds a grind, but the grind has to have meaning. 1-40 is a grind for the sake of grind, the proof is in what you just said:

Quote
And, we have always spoken about the amount of time it would take to level and, on *most* servers, most players are leveling exactly as quickly as we said they would.

/snoresville on that man. It rips me apart to read shit like that. This isn't a PvE game. What's it going to hurt if the entire playerbase is level 40?

This is where I'd normally go into a diatribe about this game even having levels being a cop-out design decision, but no, that's not my style tonight. Because I'm exhausted. Suffice it to say, I have 40-50 hours logged on my character. I am VERY good at PvP and I'm not level 40 year because I didn't abuse an AoE grind/exploit, I refuse to take part in T4 questing now, and there's no RvR to speak of because it's either join the zerg and get no reward at T4 or do scenarios and questing. And scenarios just ain't popping outside of select hours.

Out of curiosity, have you done the check on people who canceled their sub for the second month? What percentage of them hit 40? I'm guessing somewhere between 0% and 5% and only because they're broke from the economy kicking them right in the ponch.

I can say, without any fear of contradiction or of EA's Investor Relations folks, that I don't know of a single cancellation right now because we just started billing this morning and I don't have the report yet. :)

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 02:51:52 AM

My defense was this:

What if we do all the things that people here want (other than cutting scenario exp/renown) and players still won't leave the scenarios.  If this is the case, wouldn't having a scenario-free server work for those players who want non-stop RvR action?


And I've said the same thing more than once.  Again, it's very early now as it past late 3 hours ago, but all I've said and said and said was that *if* we are wrong about the WoWheads and they don't want to move out of scenarios and at the same time we care about our open RvR players, would a no scenario server work?  Nothing more complicated than that.  Because really, if we do everything people think is a great idea and people don't move we only have a limited set of choices:

1) Force them to move out by cutting scenarios at certain levels (tiered)

2) Cut experience/renown from scenarios

3) Try something different like no-scenario server

4) Do nothing


I don't like 2 at all, I truly hate 4, 1 is a possibility and 3 was the no-scenario server or something else like that.  Did I miss anything?

Mark
Mark

Umm yeah. Do 2 with some 1. as is reasonable . Seriously WTF? Are you having an issue with changing the carrot/stick ratio? Players will help those folks find rewards you know. Or are you just afraid? I just don't get it. Assuming accompanying increases in RvR...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 02:53:02 AM
Uhhhhh, yea, you missed choices 5 and 6.

5) Increase RvR to the point that scenarios are something you do during offpeak hours.

6) Figure out a way to make sure everyone in any tier knows exactly which RvR zone to go to and offer an instant button-press to get there.

I'm sorry, but some things just have to have the training wheels slapped on them so that people can skip the bullshit (this includes walking across a zone to a damned warcamp).

As to (5), I've already said huge gains for open RvR.  But there's no magic number unless you want me to say "If you do RvR you'll level instantly!" We want RvR leveling to be as fast, if not faster, than PvE.  Yes, I know it's not there yet but that's the goal.

As to (6), that's on my list already and falls under the things we need to do heading.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 02:54:45 AM
Squirrel,

I can tell you right the f now. You never, ever ever ever cut rewards/exp from something when unnecessary. And here it's quite unnecessary. There's WAY MORE than enough wiggle room to get players into RvR. Scenarios aren't THAT lucrative, saying they're the most lucrative place for exp is a misnomer since the exp is still shit.

The first thing I'd cut? That diminishing return bullshit on characters who have been killed recently. Who gives a shit if a guild organizes with another to let them get pwned over and over and be farmed. Great, more people that get to 40 faster! I don't understand this FEAR of everyone in the game being at 40. Hell, the thing is specifically designed to have everyone at 40. /snarl


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 02:55:07 AM
Uhhhhh, yea, you missed choices 5 and 6.

5) Increase RvR to the point that scenarios are something you do during offpeak hours.

6) Figure out a way to make sure everyone in any tier knows exactly which RvR zone to go to and offer an instant button-press to get there.

I'm sorry, but some things just have to have the training wheels slapped on them so that people can skip the bullshit (this includes walking across a zone to a damned warcamp).

As to (5), I've already said huge gains for open RvR.  But there's no magic number unless you want me to say "If you do RvR you'll level instantly!" We want RvR leveling to be as fast, if not faster, than PvE.  Yes, I know it's not there yet but that's the goal.

As to (6), that's on my list already and falls under the things we need to do heading.

Mark

Once you do (5) that will be huge. I know there's no magic number but that will be huge - particularly once people experience it first-hand.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: FatuousTwat on October 18, 2008, 02:55:34 AM
The only thing that kept me from buying this game at release was my worries over the t3/4 grind. It was why I quit the beta as well.

Perhaps I've just been trained too well, and was searching out the grind myself, instead of trying to find alternate ways of leveling. I'm not playing ATM, so I can't say for sure.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 02:56:06 AM
Good to hear about #6. Also, making RvR faster than PvE is kinda laughable, as I've said the PvE here is slow like CoH slow. When you say fast, do you mean like 50x faster or like 2x faster? Because the latter we pretty much got with the 20% gain and that was like 20% on top of zero.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 02:57:02 AM

My defense was this:

What if we do all the things that people here want (other than cutting scenario exp/renown) and players still won't leave the scenarios.  If this is the case, wouldn't having a scenario-free server work for those players who want non-stop RvR action?


And I've said the same thing more than once.  Again, it's very early now as it past late 3 hours ago, but all I've said and said and said was that *if* we are wrong about the WoWheads and they don't want to move out of scenarios and at the same time we care about our open RvR players, would a no scenario server work?  Nothing more complicated than that.  Because really, if we do everything people think is a great idea and people don't move we only have a limited set of choices:

1) Force them to move out by cutting scenarios at certain levels (tiered)

2) Cut experience/renown from scenarios

3) Try something different like no-scenario server

4) Do nothing


I don't like 2 at all, I truly hate 4, 1 is a possibility and 3 was the no-scenario server or something else like that.  Did I miss anything?

Mark
Mark

Umm yeah. Do 2 with some 1. as is reasonable . Seriously WTF? Are you having an issue with changing the carrot/stick ratio? Players will help those folks find rewards you know. Or are you just afraid? I just don't get it. Assuming accompanying increases in RvR...

You really think that cutting scenario exp/renown gain right now and forcing people to open RvR would be a good business decision?  Sorry, got to really disagree here.  I prefer buffing up open RvR (which will still be met with cries of NERF) versus changing the way the vast majority of people play the game overnight by cutting things away from them.  

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 02:57:17 AM
Squirrel,

I can tell you right the f now. You never, ever ever ever cut rewards/exp from something when unnecessary. And here it's quite unnecessary. There's WAY MORE than enough wiggle room to get players into RvR. Scenarios aren't THAT lucrative, saying they're the most lucrative place for exp is a misnomer since the exp is still shit.

The first thing I'd cut? That diminishing return bullshit on characters who have been killed recently. Who gives a shit if a guild organizes with another to let them get pwned over and over and be farmed. Great, more people that get to 40 faster! I don't understand this FEAR of everyone in the game being at 40. Hell, the thing is specifically designed to have everyone at 40. /snarl

You're probably right, I know I'd hate that. MAKE THEM FIND THE WRIGGLE ROOM THEN. K?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 02:58:41 AM


You really think that cutting scenario exp/renown gain right now and forcing people to open RvR would be a good business decision?  Sorry, got to really disagree here.  I prefer buffing up open RvR (which will still be met with cries of NERF) versus changing the way the vast majority of people play the game overnight by cutting things away from them.  

Mark

No I don't. My prior opinions stand, but yah, cutting xp/rr now is a bad idea.

Yeah it's late - i have to retract that idea. But all my other ones were awesome for real. Honest!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 03:03:07 AM
Good to hear about #6. Also, making RvR faster than PvE is kinda laughable, as I've said the PvE here is slow like CoH slow. When you say fast, do you mean like 50x faster or like 2x faster? Because the latter we pretty much got with the 20% gain and that was like 20% on top of zero.

I don't know what the number is right now.  Here's one damn thing I would change, I would make this game have 70 levels and keep dinging all the way, all the time.  I do think that some of the problem is the fact that people think 40 < 60 when it comes to levels and that the grinding seems worse because you have only 40 levels to go to max out.  I'm not saying you guys feel that way but I do think, at some level, it is having an effect on some people.  I've played a ton of MMOs and, at least according to the spreadsheet the time to solo most toons is faster here (on paper, I know) than EQ, DAoC, WoW when they launched.  Again, I'm not, not saying working as intended (I hate that phrase) but when we set out the number originally it was still less than those games and I cut that number down even more about 6 months ago.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 03:05:44 AM


You really think that cutting scenario exp/renown gain right now and forcing people to open RvR would be a good business decision?  Sorry, got to really disagree here.  I prefer buffing up open RvR (which will still be met with cries of NERF) versus changing the way the vast majority of people play the game overnight by cutting things away from them.  

Mark

No I don't. My prior opinions stand, but yah, cutting xp/rr now is a bad idea.

Yeah it's late - i have to retract that idea. But all my other ones were awesome for real. Honest!

LOL.  Well, it looks like things are settling down now.  It was quite a good thread for a while, wasn't it?

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2008, 03:06:02 AM
Quote
2) Cut experience/renown from scenarios



Who the shit is saying this?

"Please make the scenarios shittier, while not improving the other parts of the game?"

No one wants that. Other then the professed crazies.  :why_so_serious:


Quote
What if we do all the things that people here want (other than cutting scenario exp/renown) and players still won't leave the scenarios.  If this is the case, wouldn't having a scenario-free server work for those players who want non-stop RvR action?

No, that wouldn't work, because even the most Die Hard RvR-Fanatics need non-RvR downtime. So now you've locked away your RvR player base in a all or nothing situation with no middle ground, the middle ground provided by scenario PvP. You've also alienated your mythical scenario only player base into thinking they are 'doing it wrong'.

You know what was one of DaoC's greatest strengths? The ability to go "fuck, I'm tired of this shit, I just want to gank a noob" and run off to a low level BG for half an hour or so, or to do some quests, or run your guilds newbies through Muire Tomb so the mobs pathing through the floor wouldn't kill them.

Making a "RvR-Only" server, just removes an option, an option a RvR player would enjoy. It isn't a fucking "OR" question here. People want to do both. The entire issue people are having is the RvR option IS NOT an option for most players. Replacing a non-option with another non-option is not a fix. It's not even a band-aid.

There is no such thing as non-stop RvR action. It would be rad if it existed, but people need to sleep/eat/work/postonMMORPGforums  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 03:07:44 AM
It'll be a good thread when I can log into the game and not see that i have  600k experience to gain for the next level with 7 levels left to go to 40 before I can even start caring about RR and seeing a quest that makes me walk 10 goddamn minutes and kill some shitty mobs for 5k exp staring at me because Serpent's Pass won't pop and the RvR zones are just sitting there being red on my map.

I think that probably sums up the T3/T4 experience for most people, except that Tor Anroc pops.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 18, 2008, 03:08:40 AM
I prefer buffing up open RvR (which will still be met with cries of NERF) versus changing the way the vast majority of people play the game overnight by cutting things away from them.  


Can you make the launch client window larger highlighting the latest improvements?  It's great adding extra incentives to encourage people to open RVR, but it's only going to help if they know about it.

Also on server population balance, I'd put a T4 only quest item drop on the final keep lord before a city attack.  Make it an item that you can mail to an alt on the same account that makes them permanently gain exp at twice the normal rate.  That encourages people to make alts.  

For order players on servers where they are outnumbered, have an extra item that give them an invite a friend code that will allow the friend to play order on that server with the double exp bonus.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 03:10:25 AM
Quote
Also on server population balance, I'd put a T4 only quest item drop on the final keep lord before a city attack.  Make it an item that you can mail to an alt on the same account that makes them permanently gain exp at twice the normal rate.  That encourages people to make alts. 

Lol.

It's more reasonable for you to simply gain EXP at double the rate on any alt once you hit T4 at all. Mythic/Mark should not be afraid of having an entire playerbase at Tier 4 and going toe to toe in RvR (if they can find eachother - tee-hee).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 03:12:02 AM
I'm not frothy anymore. Fox just ordered a full season of Sarah Connor chronicles. That said, my description of t3/t4 above still stands. That's seriously how it feels mark and it's terrible.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Evildrider on October 18, 2008, 03:12:22 AM
Open RvR is fun, but there's no way thats going to be fun 100% of the time.  XP rewards being upped will help alot in this area though.  However for as much T4 open RvR I've been doing lately there are just some things that make it totally unfun.. that being attackers being able to exploit their way into keeps without breaking down the keep doors and using abilities to pull attackers into keeps and then nuking them.  Those are the main two.  

Scenarios, there just needs to be a cut down on the total number of them and some rework of some of the maps.  Deathmatch/ffa maps would be an awesome addition with less of the whole ctf/objective play.  I personally love doing scenarios, the maps aren't always the best but hell I liked Tor Anroc.  It was just too big of a map.

PvE isn't necessary but you still have to have it in there, just let it be worth more xp and give better rewards.  It shouldn't be absolute top shelf rewards.. leave that to RvR drops and reknown gear.  i don't see how people can say the PvE is worse then WoW's because imo it's pretty much the exact same thing.  The xp rewards need to be tweaked a bit but i don't see this game being CoX grindy.  I've managed to do pretty well xp wise in T4 with supplemented scenarios and open RvR.  I'll pretty much be at one week played when I hit 40 and that's not too bad imo.  The RR levels are going to be alot more of a pain though.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: apocrypha on October 18, 2008, 03:12:53 AM
I think you're spending too much time getting drawn into internet arguments Mark.

Whether it's sniping between you and some Blizzard dudes or debating with the crazies here I don't think it's a good use of your time right now. The things you've been saying online over the last few days make you sound stressed, defensive and a bit desperate. Please don't take that personally, it's just my opinion. Turn off the computers, go and take a shower, have a meal with your family, go for a walk, get all of this shit out of your head and devote your energies to the game, not to fighting with a bunch of cranky internet nerds (even if they happen to be COO's of your competitors).

Also, stop referring to trolls. Anywhere. Sure, there may be people who don't care what they're posting just cos they like getting a rise out of you, but I'd guess that 95% of the posts that you think of as trolling posts are just frustrated players expressing themselves in the language of the medium - i.e. not very eloquently and dressed up in internet-forum hostility dialect. By taking time to specifically label them as trolls it makes it sound like you have contempt for their feelings. And even if that's true, letting people know it is a very bad idea. Behind every "troll" is a pissed-off player or almost-player, neither of which you want to drive away.

Again, just thoughts from another internet nerd. Don't take anything anyone says on the internet personally, even when it's, you know, a personal attack.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Velorath on October 18, 2008, 03:15:21 AM
I do think that some of the problem is the fact that people think 40 < 60 when it comes to levels and that the grinding seems worse because you have only 40 levels to go to max out.

Personally my line of thinking is that that there's 120 levels to go through in order to max out, which is largely why I do scenarios.  It's the only activity that really allows you to grind through two kinds of levels at once.  If open RVR allowed me to do that at the same pace, I'd be switching back and forth between the two.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2008, 03:16:36 AM
Quote
I've played a ton of MMOs and, at least according to the spreadsheet the time to solo most toons is faster here (on paper, I know) than EQ, DAoC, WoW when they launched.  Again, I'm not, not saying working as intended (I hate that phrase) but when we set out the number originally it was still less than those games and I cut that number down even more about 6 months ago.


Try comparing it to WoW's XP curve NOW, since that's what you're competing with   :grin: (Obvious post is obvious again?).


Raw speed is certainly important (probably most, go fast enough and no one will care HOW), but so is HOW you level up. Reading about Schild and his adventures in the same Scenario over a entire weekend sucks away my interest in playing.

"So I can like Grind WSG/AB, but to level too?" :heartbreak:



Like, Schild has said before, Why would you be afraid of people hitting level cap in WAR?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 18, 2008, 03:21:51 AM
Quote
Also on server population balance, I'd put a T4 only quest item drop on the final keep lord before a city attack.  Make it an item that you can mail to an alt on the same account that makes them permanently gain exp at twice the normal rate.  That encourages people to make alts. 

Lol.

It's more reasonable for you to simply gain EXP at double the rate on any alt once you hit T4 at all. Mythic/Mark should not be afraid of having an entire playerbase at Tier 4 and going toe to toe in RvR (if they can find eachother - tee-hee).

Why's it more reasonable?  If you want a double exp alt, be part of an attack that locks down the final zone before a city attack, players value things more if they have to do something to get them.  Also you want people in RVR.  I take it you don't object to the "double exp invite a friend" similar thing for order?  They could even get it for defending their home city during an attack.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 03:26:04 AM
I think you're spending too much time getting drawn into internet arguments Mark.

Whether it's sniping between you and some Blizzard dudes or debating with the crazies here I don't think it's a good use of your time right now. The things you've been saying online over the last few days make you sound stressed, defensive and a bit desperate. Please don't take that personally, it's just my opinion. Turn off the computers, go and take a shower, have a meal with your family, go for a walk, get all of this shit out of your head and devote your energies to the game, not to fighting with a bunch of cranky internet nerds (even if they happen to be COO's of your competitors).

Also, stop referring to trolls. Anywhere. Sure, there may be people who don't care what they're posting just cos they like getting a rise out of you, but I'd guess that 95% of the posts that you think of as trolling posts are just frustrated players expressing themselves in the language of the medium - i.e. not very eloquently and dressed up in internet-forum hostility dialect. By taking time to specifically label them as trolls it makes it sound like you have contempt for their feelings. And even if that's true, letting people know it is a very bad idea. Behind every "troll" is a pissed-off player or almost-player, neither of which you want to drive away.

Again, just thoughts from another internet nerd. Don't take anything anyone says on the internet personally, even when it's, you know, a personal attack.

Actually, I've probably only used the trolls term a handful of times in the last few months.  And I usually only use it when I know the person is trolling but I've cut way, way down on that from my "Have a cookie, trolls like cookies" days. :)

As far as taking what you said personally, LOL, no worries at all.

As to being stressed, yep, I plead guilty to that.  3+ years on a game, working for someone else for the first time in 20+ years, serious competition, nasty family issues, etc., etc., etc.  So, I probably do sound a bit defensive but it won't last much longer.  I hope to take my first real vacation in a year soon.  Thanks for the concern and the advice, seriously.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 18, 2008, 03:29:37 AM
Quote
I've played a ton of MMOs and, at least according to the spreadsheet the time to solo most toons is faster here (on paper, I know) than EQ, DAoC, WoW when they launched.  Again, I'm not, not saying working as intended (I hate that phrase) but when we set out the number originally it was still less than those games and I cut that number down even more about 6 months ago.


Try comparing it to WoW's XP curve NOW, since that's what you're competing with   :grin: (Obvious post is obvious again?).


Raw speed is certainly important (probably most, go fast enough and no one will care HOW), but so is HOW you level up. Reading about Schild and his adventures in the same Scenario over a entire weekend sucks away my interest in playing.

"So I can like Grind WSG/AB, but to level too?" :heartbreak:

Like, Schild has said before, Why would you be afraid of people hitting level cap in WAR?

I did that (the XP comparison) already. :)  And in terms of being afraid, we're not which is why we, in theory, made it easier to level than most of the competition (I can't say all since I haven't played all MMOs).

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: FatuousTwat on October 18, 2008, 03:38:22 AM
I gotta say that it is pretty fucking awesome that Mark is actually willing to discuss this with us here.

The way that the majority of people are responding to this thread is great. People seem to care about this game.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Goreschach on October 18, 2008, 03:42:23 AM

I did that (the XP comparison) already. :)  And in terms of being afraid, we're not which is why we, in theory, made it easier to level than most of the competition (I can't say all since I haven't played all MMOs).

Mark

You're missing the point. Leveling in this game is incredibly tedious, much moreso than in wow. This is just compounded by the fact that most of the players aren't even here for the diku leveling shit, they're here for the pvp. Even if leveling is objectively faster in war, that isn't necessarily good enough because expectations are different. And that isn't even taking into account the general bugs and weirdness players have to put up with, which will just aggravate anything they already find to be annoying.

Let me put it this way: I like the pvp. I like scenarios. I won't even mention open rvr, because it basically doesn't exist. If it did, I suppose I'd at least try it. Offhand, I can think of at least 3 classes that I'd be interested in playing as alts. And right now I'm considering canceling my account. Why? Because leveling is around five times slower than I'd be happy with.

There's no way in hell I'd currently make a single alt, as I'm mind numbingly tired of even leveling my main character. Maybe you think people would get bored once they hit 40, and maybe after a while they would. I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm already bored. There are things I'd like to do in the game, but I'm not going to bother with the grind the way it is.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2008, 03:45:26 AM
I did that (the XP comparison) already. :)  And in terms of being afraid, we're not which is why we, in theory, made it easier to level than most of the competition (I can't say all since I haven't played all MMOs).


Theory failed!   :grin:



No seriously, there is a massive disconnect between what you deem an acceptable rate of leveling and what the players will seemingly stand for. People shouldn't be going "T1 fine, T2 mostly fine, T3 HOLY COCKSHITWALLBLOCKFUCK, T4 /wrist".  Leveling stops being any kind of fun after awhile AND it slows the fuck down.

Like I said before, I have yet to see a game fail because they leveled too fast.

Plenty of games that don't even exist anymore because of the opposite though!




-fake preview edit- See Goreschach? He is exactly what I am referring too. "Is the end game fun? Fuck if I know, I'm stuck at level 22" (note: I don't actually know what level Gore is  :oh_i_see: )


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: FatuousTwat on October 18, 2008, 04:18:57 AM
I'd like to throw out an idea that just came to me...

Could you somehow connect ORVR and scenarios? Something along the lines of DAOC's Darkness Falls... Keeps have to change hands so many times before a certain scenario opens? Or maybe a certain amount of people have to be killed in ORVR? Limit the amount of scenario games played each time they open?

Perhaps have the scenarios somehow effect keeps as well?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nija on October 18, 2008, 04:24:00 AM
One of the main problems, to me, is the that the zones weren't made with the server technology in mind. The zones are huge. I like huge zones - I love them in fact. But I only truly like them when they are filled with people.

I know it's 4am PST on a Saturday morning, but I just logged on my level 31 Archmage, who can't do anything worthwhile solo, (absolutely nothing.) and I then went to every T3 Warcamp and did a /who, and then I manually counted the people I saw sitting next to the scenario quest turn in people.

Every single person on my various /who searches was accounted for at the various Warcamps, waiting on a queue to pop. There wasn't a single person out doing quests, PQs, exploring, anything. Not a single one.

2k people per server is about 8k too few. Look at all of the T4 zones. You should entirely close down the Elf area and the Dwarf/Greenskin area until those cities are in the game, and until you've done a couple waves of server merges.

We need an in game population density about equal to Oakland, California. Currently it's at Kansas levels. This game is like Eve in that it requires people playing it in order to be fun. The content will be self sustaining once the correct rewards are in place. I don't see that happening with the current pop. density, though.

As for people constantly doing scenarios, just disable the ones that can be done quickest for the best xp/hr. That would be Mourkain and Tor Anroc. I'd do something other than scenarios if there were other people doing something other than scenarios. My class requires other people, so I'm kind of up shit creek if the PVE game is empty. The point of disabling those scenarios is to get some good data points from the other scenarios that barely get played. See how much exp people are getting from a 15 minute game of Phoenix Gate. See why that cemetary one scores so low. You need to have every single scenario giving out the same relative exp over a 15 minute timeframe.

Like Schild, I leveled through T3 entirely by doing Tor Anroc. I've played two other scenarios one time each. It went very fast because I grouped with two friends who were Bright Wizards, and I just kept them healed so they ran around with 100 combustion and skullfucked entire teams. We'd all 3 get about 8% of a level after quest turn ins per scenario. We'd make our own group as to not share any of our solo kill experience, and the xp gained per game was substantial. There were several games where all three of us got over 20k exp. We can finish a game in under 6 minutes, with 4:30 being the quickest one that I've noticed so far.

T4, so far, is a nightmare. Destruction is filled with level 40 guys who have been level 40 for 3 weeks now - all using the AE kill streak "bug" (not a bug, just not as intended) to level extremely fast. Now we're forced into the PVE game, after having done almost 0 PVE, because we lose 90% of the T4 scenarios. Losing = bad exp. Bad exp from scenarios makes them inefficient.

Take a look at my characters. My first guy was on a server that ended up being unbalanced 3:1 in Destructions favor. I could do tons of PQs because there were tons of people always there. But I never got into any good, evenly matched fights. It was a disgusting zerg. We uprooted our entire guild 2 weeks ago and rolled Order characters, no +xp bonus or server transfers or anything. The old fashioned, pain in the ass way.

Click the Influence tab for each of these guys. It shows which chapters the character has participated in, as far as Inf goes. The reason I've done barely any PVE on Plincess Toadstoor is that there isn't anyone doing PVE, anywhere.

(http://www.wardb.com/sigs/34015.jpg) (http://www.wardb.com/profile.aspx?id=34015)

(http://www.wardb.com/sigs/104674.jpg) (http://www.wardb.com/profile.aspx?id=104674)

The main reason you see everyone talking about the PVE game being so shitty between the T3 and T4 junction, especially on this forum - with everyone playing on a Destruction stacked server, is they are getting their goddamn cocks crushed in T4 scenarios fighting squads of level 40 characters doing the only thing that has given them decent risk/rewards/time investment for the entire life of their character. Now we're all collectively being forced into the wild-goddamn-wilderness, that is fucking empty BTW, (in case you missed that) and doing quests that net .75% of a level per turn in. Not good.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kirth on October 18, 2008, 05:13:22 AM
I'm not frothy anymore. Fox just ordered a full season of Sarah Connor chronicles. That said, my description of t3/t4 above still stands. That's seriously how it feels mark and it's terrible.

Good to see fox stopped being so  :uhrr:

As to Warhammer, if we are throwing ideas out there: Add a chest similar to what you get off killing a keep lord for successfully defending a keep(make keep defense a public quest with some goal of kill xx players), give defenders a way to "Push" out attackers and lock the keep down for anywhere between 20 minutes to an hour+. I've participated in attacks and defense, attacks tend to be more hit and run affairs, where you want to avoid massive amount of enemy's so you can increase rewards (keep lord chests). Defense is just a delaying the inevitable , where attackers bust in the front gate, bust in the keep and depending on number you just hold the floor with the keep lord on it or they wipe you out bag the keep lord and move on. Defense is alot fun but there is no end to it, no goal no reward. Coming from Order side I think alot more people would be engaged in saving a keep if they knew they could "Win" if only temporarily. Another thing that would be nice is to have the NPC defenders power level related to the number of Player defenders, this would be an answer tot he early morning keep raiding problem. I'm not saying have them so powerful that its impossible to get past them but to make it so small bands can't ninja keeps in the wee hours when no one is on, just so that it might slow larger forces down slightly until defenders can be mustered. . 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Modern Angel on October 18, 2008, 06:23:13 AM
I mean absolutely no disrespect when I say this, but the PvE is *bad*. Bad bad. And I know that's a subjective thing but there aren't even escort quests. I hate escort quests but they at least show that scripting can be done, even if it's rudimentary.

The PvE in this game feels like a terrible grind. When I stepped outside a little bit I realized that it's not any grindier than WoW time wise but it *feels* that way. It's stultifying. For all the cool scripting events on some of the PQs not one whit of it was spared for the standard PvE. To level at any sort of a reasonable rate (for my sanity at least) I was doing PvE and scenarios all at the same time, which is about what I suspect you guys wanted me to do. But somewhere in t3 it all changed and the bar just wasn't moving fast enough.

Now, like I said, this is all subjective and part of what I as a player see but holding up a spread sheet and saying it's not actually grindy doesn't change anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are what matter. Out of the tons of people I play with or know who play (dozens and dozens) precisely three have objected to my saying that the grind was getting to me. The rest nodded their heads and said something to the effect of everything else being so awesome but god, the grind... that's not good.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Typhon on October 18, 2008, 06:36:25 AM
I like RvR (played DAOC for two years), but I also really like scenarios due to the numbers of combatants being even and the "click a button to queue for the scenario... no matter where you are or what you are doing".

I would love it if:

1) scenarios represented some tactical/strategic value in RvR. Example: playing (and winning) Nordenwatch boosts guard NPCs at a particular location in RvR. Playing a scenario that was a key value to an underway RvR engagement should provide greater reward (some folks want to participate in RvR but their machines can't handle it)

2) there was a UI that lets us know which scenarios are being queued for by the opposite side

3) there was a mechanism to encourage people to play something beside fucking Tor Anroc.  I fucking hate Tor Anroc, and I play a class with knockback. Give scenario's a "rested bonus", so that ones that aren't being played as much are worth more so that people who hate the popular scenarios get a little variety.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 18, 2008, 07:57:26 AM
My God, don't you people sleep?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 18, 2008, 08:37:42 AM
My God, don't you people sleep?

Some of us don't sleep much.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Triforcer on October 18, 2008, 08:47:18 AM
My God, don't you people sleep?

Not for a thread of this caliber (thejeni quality).  Seriously, this thread needs to be inscribed on plates of beaten gold, read through seer stones, and used as the basis of a religion that has magic underwear and opposes gay marriage.  Even reading the first post or two out loud should summon a horde of flying monkeys.  That's how fucking awesome this is. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 18, 2008, 08:53:40 AM
My God, don't you people sleep?

Not for a thread of this caliber (thejeni quality).  Seriously, this thread needs to be inscribed on plates of beaten gold, read through seer stones, and used as the basis of a religion that has magic underwear and opposes gay marriage.  Even reading the first post or two out loud should summon a horde of flying monkeys.  That's how fucking awesome this is. 

Yup. The Blood God has nothing on this. I'm having it tattooed on my back.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 18, 2008, 09:31:20 AM
Yup. The Blood God has nothing on this. I'm having it tattooed on my back.
You need it in glowing ink, like a Bright Wizard.  We can call the followers Forumites.  Or something.  Definately Chaos followers of some type.  Rant for the Word God!

Unfortunately most of the points I'd like to make already have been.  Someone needs to come up with something while everyone else is asleep.  I will add:

And that's exactly what I said we'd do.  We're going to boost it like crazy.  Maybe I would have been better off just saying:

We are going to boost RvR like crazy, it's going to be the place to be.  You'd have to have 10 tons of brain damage not to go open RvR.
For future reference, something of this magnitude which addresses the biggest concern people have needs to be highlighted early on.  Good to hear.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 18, 2008, 10:09:18 AM
Man, the Chinese get a Formula 1 Grand Prix so the qualifying is in the middle of the night in US time, and I miss the great debate.

What was your server population tonight when you logged in?

So, let me ask you, would you prefer a server type where there are no scenarios and everybody has to open RvR?

I wouldn't know Mark, you gave a 20% bonus to Destruction on the server where my Orc was and I went and played him. Does that make me a bad man?

I certainly don't see the need for a "no scenarios" server. Go ahead and do it if you like - you've already stated that you intend to greatly increase the skirmish & keep RvR, and that's the solution that most of us here are looking for. We can live with people playing scenarios so long as its not all the people. Optional transfer servers bring their own problems - they fracture groups/guilds and they often result in low populations or populations of people who are trying out one last changed variant before packing in playing. I'm not really interested in those odds with any of my more 'developed' characters.

As well as the incentive for pukka RvR - please make keep taking and defending the greatest rate of both XP and renown gains and improve loot there both from keep lords and player kills while engaged in that activity - there should be a slowed rate associated with repeated scenario playing. Rewarding Schild for grinding Tor Anroc and becoming unmotivated to play was foolish - after a certain number of runs of the same scenario cut the gains for a character. That forces people to do something else, even if its another scenario, which breaks up the monotony and aids retention - and means that more than four scenarios get played regularly on each server. But the gains elsewhere have to be as good. That's a must. Whatever you do, please make significant open RvR XP gains a very very high priority. Version 1.0x priority.

Also, could you please look into the zone control? Something is broken, and I suspect victory points are accumulating multiplied by the number of participants, rewarding mass participation more than a smaller but competent group. The consensus seems to be that "the other side is exploiting" but you guys must have the stats to know the score.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 18, 2008, 10:50:20 AM
On the original topic: hire a PR person.

We, the customers, aren't stupid on the whole. When someone from MMO studio A talks down a competitor product from MMO studio B, we kinda figure out that they have a reason for doing so that isn't pure of heart. It's the same when MMO studio A makes positive comments about the future of their game - it's self-interest.

Where this becomes fun for the rest of us is seeing the CEO of one company responding longhand to comments made by some guys from the other company. Blizzard doesn't talk about their competitors except when they can point out how small they are. You know what would have worked better? A two sentence reply that dismisses WoW's comments in a pithy way, such as: "We know there are those at Blizzard who have been playing WAR non-stop and we look forward to Kaplan joining us. We can give him a few levelling and PvP tips if he needs it."

You can get your new PR person to check through your SoGs and related comments to check them for factual accuracy. The "no other MMO has EVAH offered free classes!" was stupid because it was so simply disproved (and since no-one else mentioned it, DDO introduced the Drow free as well back in 2006). It also makes you look like you haven't been paying attention to what the rest of the industry is doing.

Also, you can say how nice you were to Blizzard all you want, but Paul Barnett wasn't adverse to putting the boot in. From Blizzard's (and everyone else's really) viewpoint, that's still Mythic saying bad things about Blizzard.

We are going to boost RvR like crazy, it's going to be the place to be.  You'd have to have 10 tons of brain damage not to go open RvR.

Hello.

I play off-peak times. My ORvR experience has been running around an empty RvR area, looking at the various control points. No deleveling means no going back to previous locations. Glad to hear the teleport to RvR is under consideration, because the alternative is to wait in a warcamp just in case, which isn't what I want to pay $15 a month to do.

WAR's biggest problem is the lack of population proportional to world / content size. Scenarios work because they bring players together easily. Technical miracles aside, the next server type should be double (at least) your current population limits. Give those free transfers, give out lots of xp rewards on the new server, merge servers, whatever - RvR (and PQs, for that matter) don't work off-peak because there are not enough people around. From a lot of people's comments, it appears that this issue flows over to peak periods as well.

All the talk of no-scenario servers or what the WoWheads may or may not want is obscuring the issue. More players per server = more targets in RvR / PvP.

Finally, everyone who thinks cutting rewards for scenarios in any way, shape or form is a good idea has that "10 tons of brain damage" mentioned above. Buff the other rewards, don't nerf the reward scheme you currently have.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 18, 2008, 11:20:53 AM
One problem with the "we need WAY MORE PEOPLE PER SERVER" thing is that the game really, really hates when a lot of people are on my screen. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a bit of the reason people don't go do open RvR as well. I really like taking keeps, but even when I turn everything down it gets pretty slideshow-y, and when you're a tank class, that's really bad. :(


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Khaldun on October 18, 2008, 12:37:42 PM
Mark:

I think the thing I'm looking for, which I've written about, is a lead developer for a MMOG who recognizes the peculiar character of their job in relationship to the customer base. I don't think there is an easily comparable service industry. You're the public representative of a team of people who combine the roles of political rulers, gods, authors, customer service, and seller of goods in relationship to their players/customers/citizens. I don't really think any developer has understood how that melange of roles and responsibilities ought to impact how and when they talk about their gameworld. Raph probably gets closest to understanding what this means and crafting a public voice to go with it.

Blizzard solves this problem largely by hiding the decision-making layer of their live management away entirely, and leaving it almost entirely to an intermediary layer of customer service representatives to speak on behalf of the gameworld sovereigns to the playerbase. I don't think that's the right way to go, but they stick to it with some consistency and it functions fairly well as a result. If you think in terms of political sovereignty, it's rather like a mysterious kind of royalty who appears only in glimpses in public, with decisions being shrouded behind layers of pomp and circumstance in the royal court. They do ok with this approach largely because they deliver a very polished, reliable product.

I don't think you have that luxury if you want to hold steady at 500k subs, not the least because Blizzard also is pretty damn smart about undercutting competition in all sorts of ways, including public jabs designed to put competitors off their feed. But the public voice you've built up over the years isn't a consistent alternative that will create loyalty in players through rough patches in the development of a game. I think a couple of other people have used this analogy, but I hear too much Smedley in some of what you say--too much promotion, too much all-is-well, too much Oval Office press secretary.

I think a consistent alternative to Blizzard's remote, chilly inaccessibility is to take people inside the structure of your decision-making, to create a transparent kind of affect, to go for sustained honesty. I don't think a single MMOG has helped its retention rates by saying, "All is basically well! We hear your concerns, and believe me, we take them seriously! Great things are coming, and great things have already come!" It just doesn't work with your audience. They've usually played a lot of these things, they're often pretty savvy about design issues.

 This isn't just about saying, "Players are right! I am sorry! We suck!", either. Taking people inside the process of decision-making is about laying out the issues clearly, and not ceding to players your judgment about the right way to go on some of the tougher issues. On the RvR lakes, for example, you could say, "Ok, here's what we're thinking. We can tweak this and that in the short-term  and see what works better. Our *design goal* is XYZ for those lakes. But we can't do some of the things you're suggesting, either because they are impossible given our resource limitations or our code base, or because we think they're honestly not good ideas." Etc. Really, almost no one has taken this approach, in part because they don't want to demoralize their own team by appearing to criticize them in public. Or, if I can be brutal, because at least some MMOG designers don't understand the problems and issues in MMOGs half as well as some of their most experienced players. I think you understand well enough, so why not work your way towards transparency, inclusion, straight-talking honesty?

What have you got to lose? The current approach to communication is really not going to get you over the problems I see you having *very soon*. I know I'm fairly close to unsubbing myself now that I feel I've seen most of the interesting issues that Warhammer poses for the MMOG form and its future. I generally find that in terms of whether I'm having fun or not in a MMOG, I'm right about where the consensus judgment falls--when I've unsubbed, I'm usually in the middle of a wave of unsubbing.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 18, 2008, 01:23:30 PM
What have you got to lose?

Typically, time. Engaging your customers in that level of frank discourse generally requires not only that one or more people are reading the hundreds or thousands of responses to every official statement, but also that they are digesting them, evaluating them and responding to them. That doesn't just take up the time of the customer facing staff, but also all the development staff who have to explain each technical issue to those staff and why certain suggestions may or may not work.

In other words, the decision making process in a 300 person development team involves enough voices. When you add in a million customers at every meeting and evaluate every idea that each of those 1,000,300 people come up with, nothing gets done.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Khaldun on October 18, 2008, 01:43:59 PM
I'm not saying you evaluate every idea: if you don't have a good heuristic for sorting out high-value communications from low-value ones, you're not a good user of online information, period. That's like learning how to read. It's a basic skill.

Nor am I saying that Mark's personal job is to do that evaluation. But neither should his personal job be the hands-on implementation of specific coding or designs, either. If his job is to communicate in any respect, best he do it in a way that builds retention rather than does nothing for it. I think honesty, transparency, and a respect for the general levels of savvy about this form of entertainment in his customer base is a smart way to do that.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hayduke on October 18, 2008, 02:19:13 PM
It makes me want to cry when I hear people complain about the grind in T3/T4 when I can't even manage to get out of T2.  Maybe I'm too suggestible and should stop reading these boards, but I just don't feel like I'm enjoying the journey.  The PvE is really quite terrible, there's some great lore in it I'm sure but that stuff has never really interested me.  The scenarios are repetitive and while more rewarding from an xp and rp standpoint are still pretty horrible.  The ORvR when it happens is a blast though hard to find and often anti-climatic when there's too little participants on one side or the other, and of course you can't really advance that way.

I think if you can't make the content compelling you should at least make sure it's not a huge barrier to the 'real game'.  Which is one of the few things Shadowbane did right.  T1-T3 are meant to be important for the war as a whole I know, but you can always put in mechanisms later on for people to roll alts and stick them in those tiers.

BTW this thread was a great read.  I hope MJ comes around and toughs it out with Schild more often or at least tries WHA.  VNboards really is the cesspit of the MMO world (and yes I've been to the WoW forums).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Howitzer on October 18, 2008, 04:06:57 PM
It's why the concept of a no scenario server is appealing because that way you know you are playing with the people who only want to open RvR.

Mark

No god no, bad idea. And I hate scenarios. Reward with rewards, don't re-invent your game. Your playerbase is already to spread out both amongst servers and playstyles. Don't introduce DAoC Classic server solutions when you don't have a classic game to do so with. Look, players will go where the rewards are - why do you think my SM "Tronk" has run Mourkain Temple and now Tor Annoc 5,000 times? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE GAME REWARDS - and that's where the people are. Don't make "NEW IMPROVED SERVERS" a month after launch, that's crazy. Reward people for doing what you want them to do for the good of the game. C'mon man, you know this shit cold, don't fold on this kind of problem.

LOL, not folding but I have to wonder if what we are seeing is a split between the DAoC/SB/etc. type of RvR player and the MMO newbie players who came from WoW.  I think it is entirely possible that these groups might have some issues being on the same server.  What I'm beginning to think is that a large percentage of the WoW players simply want to play in the same way that they play in WoW and may not be open to the true open RvR style.  I'm not saying we are going to do it but I have to ask myself if that is a possibility?  We are going to significantly up the rewards first but I also want to be prepared for the possibility that many of the players will love WAR as long as they can run scenarios as much as they want.

Do you think I'm really offbase about this?

Mark

Long-time reader. I barely ever post here Mark but you have got to hear me out on this.

I've played MMO's since UO.  I've played DAoC and quit a month after TOA and sadly never looked back.  I have played WOW from 2004 to 2008 and I played it being a member of one of the top 20 guilds in the World.  I left to play your game.  DO NOT SPLIT YOUR PLAYERBASE ON DIFFERENT SERVER RULESETS.  YOU WILL, (as someone else said), KILL YOUR GAME.  I came from WoW and I'm telling you that people left wow to play your game because its NOT wow.  Get it?

DON'T DO IT.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Howitzer on October 18, 2008, 04:24:26 PM
Quote

Look, I agree with you in theory 100%.  However, what we've seen so far is that a sizable percentage players don't want to leave the scenarios.  We will keep upping the rewards but my concern is that a sizable percentage will still want to stay in the scenarios because that is what they are used to doing so I want to be prepared for that.  It doesn't mean we will do it but it would be foolish of us not to prepare for it. 

Mark

Mark, open your eyes a little.  Just because someone is "used" to something doesn't mean that is how it should be.  WOW's most beloved and successful "scenario" was Alterac Valley. Why? Because it was 40 vs 40, LARGE scale battle allowing whole guilds to queue up against one another across servers creating large competition. Of course, they screwed it up royally, but thats Blizzard for you.  They should have stuck to B.Net and Diablo if you ask me, (again, thats another story). 

Here is what I see that needs to be changed with your game Mr. Jacobs:

1) XP grind from 20-40 is just stupid-long.  Please end this.
2) Gear seems pointless, up the stats, do something with it.
3) Its clear to me that people join scenario queues because they can sit on their asses in 1 spot and instantly join the fight AND because its the best way to get renown, not just xp.  Do the same thing with RVR perhaps and notice the shift? (IN-ADDITION-TO all the XP boosts and rewards to ORVR)?
4) Too many small rvr lakes.  I have been searching for something like "Emain" or one huge RVR zone and haven't found it.  What the hell happened? Whats with all these little spots of battle-specific areas?  Do you know how bad that cuts immersion for me personally?  Lets say I fight on this side of the fence, punch you in the face, then jump on the other side and suddenly you can't fight back?  I realize there is a timer, but even with it, it doesn't make sense.  Entire zones need to be designated RVR areas. 
5) The higher-end gear is split up all over the place.  You want to promote RVR but pull people away from it to go do PVE and vice versa.  It creates quite a bit of chaos as it stands.

I recall in early DAOC when the entire realm would congregate at the gates to the RVR zone forming groups, guilds, alliances, etc... getting ready for a relic raid or major offensive on Emain or keep takeovers.  It was an absolute blast because you saw your whole realm there as one.  Here, I feel like everything is a mini-game so far.  I am failing to feel the epic glory of battle I felt before and I  believe that it is only because the rest of the population is stuck with their head in the sand doing some random scenario for the 500th time. That doesn't mean get rid of scenarios, it just means you need to get your team to change the way people prefer to do battle.

P.S. - Please do something about travel.  Its tedious to find flight paths to get to where I need to go quickly.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: FatuousTwat on October 18, 2008, 06:00:19 PM
I don't want to make it seem like I think my idea (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=14972.msg530030#msg530030) is OMG SOLID GOLD GENIUS!, but does anyone have an opinion on it?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 18, 2008, 06:37:49 PM
Man this thread takes forever to say, "Hey why the grind in the middle?"

I will say this: I stopped doing scenarios when I was coming up because it was just murderball popping, so I quested. I ran out of quests in all my orc places, so I went to the chaos place. Then I ran out of quests in Chaos and went to elf. I was in elf when I gave up at 24.

The xp on quests alone is just wrong. Like, not even close to getting me to the next tier of content in my lands wrong. You should have the option to advance through questing, advance through scenarios, or a combo of both. It shouldn't place undue influence on one particular form.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Khaldun on October 18, 2008, 06:51:18 PM
"Why the XP grind in the middle?"

Because they don't have confidence in their endgame. Which speaks volumes, given the emphasis in the design. If there's any game which should be able to sustain a quick trip to endgame, it's an RvR-centric game. If the developers are afraid of that, it tells you that they don't have anything special planned for endgame RvR, no objectives or items or anything, or worse yet, they do have something planned and it's *not ready*. So the middle grind is what you do when you're getting panicky about that before launch. And guys? It doesn't work. Don't you know that by now?  Isn't it obvious? Don't do it. You can't slow down the people determined to race to the end, no matter what you do. If there are problems, they'll spread the word. And in the meantime everyone who isn't a hardcore is hating the midgame slog.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Modern Angel on October 18, 2008, 08:05:25 PM
1-20 of this game is the most perfect MMO experience I've ever had. All of this brings into stark relief just what WoW's biggest polish is: they have the pacing down to a science. I am absolutely convinced they have a team of QA timing and spreadsheeting every single quest and point of xp constantly for maximum effect. Nobody else does.

Change this.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 18, 2008, 08:23:03 PM
The more I read I keep thinking, why not make PVP games with a system more like Planetside?

You didn't have to grind to get to the fun. Time played gave you more options. It really was a good, fun concept. Some of the systems in place weren't great...but for about 6 months I played with a 'raiding outfit' and had an absolute blast. There was plenty wrong with the game, but anyone that got into it for a while has some fond memories of it.

Fuck the grind, period. Seriously. By now, we have all PAID OUR FUCKING DUES. Any real MMO guy has fought through horrible grinds to get to the endgame, now as soon as I start feeling it I just quit. When Burning Crusades came out, I made it to level 64. I had a sick amount of hours played before that and just realized...been here, done this....never came back.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 18, 2008, 09:14:38 PM
It's been said already, but the leveling in WAR should have just been a 'tutorial' for the real game. Sorta like how GuildWars does it now. 1-20 in Guild Wars is like... a Saturday afternoon if you're really motivated and it's all designed to ease you into the "real" game at the end.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 18, 2008, 09:25:55 PM
What I really don't understand is that DAoC had those fantastic battlegrounds, that had one mini keep and let people level up doing mini-rvr. Then when some one in this thread suggested some thing like that, Mark reacted as if it was a totally new idea.

It boggles my mind that WAR didn't have something like this. At least like one per tier.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Soln on October 18, 2008, 09:31:22 PM
Someone should PM Mark with this irony -- WoW has been unplayable every night since 10/15 for many people, including myself and my wife.  Latency, db item loss, many "preventable" things because of the 3.0.2 patch that just went live in support of WotLK.

mod post on state of many servers: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=11296564495&sid=1


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 18, 2008, 09:33:21 PM
A mini-keep taking scenario is a good start. It has objectives, and it plays to the strengths of the overall point of RvR.

I would still like to find the guy who thought Murderball was a good idea. I would put him in a room with the guy who created the WoW arena concept and force them to duel in aimless carnage for hours on end.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Howitzer on October 18, 2008, 09:36:46 PM
What I really don't understand is that DAoC had those fantastic battlegrounds, that had one mini keep and let people level up doing mini-rvr. Then when some one in this thread suggested some thing like that, Mark reacted as if it was a totally new idea.

It boggles my mind that WAR didn't have something like this. At least like one per tier.

Yes, absolutely.  I remember those mini-RVR keep sieges that actually TRAINED people on what to do and what to expect at end-game that really only motivated them to move on up.  I have no idea why such a great idea was changed. I realize that this is WAR and not DAoC, but "RVR" is Mythic, and its something we all expected and wanted to see again.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 18, 2008, 10:25:43 PM
Scenarios are fine.

No they aren't, the same ones always pop, so everyone picks those scenarios to queue for. 

Increasing the rewards for open RVR doesn't mean they can't improve the queueing system for scenarios as well.  Give players a menu to rate the scenarios in order of those they enjoy best plus those they want to auto join, make the menu pop up at the end of a scenario until they fill it in at least once.  Then display the result to all the players, "intelligence suggests the enemy is moving towards scenarios 1, 2 & 3" so those players can modify their preferences if they want.  Also, instead of the join one scenario or "join all" button, have it set so you can join 3 or 4 of the 6 with the "join all" button once your preferences have been set.

End result, players get to influence which scenarios pop by indicating their favourites, the other scenarios will pop more often if it's as easy to queue for them as for the most populated.  With the current system, I believe a lot of people give up queueing for the scenarios that don't pop, making the problem worse.

On the size of the RVR lakes, I don't think that's a big issue.  If the rewards are a lot higher for open RVR, then more people with be there.  If there's 100-200 enemy players in open RVR, trust me, knowing where they are isn't going to be a problem with the improved communication channels.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Phred on October 18, 2008, 10:32:21 PM
I'm having many flashbacks to 6 years ago.

6 Years ago didn't Mark have Tweety doing most of the talking?



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 18, 2008, 10:51:26 PM
For the first time, now that I am starting to do Tier 3 scenarios, I'm getting a lot of Game Over - Unbalanced teams.  My favorite was the crypt map where it was three against ME.  I 'won' because they had to split the damage done to me. :drillf:

I don't want scenarios to go away, but the number does need to be reduced, or some tweak figured out so people don't queue for all then drop it because it isn't the one they want to play.  Maybe Arthur's suggestion on rating them.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 19, 2008, 01:39:32 AM
1-20 of this game is the most perfect MMO experience I've ever had.

Which side / pairing?

I'm playing HE with Bat Country and Tier 2 is killing me. That the HE side is pretty much empty contributes a lot to this issue.

Also, I'm aware of the technical issues of having larger server populations, but then the game is called WAR, and "War is everywhere!", not Skirmish: "War is around, if you look hard enough".

I was thinking that the dependence of WAR's PvP on PvE loot really showed that someone lacked the confidence to allow PvP to stand on its own two feet.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ffc on October 19, 2008, 04:05:03 AM
If this game wants to keep me as a customer, here are the things that have to change:
1. Significantly increase experience gains from quests. Pretty no-brainer here. I should be able to progress from tier to tier purely from quests if I want to. Hell, I don't think I should have to change pairing unless I want to hang out with some dwarves, yet I not only have to, but that's not even enough to get me through each tier.
[...]

I agree with all your points, but this one will be the reason I quit if it is not addressed. 

I made the mistake of rolling an alt.  I was reminded of how much fun the low level game was.  Scenarios are not all called Tor Anroc, PQ's progress quickly with just two-three players, and I painlessly advanced my XP/Renown at a steady clip.

The thought of going back to T3's grind and hopping pairings to "repeat" quests makes me ill.  I cannot believe how badly the Fun Express crashed in T3.

Oh wait, yes I can (http://www.wikiaoc.com/Tortage).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kirth on October 19, 2008, 04:07:08 AM
1-20 of this game is the most perfect MMO experience I've ever had.

Which side / pairing?

I'm playing HE with Bat Country and Tier 2 is killing me. That the HE side is pretty much empty contributes a lot to this issue.

Also, I'm aware of the technical issues of having larger server populations, but then the game is called WAR, and "War is everywhere!", not Skirmish: "War is around, if you look hard enough".

I was thinking that the dependence of WAR's PvP on PvE loot really showed that someone lacked the confidence to allow PvP to stand on its own two feet.

Just leave HEvDE now and do dwarf or empire. the lack of polish in T3 and T4 (broken quests, PQ's not marked, etc...)shows.

I had a thought, related to the join all option, what if the scenarios popped on a rotation? in that if you hit join all it will rotate what scenario it tries to fill up so if you get a serpents pass one go you might get battle of praag the next. People can still selectively Q and it will use those people to fill up scenarios on a rotation, in this way you may not have say 5-10 serpents passes going but 1-2 of each scenario going at the same time. I find that I just hit join all and leave the serpents pass Q and sometimes I get a scenario, sometime not. It is worse during prime time when hitting join all (as order) instantly pops up with serpents pass.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 19, 2008, 06:05:46 AM
Obviously WAR isn't there yet, but you excel in other areas and unfortunately it seems like the steps being taken are... short-sighted.
If it's the long-term, well, you would look at everything carefully.  You would take safer steps while you plan out the bigger steps. 

This.

When you're actually accountable for the financial success of a title as part of a large company, you're not going to quickly react and implement based on a few posts from people more likely to quit anyway than not.

At the same time, that doesn't mean the people aren't right. I have no idea how WAR is built, but I get the sense a lot of stuff is static, thus requiring a lot of manual changes to get many of the things desired here. If that is the case, it probably is a big effort to "fix itemization", "fix lake sizes" (not like they can just change the radius or occurence), "increase [rewards] for RvR" and all of that. Thus the emphasis on sliders and new servers, which from a production standpoint may actually be a lot easier.

I also wonder how much of the live team is structured and resourced to act like a development team. It could be that making development level changes are going to take longer just based on this game no longer being under full-time development.

Finally, the WotLK milestone is something of a red herring. It does not come with RvR. It's basically more of the same WoW that people came to WAR to get away from. Yes, there's 10 more levels to gain and a new fotm class that's going to be nerfed and buffed for the next year. But it's otherwise a known quantity.

So as usual in this genre, there's a choice between something that works very well and yet may be boring people, and the hope that the something new turns into what players want it to be. And as usual, players will bounce back and forth between the two. That is something that goes for far longer than WotLK launching.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Modern Angel on October 19, 2008, 06:30:08 AM
1-20 of this game is the most perfect MMO experience I've ever had.

Which side / pairing?

I'm playing HE with Bat Country and Tier 2 is killing me. That the HE side is pretty much empty contributes a lot to this issue.

Also, I'm aware of the technical issues of having larger server populations, but then the game is called WAR, and "War is everywhere!", not Skirmish: "War is around, if you look hard enough".

I was thinking that the dependence of WAR's PvP on PvE loot really showed that someone lacked the confidence to allow PvP to stand on its own two feet.

Orc but if you're in t2 now, after everyone has moved on, I imagine it would be a very different experience.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 19, 2008, 07:21:38 AM
1-20 of this game is the most perfect MMO experience I've ever had.

Which side / pairing?

I'm playing HE with Bat Country and Tier 2 is killing me. That the HE side is pretty much empty contributes a lot to this issue.

Also, I'm aware of the technical issues of having larger server populations, but then the game is called WAR, and "War is everywhere!", not Skirmish: "War is around, if you look hard enough".

I was thinking that the dependence of WAR's PvP on PvE loot really showed that someone lacked the confidence to allow PvP to stand on its own two feet.

Orc but if you're in t2 now, after everyone has moved on, I imagine it would be a very different experience.

I think Destro is more fun to play than Order in terms of PvE content. A lot of people complained when the extra cities were cut, when ironically it appears that if all players had a choice of either Empire or Chaos only (still the same number of classes) the game would probably be a smoother ride for people.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Howitzer on October 19, 2008, 09:13:55 AM
Few thoughts....

Scenarios are fine. People complain that they are the only thing to do at the moment, but honestly... they are the only thing to do at the moment.  I agree, getting rid of them... bad idea. There are some rulechanges that need to be implemented to fix them... Basic shit that any ignrarnus that plays the game can figure out.  Only the ignorant couldn't imagine that expressing the "take away" in any software product is like committing professional suicide.  TWEAK IT BUT DON'T EVER REMOVE A FEATURE.
Make WINNING the match worthwhile...  give more reward for winning and I dont mean 10% more xp or whatever crap algorithm is in place at the moment.  Right now we have people in these scenarios droppin groups for more xp, we have them not even bothering with winning the match because they get more Renown and XP from killing players win or lose.  That needs some fixing.  Make them NOT worthwhile if you're not going to actually PLAY the damn thing the way its supposed to be.  you dont' cap an objective, YOU DON'T GET CRAP.  Seriously.  how can you get more xp and renown even if you LOSE?  I wouldn't even do the damn things if it wasn't worth my while, so why not make it so I need to TRY, and COMPETE?

On that note, it started me thinking how frustrating it is to not be able to warband and join a scenario.  please add that feature.  don't hold us back because "it would make it unfair" we should be able to be as competitive as possible in this game.  That counts for everything.  I joined a guild years ago so I could play with alike minded gamers to advance my GUILD in this game.  I'm forced daily to play with, often times, completely idiot randoms because (and I could be wrong on my reasoning why it isn't allowed) it would make it "unfair" to do these scenarios?  Crap, that might make them "less appealing" to some as a way to grind out renown/xp and drive people out into the world to do it if they're getting it pushed in by elitist idiots like myself.  LET US WARBAND for them.  Eventually let us cross/server do scenarios.  And fix the bugs/exploits in them .. of course.

RVR.  This is where this game is supposed to excel.  Problem is it's the WEAKEST of all the things that this game has going for it.  Currently I'm level 40.  I logged in on a Saturday.  A SATURDAY on a HIGH POPULATION SERVER.  Guess how many KEEPS I took?  ZERO.  We own them all, and we can't advance to the next zone (fortress) because for some reason we can't even lock the damn zone.  I mean, we have been doing PQs all day in a zone to try and get the thing to lock so we can progress, except THE DAMN BAR WON'T EVEN MOVE.  Taking objectives, killing players, completing quests, and winning scenarios is supposed to move that bar, except.. if you dont have players in a zone to fight you, you can't even move the bar.  You can't take back objectives because there aren't any people in there, and if you DID ALL THE QUESTS already you can't move the bar yet again?
Seriously someone needs to fix that.  Put it on a timer.  If we hold everything for an hour, we get to progress... do SOMETHING To keep gameplay going.  Right now... YOU CAN'T EVEN PLAY THE GAME?! 

Another seriously annoying thing in this game.  HOW IN THE HELL CAN SOMEONE THAT JUST SHOWED UP TO A KEEP RAID, DOING LITTLE TO NOTHING win a LOOT BAG?  I bring my guild to a keep, some retard shows up smacks a few buttons and he gets to take the loot kuz he "rolled high?"  Why in the HELL can't we figure out a way to progress our guild?  I mean, RVR means Realm vs Realm not "my guild" vs realm, but with how loot is distributed, it can take literally YEARS to get all your pieces to a set because any idiot is welcome to show up and roll?  Think about how stupid that is.

I keep wondering.  Is this game going to work out?  Maybe its our server?  Should we reroll on another server?  Will that fix it?  If our server is already HIGH population (Badlands) and we can't find anyone to fight.... does that mean we're so ahead of the curve that'll be fixed in time when the opposition levels up?  how long can we tolerate a game that has NOTHING TO DO IN IT?
Should we wait and see if time fixes it?  When will patch 1.1 come out?  Will that buff weak classes to the point where they will be competitive in a game that is built on the very thing some classes can't do.. KILL OTHER CHARACTERS?  Will it make it "worthwhile" to go RVR?  Right now nobody does it, either A because they're not high enough, or B because it doesn't mean jack crap. 

I'm sure you've spent untold hours thinking about how to fix it.  You seem very passionate about this thing, I would be too.

I can't begin to be like some people here and think I know what is going to fix the game, I can only express to you what it is I see that makes me not want to play the game.  THERE IS NO RVR IN THIS RVR GAME.  I don't know how to stimulate the community to RVR in the wild. take keeps, go and pvp outside for a change.  All I know is that is what was promised, and that was NOT delivered.   Closing Scenarios will NOT fix the game.  The CARROT on the STICK might work for a while, but eventually I think something MAJOR has to be done to fix it.  Once we get all our loot what next?  This game isn't competitive by any means, there's nothing MY GUILD can do right now to say, we accomplished something, when the game seems built to appease the masses.. even if they want to just play casual...   No matter how hard I play, how much quests I do, right now.  I get just as much as the next guy who turns up 2 minutes before we're done with our 1 hours worth of work.   Sorry, that shit wont cut it.

I've been gaming with Maliak for years now in DDH and can vouch for what he is saying here.  One other thing to note here that I read what someone else wrote about Mark which I am 100% in agreement with: 

Quote
I believe in Mark Jacobs. He may very well be the most human MMO developer I have ever had the experience to encounter. His honesty, insight, and willingness to own up to mistakes makes him in my eyes one of the best resources WAR has behind it.

This is the one reason that I have hope for this game more than I normally would for others.  The bottom line though is, I'm starting to become very concerned that the thing holding me to Warhammer the most, (my guild), is losing serious interest in staying full time and hardcore dedicated to it.  Time is running out.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: slog on October 19, 2008, 11:14:46 AM
Someone must have linked this thread because the Vaultards have invaded.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Howitzer on October 19, 2008, 11:44:02 AM
Someone must have linked this thread because the Vaultards have invaded.

Not sure who you're referring to but if your goal is to encourage a closed discussion that is free from the public eye I would suggest recommending this entire forum closed and hidden to all except the highly devoted 40-yr old virgins.  Otherwise, be happy that new blood comes in here once in a while to add meaningful feedback to these threads that matter to all of us who care about this game.

Cheers. :)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 19, 2008, 11:49:39 AM
WHA, FoH and SA actually, not IGN, though I'd wager there's a link there now also, but no substantial number of visitors.

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/35739-war-nda-officially-lifted-post-pics-info-483.html

Edit: People came here, obviously, hoping to get their voice heard. Instead it just seems like dev stalking. Oh well, whatever.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 19, 2008, 11:54:27 AM
WHA, FoH and SA actually, not IGN, though I'd wager there's a link there now also, but no substantial number of visitors.

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/35739-war-nda-officially-lifted-post-pics-info-483.html

Edit: People came here, obviously, hoping to get their voice heard. Instead it just seems like dev stalking. Oh well, whatever.

People want to feel like the people they are paying for a service are listening to them(even if they aren't) this is exactly why you need pfficial forums, if only to make people feel like you care what they say.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Howitzer on October 19, 2008, 12:02:32 PM
WHA, FoH and SA actually, not IGN, though I'd wager there's a link there now also, but no substantial number of visitors.

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/35739-war-nda-officially-lifted-post-pics-info-483.html

Edit: People came here, obviously, hoping to get their voice heard. Instead it just seems like dev stalking. Oh well, whatever.

Not sure, schild, but as for me, I've been reading this site for years just never bothered to join into the discussion.  I can't speak for anyone else.

In regards to Jacobs making polls and posts asking for feedback from VN, it really shocked me as well.  The only reason I ever visit is because I know Mythic posts there.  Why? I really have no idea...  Saying you post on VN is like saying your website is hosted with Geocities.com.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 19, 2008, 12:18:57 PM
In regards to Jacobs making polls and posts asking for feedback from VN, it really shocked me as well.  The only reason I ever visit is because I know Mythic posts there.  Why? I really have no idea...  Saying you post on VN is like saying your website is hosted with Geocities.com.

Oh please, he's not going to post at foh for obvious reasons.  They decided not to have official forums, I don't agree with it but considering they aren't doing 40k online I can understand it.  Mythic have a long history with vn because of daoc, pick something else to be shocked about.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2008, 12:22:01 PM
Well, the moment this thread got a little momentum, I figured it was only a matter of time until people on the outside started storming the gates. Not that I think it will matter much, because I'm pretty sure Mark is off working on the stuff that was repeated a billion times already. My sub expired today, and I'll just wait until we have word that the grind in the 20s and 30s is reduced and/or gone.

As long as they have a long term plan to improve the game in that regard, I'll be back in 6 months when it's done.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Howitzer on October 19, 2008, 12:28:11 PM
In regards to Jacobs making polls and posts asking for feedback from VN, it really shocked me as well.  The only reason I ever visit is because I know Mythic posts there.  Why? I really have no idea...  Saying you post on VN is like saying your website is hosted with Geocities.com.

Oh please, he's not going to post at foh for obvious reasons.  They decided not to have official forums, I don't agree with it but considering they aren't doing 40k online I can understand it.  Mythic have a long history with vn because of daoc, pick something else to be shocked about.

Ok, you got me.  You're right, I'm wrong.

Note folks: The Golden Rule of Internet Forums: "No one ever admits they are wrong, and everyone wants to have the last word."


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2008, 12:28:35 PM
Stay on topic guys. We don't really care why you're here or where you came from if your points are solid.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Howitzer on October 19, 2008, 12:45:18 PM
Stay on topic guys. We don't really care why you're here or where you came from if your points are solid.

Hey, good attitude. =)

With what you said before, you said you let your 30 days run out and didn't subscribe.  I did the opposite.  My reasoning is that if I let my character slide for 6 months I'd be behind beyond belief especially in renown rank.  The other thing is I am pretty sure that there is absolutely NO worthy MMO coming out on the market in the next 2-3 years which means, (for me), its Warhammer or bust. WoTLK in my eyes is just more of the same things Tigole has been shoving down people's throats since his glory days in <LoS> EQ1: - Raid - Raid - Raid.  No thanks.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 19, 2008, 01:12:45 PM
As long as they have a long term plan to improve the game in that regard, I'll be back in 6 months when it's done.

Ahh Paelos. Do you know how it hurts me deep in my soul when I agree with you?  :oh_i_see:



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sparky on October 19, 2008, 01:21:50 PM
In regards to Jacobs making polls and posts asking for feedback from VN, it really shocked me as well.  The only reason I ever visit is because I know Mythic posts there.  Why? I really have no idea...  Saying you post on VN is like saying your website is hosted with Geocities.com.

Oh please, he's not going to post at foh for obvious reasons.  They decided not to have official forums, I don't agree with it but considering they aren't doing 40k online I can understand it.  Mythic have a long history with vn because of daoc, pick something else to be shocked about.

Last game that made me read VN boards for the latest word was Horizons.  Not a great association.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Tmon on October 19, 2008, 02:02:19 PM
Last game that made me read VN boards for the latest word was Horizons.  Not a great association.

I just read this one, sooner or later anything important gets cut and pasted here.  I give a long delayed and richly deserved salute to those brave souls who read VN so I don't have to.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: lac on October 19, 2008, 02:13:05 PM
So I rolled an ironbreaker on a recommended low pop server. Ouch. Thank god for scenarios or I'd never run into anybody. In those scenario's I meet the same guys over and over again, but that's cool because you can actually go after that a-hole that busted your balls in the previous one. I'm having a good time.
Playing on a low pop server also means you really have to organise your rvr. Unless we give our destruction brethren a time and place, besieging a keep will be pve most of the time.
Of course public quests are undoable. I'm rank 20 now and I have never seen more than 3 people doing a public quest, and even then we wiped out on stage two.
We are on a new server where people from a high pop server can migrate to, yet none of them want to anymore, because people that did get the word back that the server is dead besides t1. And while that isn't exactly true, it isn't all that far from being wrong either.
I'm still enjoying myself but on my server it's pretty clear that unless we get a higher population there won't be much war going on.

You can actually see subscriptions fizzling out in tier 3. They should make an animation for it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2008, 04:23:04 PM
As long as they have a long term plan to improve the game in that regard, I'll be back in 6 months when it's done.

Ahh Paelos. Do you know how it hurts me deep in my soul when I agree with you?  :oh_i_see:



 :awesome_for_real: Bad grinds create strange alliances.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Modern Angel on October 19, 2008, 04:29:12 PM
It's struck me how WoW's time investment has evolved with their playerbase and it's even more glaring with the issues WAR is experiencing. A guy who started WoW in, say, his senior year of college at release is now 26 years old. The free time and outlook of a 22 year old is very different than a 26 year old. I started at 26 and am now 31; that's a big difference, too. So while I'm certain that some of the in-game issues prompted the moves from 40>25>10 man raiding and the like I'm just as certain that Blizzard being cognizant of how large portions of their playerbase "growing up" with their game was a big factor.

So when people talk about WAR competing with WoW now as opposed to WoW four years ago I think this is another factor. WAR made a game which, due to the grind, is catered to a group of people with more free time and tolerance than I currently have. If WLK were not shipping with 10 mans as an option I would probably be out. As it is, for all the talk of WoW being a kid's game, it's the only one on the market that caters to adults. To me.

That's such a strange thing to me, that the game which required such amazing catassery in the late AQ40/early Naxx days would become the only thing out there for an adult's schedule. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that making a game for late teens/early twenties is the way to go about this. It's a big pie now but I think it's aging far more quickly (along with the rest of the PC market) than the XBox Live crowd which is constituting such a big part of the internet gaming market moving forward.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Megrim on October 19, 2008, 04:38:30 PM
So I rolled an ironbreaker on a recommended low pop server. Ouch. Thank god for scenarios or I'd never run into anybody. In those scenario's I meet the same guys over and over again, but that's cool because you can actually go after that a-hole that busted your balls in the previous one. I'm having a good time.
Playing on a low pop server also means you really have to organise your rvr. Unless we give our destruction brethren a time and place, besieging a keep will be pve most of the time.
Of course public quests are undoable. I'm rank 20 now and I have never seen more than 3 people doing a public quest, and even then we wiped out on stage two.
We are on a new server where people from a high pop server can migrate to, yet none of them want to anymore, because people that did get the word back that the server is dead besides t1. And while that isn't exactly true, it isn't all that far from being wrong either.
I'm still enjoying myself but on my server it's pretty clear that unless we get a higher population there won't be much war going on.

You can actually see subscriptions fizzling out in tier 3. They should make an animation for it.

One thing i haven't seen addressed adequately is the gear aspect of PQs. I'm a little confused, as per lac's post for example, as to why people bother with PQs at all - from everything i've seen of the game so far (Tiers 1 and 2) Renown gear is leaps and bounds better then PQ gear. There does not, quite literally, seem to be any point in doing them.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Howitzer on October 19, 2008, 04:42:04 PM
It's struck me how WoW's time investment has evolved with their playerbase and it's even more glaring with the issues WAR is experiencing. A guy who started WoW in, say, his senior year of college at release is now 26 years old. The free time and outlook of a 22 year old is very different than a 26 year old. I started at 26 and am now 31; that's a big difference, too. So while I'm certain that some of the in-game issues prompted the moves from 40>25>10 man raiding and the like I'm just as certain that Blizzard being cognizant of how large portions of their playerbase "growing up" with their game was a big factor.

So when people talk about WAR competing with WoW now as opposed to WoW four years ago I think this is another factor. WAR made a game which, due to the grind, is catered to a group of people with more free time and tolerance than I currently have. If WLK were not shipping with 10 mans as an option I would probably be out. As it is, for all the talk of WoW being a kid's game, it's the only one on the market that caters to adults. To me.

That's such a strange thing to me, that the game which required such amazing catassery in the late AQ40/early Naxx days would become the only thing out there for an adult's schedule. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that making a game for late teens/early twenties is the way to go about this. It's a big pie now but I think it's aging far more quickly (along with the rest of the PC market) than the XBox Live crowd which is constituting such a big part of the internet gaming market moving forward.

Great post. :thumbs_up:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 19, 2008, 04:45:24 PM
As it is, for all the talk of WoW being a kid's game, it's the only one on the market that caters to adults. To me.

There a few other games that are 'casual friendly' and as a result appeal to adults. CoH/CoV is one example. The main problem is that they primarily appeal to people who want to do the same thing repeatedly - tax accountants, bass players and IT systems administrators, for example.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 19, 2008, 05:25:32 PM
Quote
One thing i haven't seen addressed adequately is the gear aspect of PQs. I'm a little confused, as per lac's post for example, as to why people bother with PQs at all - from everything i've seen of the game so far (Tiers 1 and 2) Renown gear is leaps and bounds better then PQ gear. There does not, quite literally, seem to be any point in doing them.

lol so wrong


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Zira on October 19, 2008, 05:26:45 PM
Summary...

* PvP is crazy fun... love it... want more
* T3 PvE is mind-scorchingly fucked.  If T4 is worse...  :ye_gods:
* Renown gears sucks ass....


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Megrim on October 19, 2008, 05:28:36 PM
Quote
One thing i haven't seen addressed adequately is the gear aspect of PQs. I'm a little confused, as per lac's post for example, as to why people bother with PQs at all - from everything i've seen of the game so far (Tiers 1 and 2) Renown gear is leaps and bounds better then PQ gear. There does not, quite literally, seem to be any point in doing them.

lol so wrong

lol show me


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 19, 2008, 05:30:19 PM
Quote
One thing i haven't seen addressed adequately is the gear aspect of PQs. I'm a little confused, as per lac's post for example, as to why people bother with PQs at all - from everything i've seen of the game so far (Tiers 1 and 2) Renown gear is leaps and bounds better then PQ gear. There does not, quite literally, seem to be any point in doing them.

lol so wrong

lol show me

Show you what? I don't think I'm wearing a single piece of renown gear (unless you count the one set piece you buy in tier 3, shoulders I think or wristguards) and almost all of it is tier 3 PQ drops, including some Tier 2 PQ drops and my ballistic is probably 25-50% higher than if I were wearing the proper level renown gear.

If you think renown gear is better than PQ gear, you're not getting decent enough rolls in PQs.

Edit: http://www.wardb.com/profile.aspx?id=27513#guild-roster

I'm pretty sure I, in fact, have no renown gear at all. My ballistic would probably be 200 less if I had renown gear in fact. Sure my armor might be higher but then I'd be doing DPS wrong.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Megrim on October 19, 2008, 05:32:15 PM
Ok, i did say i don't know anything about T3/T4. What colour bags were you getting in T1/T2?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 19, 2008, 05:32:46 PM
Ok, i did say i don't know anything about T3/T4. What colour bags were you getting in T1/T2?

Purple, Blue, and Gold.

(ok, the occasional green here and there. Seriously though, grinding out that level 10PQ in Altdorf (death march, or whatever) resulted in better gear than renown stuff)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Megrim on October 19, 2008, 05:48:11 PM
Righto, i give you that. Apparently my constant placing either first or in the top three doesn't drop me any of those in any PQ or keep siege i've done (i don't think i've even seen a purple, blue or gold). But, is grinding for that stuff really as easy as just picking up Renown gear? Ease of use and all that.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kirth on October 19, 2008, 05:50:35 PM
Ok, i did say i don't know anything about T3/T4. What colour bags were you getting in T1/T2?

PQ gear is great, but no one does them. Maybe because the rewards are inconsistent or the phase one kill xx is too much (hint: AOE) . I much prefer doing PQ's then most other things when I log in but I can usually only get 2 or 3 guildies out for them and its rare anyone else ever appears.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Evildrider on October 19, 2008, 05:51:37 PM
PQ gear is good for some classes and just plain ass for others.  I rarely find a PQ I actually want to grind all they way for an item. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 19, 2008, 06:07:02 PM
PQ gear is good for some classes and just plain ass for others.  I rarely find a PQ I actually want to grind all they way for an item. 

Same here. Probably 1 in 4 chapters has a piece of gear thats good for me in t3. Same with Renown gear, I think I am using at most 2 pieces. I have to get random drops to have any hope of putting together a coherent gear setup.

Str based Warrior Priest.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 19, 2008, 06:09:14 PM
Whoa. Did I get off at the Wall of Text exit by mistake?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 19, 2008, 06:14:52 PM
Whoa. Did I get off at the Wall of Text exit by mistake?
Yes, but in my defense, I did have to suffer through 7 pages of text to get here.
I shouldn't have to say this, but you know that's not a great defense right? I mean Mark is pretty much done with this thread, if he shows up again to read it a few pages of stragglers and stalkers will have shown up and interjected their 2 cents and the reason he goes from community to community is lost in the shuffle.

There's no easy way to put this but the reason people go to different sites is to get different viewpoints, people don't come here to get the Vault/FoH/WHA/etc viewpoints, they come for the f13 viewpoint. I wouldn't blame a dev who ignored every single word of someone who showed up to make a post because he peeped his head up over the fence.

It doesn't help that your post had 1,434 words either.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 19, 2008, 06:16:16 PM

Mark knows this, so give your suggestions, but then get out of his way.

This is what scares me a bit. Ether, yes he knows the game and the players, and designed it in such a way that they *knew* players would avoid RVR until rank 40, or he doesn't understand.

During the many betas, I must have submitted over 100 feedback reports saying that RVR needed more rewards. I saw this coming a mile away, and a lot of other people did too.

I spent all day today doing RVR in t3, we captured all 6 keeps in t3, and it wasn't until after we owned every keep we even saw more than one Destruction player. We finally managed to entice a large group of destruction to come fight us, and we had a fantastic time. It was great fun. Yet at the same time, there was this nagging feeling that my character was not advancing. In about 5 hours of RVR, my character (rank 30) managed to gain half a level of renown (RR 22) and 1.5 bars of exp. Thats it. If I had been doing scenarios for 5 hours I would have probably tripled that gain, easily.

About the time we where finishing up, several people made the comment "If the rewards for doing this was the same as scenarios, I would fucking do this all the time".


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 19, 2008, 06:48:46 PM
You're a fan, we get it. We're no more a single point of view here than you're the representative of the "opposing" one. But we are also looking at the game that exists, not what it could be maybe someday. We've all, and you included, have played long enough to see promises and results.

At present, WAR is WoW as if you gained XP for PvP, with more spotty itemization and slower leveling (because access to certain portions of the game simply isn't open to some players).

I am actually curious if Mark's earlier statement about leveling speed takes that into account. He mentioned leveling here is faster to the cap than most other games. But I am wondering if that calculation is based on a certain way of playing that includes equal access to all portions of the game (PvE and quests of course, but also actual opponents in RvR for all tiers and groups always available for PQs). And I'm wondering because I don't hear of many cases where players do have that level of access.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 19, 2008, 07:07:07 PM
One also has to interpret the data one has correctly.

Their data probably shows an incredible amount of participation in scenarios.  One might draw the conclusion people only want to play scenarios.  Someone else might realize people only play scenarios because nothing else gives as high a reward/time ratio.

So it can tell you what people are or are not doing, however it cannot tell you why.  Even if you ask directly, people aren't always sure themselves.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 19, 2008, 07:10:07 PM
I shouldn't have to say this, but you know that's not a great defense right? I mean Mark is pretty much done with this thread, if he shows up again to read it a few pages of stragglers and stalkers will have shown up and interjected their 2 cents and the reason he goes from community to community is lost in the shuffle.

There's no easy way to put this but the reason people go to different sites is to get different viewpoints, people don't come here to get the Vault/FoH/WHA/etc viewpoints, they come for the f13 viewpoint. I wouldn't blame a dev who ignored every single word of someone who showed up to make a post because he peeped his head up over the fence.

It doesn't help that your post had 1,434 words either.

 I said it more jokingly than anything else (WELL NOT REALLY).  The post was more for this thread's posters' benefit than for Mark's (YOU BUYING THIS?), as I realize he hasn't posted in a few pages (OH PLZ PLZ PLZ MARK READ ME).  Most of what I said is more or less "MMO design 101," so I'm sure he's quite equipped without my advice. (FLATTERY NEVER HURTS)

  However, you should consider that from a developer's perspective, it's really the people who peep their head over the fence whose posts warrant the most attention (CAUSE I DID).  I'm not speaking about myself here because I post slightly more often on other forums, but you can tell what the real issues are with your game by the number of first-time posters they bring out of the woodwork (CAUSE I'M ONE).  There is always going to be a passionate segment of the population that will post their thoughts at the drop of a hat, but they won't always -- or even frequently -- represent the views of the population as a whole (BUT I DO).  I'm not claiming to (I LIED I AM), but when someone who has yet to post about your game makes a lengthy one about any topic, it's probably a topic worth considering on some level.(CAUSE MINE ARE)

This is what scares me a bit. Ether, yes he knows the game and the players, and designed it in such a way that they *knew* players would avoid RVR until rank 40, or he doesn't understand.

 Or he simply made a mistake.  At this point it's really hard to say.  I know that when I make a mistake, I have the luxury of it not affecting hundreds of thousands of people.

 I think some of the larger concepts inherent in War's design bear witness to Mark and his team's knowledge of the genre and its caveats, which is why I have faith that they'll correct their mistakes in due time.  But as I alluded to in my last post, it will take time.  They have all of these data mining tools these days precisely because -- contrary to popular opinion -- one of the worst things you can do in MMO development is listen to the players. (UNLESS ITS ME)
 

My own form of hazing.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Khaldun on October 19, 2008, 07:25:32 PM
Nobody's trying to speak for "the majority". Opinions here are whatever they are, and worth as much as they are accurate or useful. As far as getting out of Mark's way, I think if you like Warhammer, you may not really want that to be the choice that people make, because the easiest way to get out of the way is to unsub the game and pay it no more mind. If players still care enough to break down what's not working about a MMOG and they can see ways that it could work, that's a good thing from a developer's standpoint.

If this is "most players think the game is just great, or are content to let it get fixed whenever it gets fixed, you guys are just a vocal minority", please. If I had a dime for every forum thread in a flawed or failing MMOG where I've read an enthusiast say something like that, I could bail out Wall Street all by myself. The five people still playing Pirates of the Burning Sea are mostly typing that to themselves right now on the forums, I'm sure.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 19, 2008, 07:26:50 PM
Edit: People came here, obviously, hoping to get their voice heard. Instead it just seems like dev stalking. Oh well, whatever.

I find it hard to tell the difference too.

So it can tell you what people are or are not doing, however it cannot tell you why.  Even if you ask directly, people aren't always sure themselves.

Agreed.

The complexity of WAR is that there are several different competing areas that all require attention. PvE (general and PQ) vs PvP (RvR and scenario). The most insightful thing Mark said was when he said that the beta test delivered the wrong player insight because people played it the way that suited beta participation. It explains a lot about why so many fundamental flaws exist in WAR.

Also agree with whoever said that dev stalking Jacobs is pretty much required because of WAR's lack of official forums. Want to see him make an important point? Google constantly, just in case.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 19, 2008, 07:30:04 PM
Damn, you suffered through 7 pages of replies after following a link to MJ's night of posting here before posting that wall of text?

Seriously though, this is more of why a lack of official forums is fucked. Schildy my friend, I really place the blame for the MJ stalkers on MJ and Mythic themselves and their lack of official boards. Mr Wall-of-text here clearly cares enough about the game to follow the links here to f13 and type out a 1500 word essay in the blind hope that someone from Mythic will read his feedback about the game.

Still too much Smedley.

 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nija on October 19, 2008, 07:57:23 PM
One overreaction from the beta test was the insane amount of guards around every warcamp. In beta there wasn't anything to do other than RVR, back when you were limited to T1 (T2 had no quests, just a grind - which some people DID do) so you'd just flock to the ekrund area and RVR it up. Whoever had more people would eventually push the others to their gates so you were sniping at them in town.

Well, that wasn't as planned so they added no less than 40 guards to that RVR area. I never saw any meaningful combat there since, but then again I didn't play a whole lot more after that was put in.


Ditch all those guards and free up those CPU cycles so you can have more players per zone. I am just now really exploring the T4 areas and holy shit, T4 alone can support 20-30k players at once. It's fucking huge, what on earth are you thinking with 2-5k concurrent users as a "full" server?!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 19, 2008, 08:02:44 PM
Lack of faith in their net code handling truly massive battles?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 19, 2008, 08:39:18 PM
The WAR servers can handle pretty massive battles. The client? Not so well, but not horrible. In beta I was in a huge keep battle, it was probably 120-150 Order vs around 200 destro, it was amazing and really fun.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 19, 2008, 08:45:10 PM
wow, i only signed up to let you know most of you are a bunch of assholes. Why Mark bothers with you guys is a mystery.

Thanks for the insight.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nija on October 19, 2008, 09:05:56 PM
A player ties up far, far more server resources than a NPC guard, so their impact is fairly negligible.  Slayerik's explanation probably has a lot more to do with it.  We all saw how AoC handled "truly massive battles," though that's not the best example.

Obviously you do not remember UO beta, when the guards actually roamed around and used pathfinding to get to targets. Before they were teleporting, instant kills.

You could cause a lot of crimes in a town and it would spawn more guards to deal with the crimes, kind of like Concord in Eve, and the server would grind to a halt. Anyways, just sayin'.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 19, 2008, 09:23:13 PM
First, I would like to say, THANK YOU Mark for the desire to make World RvR the "place to be". I've had faith that you guys were working on that since you did boosts to it already, but it's good to hear it directly sometimes.

I also apoligize because many of these ppl are acting like idiots in responses to you. Since I started playing this game I have always appreciated the fact that you personally respond to people on the forums, because I have never seen a developer reguarly do that on any other forums. I just wish it was a little bit more of a productive debate, but I guess people acting like idiots is what you typically get online.

With that said, I would just like to give you some constructive feedback on the "no scenario" server idea. I am completely against the idea.

If many players leave the server to go to a "no scenario" server, this would effectively kill a large part of world RvR on the existing servers. While I would prefer not to do scenarios all the time, I enjoy them as a minigame occasionally, typically if I have a small group of just a couple people going and not quite enough to make much of an impact in RvR.

We are at a point where many people have the desire for more world RvR, and if you opened up a server like this, it would help the world RvR on that server, but it would wreck havok and make world RvR nearly non existant on the existing ones.

Fragmenting the population is not a good idea. The existing servers would basically be the servers that the majority of the scenario players stay at, and the world RvR'ers go to the other. Players like me would be stuck in the middle. While I love world RvR, I would not want to go to a "no scenario" server because as I said, I enjoy them occasionally.

I fear the idea being implemented. I fear I would be stuck with a bunch of scenario players, like how the game is now. Once we get the game to a point that world RvR is more prominent, it would suck so badly to revert to the current state. I fear many of my friends leaving for a world RvR server, and being torn about which one I should go to.

This has been the first time I actually have gotten worried by something the developers of the game said. Most MMO's end up becoming great 6 months to a year after release, but then a couple years in, a bad decision effectively ruins the game. I feel very strongly that if you go thru with this idea, one of those "Game ruining implementations" will happen much earlier then with the usual game. And to be honest, I hope that nothing like that is ever implemented in to this game.

I honestly think this game is the most successful adaptation of a game for PvP players that has came out in a long. long time. Please dont ruin it!

Tee-hee, you said "ppl."


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 19, 2008, 10:58:38 PM
A player ties up far, far more server resources than a NPC guard, so their impact is fairly negligible.  Slayerik's explanation probably has a lot more to do with it.  We all saw how AoC handled "truly massive battles," though that's not the best example.

Obviously you do not remember UO beta, when the guards actually roamed around and used pathfinding to get to targets. Before they were teleporting, instant kills.

You could cause a lot of crimes in a town and it would spawn more guards to deal with the crimes, kind of like Concord in Eve, and the server would grind to a halt. Anyways, just sayin'.
It would depend upon the AI and other coding for which takes up more resources.  Probably players, unless the mob of mobs in question have very CPU-intensive scripts.

A large number of players may choke the servers, but more than likely graphics lag on the user's end will be a bigger factor faster until the client is significantly more optimized.  Network latency could play a role, but unless the code is really bad, the user's network card is flaky, or the player is on dial-up, it's a secondary concern.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 19, 2008, 11:22:30 PM
It would depend upon the AI and other coding for which takes up more resources.  Probably players, unless the mob of mobs in question have very CPU-intensive scripts.

90% of WAR's AI appears to be "run directly at the target who attacked you; do not stop to go around terrain - running over a tree is perfectly acceptable if that is the shortest path".

However, it could be resource intensive for the AI to figure this out.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 19, 2008, 11:43:18 PM
One also has to interpret the data one has correctly.

Their data probably shows an incredible amount of participation in scenarios.  One might draw the conclusion people only want to play scenarios.  Someone else might realize people only play scenarios because nothing else gives as high a reward/time ratio.

So it can tell you what people are or are not doing, however it cannot tell you why.  Even if you ask directly, people aren't always sure themselves.

This point sort of got lost in between the walls, so I thought I'd bring it back up because I think it's a very cogent observation. Data never speaks for itself. If it did, we would always make the right investments, we would make all the right moves, and we'd know exactly what was going on in every organization.

I think we all realize that popular activities in MMOGs are going to be those with the heaviest results. Ironically, players have enough time on their hands to figure out how to maximize their time. As a result, if any activity is unbalanced, it will be summarily exploited/ignored in the system. That's where we are currently with the T3-T4 scenarios and the xp dilemmas.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 20, 2008, 12:01:40 AM
I think Mythic gambled that you could both get the Orvr crowd and the wow BG grind crowd pleased,

I am going to have to give you a gold star for this. Thats my personal feeling also. Why they did it in such a blatently unbalanced way? Well, I think Mark was telling the truth when he said the beta testers didn't give the "right" feedback, because they tested the game like beta testers and not players. While that is something that I feel should have been accounted for, they can't do everything.

Honestly why it happened is a moot point, to an extent. The real question is how fast and what exactly is going to be done about it. There are tons of good ideas here and on other sites, and I am sure the dev team is looking at all angles (I hope they are).

I really like the game, but the empty world feeling, and the horrible rewards for RVR is making me want to rush to 40, so I can RVR with out feeling like I am wasting my time.

wow, i only signed up to let you know most of you are a bunch of assholes. Why Mark bothers with you guys is a mystery.

Probably because we don't brown nose him, and we tell him how we feel with out *much* flaming. And how can you call us assholes? You haven't even met Ironwood yet.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 20, 2008, 02:07:13 AM
Thread on Warhammer Alliance (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158809)

Quote from: Garthilk
Hmm,
 
Well, WHA easily dwarfs every other WAR forum in existance in terms of size and actual readers/posters. So I'm not sure why Mark wants to post stuff where a large potion of the community isn't reading (We've got a fix for this comming soon). As to why Mark doesn't post here, well here is Marks own words why Mark isn't coming back here.

Quote
Thanks but I ain't going back to WHA for a long time. It's becoming more and more like the old Vault every day as I told Garth a long time ago it would as we got closer to launch. Par for the course for an MMO but I'm tired of being called names, insulted and having my name dragged through the mud there.

Mark

So there you go. Personally, I think his remark needs a few cycles in the no spin zone, with a liberal amount of truthiness added to it. Anyway, I'm going to take the high road and say this.
 
Before Mark started posting, before Mythic even announced the title, the foundation of the Warhammer Alliance community existed and was kindled. For more than three years this site has been about the Warhammer Online community. Today, we have dozens of people volunteering their time and hundreds of thousands of WAR customers visiting our forums. The staff and I are completely commited to providing a comprehensive community resource.
 
To that end we are working on some tools that will end the "where's the dev post" game that exists. I belive the community, and the customer shouldn't have to look in 3, or 4, or even two different places to find out the latest developer musing.
 
In the future, hopefully late this fall, we'll begin syndicating all developer posts, regardless of where they post. What this means, is that if a developer posts at Bobs Sellout Palace, we're going to have that post added to our forums, easily found in our devtracker. Over time we'll search out and begin to syndicate developer posts from wherever they are posting on a regular basis. Those developer posts will then in turn be resyndicated via our developer post RSS feed generator, so other fansites can take those developer posts and post them at their fansites.
 
This ensures that no matter where a developer posts, you'll be able to find the information either here at Warhammer Alliance, or any side that chooses to reproduce the developer posts from our DevRSS feed.
 
That said folks, hang in there we've got even more really cool things in store here at Warhammer Alliance.

Taking the high road while making plans to implement dev stalking tracking via RSS.  Inter forum drama is da best, greetings to all Warhammer Alliance readers, please make sure to fully read this f13 thread (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=2502.0), before posting.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 20, 2008, 02:59:43 AM
I'm going to like you. 
1. Humour, 2. The above quote shows one possible outcome from not having official forums, the sense of justified entitlement that comes from someone doing a lot of hard work for no pay. 3. Grief title.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Tannhauser on October 20, 2008, 03:44:29 AM
If this is an RvR-centric game why is the PVE so grindy?  They need to increase xp or decrease mobs HP across the board.  In T1/2 I can cycle thru my abilities once to kill a mob.  In T3 I need to cycle thru twice.  I'm a DoK btw.  So you are pressing double the keys for the same effect.  Maybe that's strange to you but it 'feels' wrong. 

They have to keep scenarios.  But make lake RVR the best way for renown and xp and gear.  Scenarios need to stay because sometime folks just want to pop in and get in a quick fight.  Variety is good.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Modern Angel on October 20, 2008, 04:56:13 AM
This thread sucks now.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nerf on October 20, 2008, 05:00:06 AM
Regarding a SCENARIO-FREE Server:

Yes, this is a GOOD idea


At least it's still producing a few lulz before it poops itself and falls over dead.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: amiable on October 20, 2008, 05:06:19 AM
Regarding a SCENARIO-FREE Server:

Yes, this is a GOOD idea


So...  I see this thread has boarded the bus to crazytown.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Goreschach on October 20, 2008, 05:09:32 AM

At least it's still producing a few lulz before it poops itself and falls over dead.

I'm not normally a religious man, but that kind of synchronicity makes me want to believe in a higher power.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: JWIV on October 20, 2008, 05:27:48 AM
Regarding a SCENARIO-FREE Server:

Yes, this is a GOOD idea


So...  I see this thread has boarded the bus to crazytown.

Only Grunk could save it now.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 20, 2008, 05:52:44 AM
If this is an RvR-centric game why is the PVE so grindy? 
...
They have to keep scenarios.  But make lake RVR the best way for renown and xp and gear.  Scenarios need to stay because sometime folks just want to pop in and get in a quick fight.  Variety is good.
This. Go. Do.

WAR can be the best of both worlds when all three (PvE, Scenarios, RvR) work in concert. Queuing from anywhere for Scenarios is a great complement to PvEing along the way. Add that for RvR. Just give us another scroll for the local Warcamp even, easy peasy.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Khaldun on October 20, 2008, 06:16:12 AM
Yes, someone message Grunk. He is needed.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 20, 2008, 06:28:46 AM
Quote
This Thread

tdl;dr


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 20, 2008, 06:38:05 AM
Christ... I leave for the weekend and come back to this? 

I like Mark a lot, but if ever there was a case for having an official forum, this would be it.   



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 06:48:55 AM
Surgery inc. Nerf the admin.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 07:04:18 AM
If you don't read the following thread before you post, well, you deserve whatever fate comes to you. This is not WHA, the Vault, or your mom's book club. Mark wasn't here for you. It's OK to watch and speculate and be entertained or even angry, but it's not OK to starfuck.

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=15001.0

Get it? NO STARFUCKING.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waylander on October 20, 2008, 07:20:11 AM
I understand MJ can't walk in, snap his fingers, and make everything ok in 2 seconds. However those of us who tried to make a case in beta for more organized groups/guild testing while also bringing more guilds in to provide a healthy population were mercilessly crushed by the CM's on the Mythic forums. I made posts elsewhere on the board about the benefits that organized group/guild testing would have provided, but I do think it would have caught a lot of issues if at least 1 live server type of environment could have been simulated long enough.

Anyway I think Schild summed up the big points that we've all been saying here. I also see where the WoW kiddies might be better fans of scenarios, and that this game needs to appeal to a variety of users. One thing I liked about DAOC was that it had Towers and Keeps. Smaller guilds could own Towers so there was usually some action in the RVR zones because of that. A smaller guild might not bother with a Keep because they don't have the manpower to take it, hold it, or pay the upkeep on it.

I'll refrain from any other comments until I see what Mythic is doing to beef up RVR except to say that they have got to beef up the exp for PVE'ing.  T1 is fun, T2-T3 isn't, and T4 PVE is bearable but filled with long runs. Without good or FAST PVE, then there isn't much to fall back on when scenarios/RVR ain't happening.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 20, 2008, 07:22:23 AM
According to EuroGamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=263782).

Quote
Of the two remaining originally planned careers, the Dwarf Hammerer and Greenskin Choppa, one is set to return to the game at a later date, but the other will be replaced by an as-yet unknown class.

"Well, one of them we hope to put back in," Mark Jacobs told Eurogamer and GamesIndustry.biz when he spoke to us last week.

"I can't tell you which yet, that's a surprise. We're probably going to be replacing one and putting in another class in its place. But we'll be talking about that in a few months."

Don't think I noticed that before.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 20, 2008, 07:25:05 AM
In all honesty I think calling fans of wow-style battlegrounds or scenario's 'wow-kiddies' is a misnomer. I think there is a market for instant gratification sport pvp that was there before wow existed and they were simply the first to actually tap into that.

One of the biggest problems scenario's in war have is that you end up doing the same one over and over per teir and usually >100 times. So you get sick of them but they are simply the fastest way to level atm.

Sport pvp has a place in all mmo's to some extent and it's not exclusive to wow players. I think this is the biggest mistake, associating the two things and may possibly lead to an exclusion of large portion of possible players.

Oh, right...back to your vault wackiness.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hayduke on October 20, 2008, 07:33:32 AM
According to EuroGamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=263782).

Quote
Of the two remaining originally planned careers, the Dwarf Hammerer and Greenskin Choppa, one is set to return to the game at a later date, but the other will be replaced by an as-yet unknown class.

"Well, one of them we hope to put back in," Mark Jacobs told Eurogamer and GamesIndustry.biz when he spoke to us last week.

"I can't tell you which yet, that's a surprise. We're probably going to be replacing one and putting in another class in its place. But we'll be talking about that in a few months."

Don't think I noticed that before.



That's great news because I know a lot of people wanted something a little more exciting than the hammerer (and yeah it's pretty much a given they're talking about the hammerer and not the choppa).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: amiable on October 20, 2008, 07:42:38 AM
stuff

I think that post could have been longer, and had more nerdrage.  Please try again.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Miasma on October 20, 2008, 07:42:53 AM
According to EuroGamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=263782).

Quote
Of the two remaining originally planned careers, the Dwarf Hammerer and Greenskin Choppa, one is set to return to the game at a later date, but the other will be replaced by an as-yet unknown class.

"Well, one of them we hope to put back in," Mark Jacobs told Eurogamer and GamesIndustry.biz when he spoke to us last week.

"I can't tell you which yet, that's a surprise. We're probably going to be replacing one and putting in another class in its place. But we'll be talking about that in a few months."

Don't think I noticed that before.

That's great news because I know a lot of people wanted something a little more exciting than the hammerer (and yeah it's pretty much a given they're talking about the hammerer and not the choppa).
Yeah with the population imbalance they would be insane to give destruction another cool class.

Quote from: Keldek
My post history on VN
:oh_i_see:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 07:44:41 AM
Don't respond to these people, please. It just makes you look like you're quoting nothing when I prune it out.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Draegan on October 20, 2008, 07:54:06 AM
I don't use a computer all weekend and this thread happens an no one calls me?  Bah.  This just soaked up an hour of work time this morning.

I have to say I agree with everyone (before the tards showed up) except MJ.  I actually enjoyed Schild's froth this time since I agree with it!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: chargerrich on October 20, 2008, 08:20:17 AM
I do not understand why Mythic would play right into WoWs hands. WAR cannot hold a candle to WoWs PVE but is far better at PvP. So why do we have to perform a mind numbing grind just to get to the jewel of th game, PvP?

And what if we want to play some alts? I am not about to invest 250+ hours per character just to START to really PvP when it matters.

Hey I am all for a 5 year grind post RR40, but why make the entrance just to start the process so steep? It will only drive people away. I should be able to get a character to rank 40 in way <100 hours (like 40 or 50). Once I have decided and settled on what character I want to really RvR with, THEN and ONLY THEN should a hard core grind start.

As for additional RvR improvements:

1. 100% agree the current lake system fractures the player base, one HUGE area per tier would be a monumental improvement
2. NO scenario free servers. Scenarios, which I generally hate, are good for training and entry to RvR and can be fun occasionally to run with a guild group.
3. Better gear and much better EXP as an incentive RvR.
4. No need to nerf scenarios, but RvR should be better.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sahrokh on October 20, 2008, 08:20:42 AM
linebreak


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Goreschach on October 20, 2008, 08:23:09 AM
This guy obviously stole all those line breaks from the earlier posters.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: NiX on October 20, 2008, 08:24:44 AM
I haven't seen such asshattery since the great water spill of '01.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Calandryll on October 20, 2008, 08:24:55 AM
Thread on Warhammer Alliance (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158809)

Quote from: Garthilk
Hmm,
I belive the community, and the customer shouldn't have to look in 3, or 4, or even two different places to find out the latest developer musing.
I agree with Garthilk wholeheartedly.  It's just about the strongest argument for official forums that one can make.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: chargerrich on October 20, 2008, 08:25:21 AM
People follow the rewards. Is this where I say obvious design is obvious?


No one ENJOYS BG farming in WoW. It's just leaps and bounds the best reward path. It's practically the ONLY reward path for PvP for the masses.


WAR Scenarios seem like they have the same problem. They simply out weigh everything else reward wise. Buff the world RvR up, consolidate it, profit?

I played DaoC for a really long time, I WANT to like WAR, but you are making it very hard as things stand. "Soul crushing grind doing shit I don't want to do to get to the parts I want to do? Sign me up!  :awesome_for_real: "


Look, I agree with you in theory 100%.  However, what we've seen so far is that a sizable percentage players don't want to leave the scenarios.  We will keep upping the rewards but my concern is that a sizable percentage will still want to stay in the scenarios because that is what they are used to doing so I want to be prepared for that.  It doesn't mean we will do it but it would be foolish of us not to prepare for it. 

Mark


Even if you are correct, I find it hard to believe, dare i say impossible, to think these increases will not help. We can argue about how much, but they will help. WORST case scenario is that there is some increase in RvR but maybe more is needed. I however think that some serious RvR experience love along with a major reduction is post 20-40 grind would fix a lot of ills.

Then you can concentrate on making the RvR layout better, with less lakes, more content, et al.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 08:29:52 AM
Congratulations to chargerrich. While he will probably not stick around, he is the first new member to avoid the deletion stick. His posts, while slightly starfucky, were short and to the point. Also, he seems knowledgeable of the situation and most of all, he agrees with me and I'm a whore.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: chargerrich on October 20, 2008, 09:03:02 AM

>>>>Seriously, go look at T3 and T4 quests. Why haven't those been increased in value by 3-400%? Is there any reason at all?

And, we have always spoken about the amount of time it would take to level and, on *most* servers, most players are leveling exactly as quickly as we said they would.  

Mark


Comments like these seriously give me pause. 1-40 should not take 200-300 hours, not even close. RR41-80 can take 5 years for all I care because RR80 should be special, rare and require a lot of work in RvR. But 1-40 is training. Let us level some alts and see what class we like. You are keeping players from even experiencing the best part of the game.

Look at your numbers, see how many have left and know that 99% of them NEVER EVEN SAW RR41. That is the sad part.

I have 7 alts all under 29 and they all hit a wall HARD at 20. So much so I did not want to play anymore. I have FORCED myself as a guild leader to queue scenarios for my main from 20-29 while watching my stocks dive on TV or law and order re runs because I am bored out of my skull.

I do it because from 1-20 I loved this game, even with the RvR deficiencies. Make the rest of the game like Tier 1 with improved RvR and you have me for life (and many others I suspect).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: chargerrich on October 20, 2008, 09:05:01 AM
Uhhhhh, yea, you missed choices 5 and 6.

5) Increase RvR to the point that scenarios are something you do during offpeak hours.

6) Figure out a way to make sure everyone in any tier knows exactly which RvR zone to go to and offer an instant button-press to get there.

I'm sorry, but some things just have to have the training wheels slapped on them so that people can skip the bullshit (this includes walking across a zone to a damned warcamp).


Amen. Schild you are on point. I could not agree more.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 20, 2008, 09:14:09 AM
I do it because from 1-20 I loved this game, even with the RvR deficiencies. Make the rest of the game like Tier 1 with improved RvR and you have me for life (and many others I suspect).

I agree completely here.  This is the reason that Mythic got my cash for nearly 6 years.  The endgame was enjoyable and I found a great deal of variety in playing the endgame with many different character classes in every realm.  If the path to the endgame is as enjoyable as the endgame itself, they'll get my cash for years.  Schild has hit the other high points.  More incentives, less grind, yadda yadda yadda.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Afritim on October 20, 2008, 09:32:46 AM
Quote
you may ban me now.

ok


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 20, 2008, 09:35:34 AM
Of the two remaining originally planned careers, the Dwarf Hammerer and Greenskin Choppa, one is set to return to the game at a later date, but the other will be replaced by an as-yet unknown class.

I'm kind of surprised they don't put in the Dwarf Slayer, personally. Order needs a naked mohawk DPS class to counteract Marauders!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Threash on October 20, 2008, 09:36:36 AM
Of the two remaining originally planned careers, the Dwarf Hammerer and Greenskin Choppa, one is set to return to the game at a later date, but the other will be replaced by an as-yet unknown class.

I'm kind of surprised they don't put in the Dwarf Slayer, personally. Order needs a naked mohawk DPS class to counteract Marauders!

Isn't there one of those guys near the dwarf newbie zone?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 20, 2008, 09:44:06 AM
Yep! It's like a teaser of awesome. "We were going to let you be one of those guys! Well, wait a bit and maybe you too can be drunk and stupid and dual wielding axes."


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 20, 2008, 09:48:21 AM
I want to do just that and that's what I told the team last week.  However, don't you think I should be prepared just in case we're all wrong and the ex-WoW players  would rather play more scenarios no matter if the experience, gear and leveling speed is faster in open RvR and the RvR guys want to do more RvR and less (or no) scenarios?

Mark

I'm way the fuck back on this thread. It was a 2-pager when I saw it last. But I had to point this out to Mark if he's still listening.

STOP INSULTING YOUR PLAYERS BY CALLING THEM EX-WOW PLAYERS.

Stop it. It matters not two rat fucks whether your players came from WOW, AOC, DAoC, EQ, WWI Online or any of a number of other MMOG's. They are YOUR CUSTOMERS NOW. They play your fucking game. If you keep trying to chase other game's players, you are missing the point.

Your players are doing what they get rewarded for in this game. Period. Scenarios reward with fun (the first 100 times) AND gear AND experience. Everything else - whether fun or not - rewards with a kick in the sack. I was part of an open group that took all the Empire t3 keeps and BO's last night. I was level 22/RR 15 (almost 16). I was there most of an hour. I got no gear, about 1/8th of an RR (which was enough to kick me to 16), and I barely 1/10th of a level of experience. That was 1 keep (the other had already been taken when I got involved) and 3 BO's. In that time, I saw maybe 5 enemy players - the rest was PVE and pounding on a keep. Had I gone into Tor Anroc (a scenario designed by meth heads for meth heads) during that entire time, I'd have likely gone through 4 or 5 runs, gotten an entire other renown rank, maybe even have leveled and gotten a piece of gear. Why is it there were no enemy players? Because they were all getting the rewards in the scenarios. Or worse, they were in another RVR lake taking keeps.

If it was the latter, why didn't I get any indication that my side's keeps were under attack? I'd have gone to the Elf area if their keeps were under attack. I did the keep taking because it was FUN. It's the kind of gameplay I want to be involved in. But there were no rewards - and no opponents. The fun is only going to last so long, especially when there are no enemy players to fight. At that point, it's just PVE, with no dynamic nature, which will get boring without any rewards.

Adding a new server will FURTHER dilute the RVR lakes, because people who want to play in RVR lakes will go there, leaving my server full of scenario runners. And playing on that server will likely suck, because the leveling grind will be HORRIBLE without the added scenario experience.

Scenarios ARE fun, but Tor Anroc/Morkain Temple - FUCK. SUCK SUCK SUCK. Lowest common denominator hamster wheels, that are only popular because the rewards are INSANE in comparison to every other activity in the game. People aren't playing scenarios because they are Ex-WoW players. They play for the same reason people masturbate. It's easy and rewarding.

One final, large font point:

TOR ANROC IS THE MMOG EQUIVALENT OF MONKEYS STIMULATING THEIR OGRASM CENTERS WITH A BUTTON.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 20, 2008, 09:57:49 AM
People aren't playing scenarios because they are Ex-WoW players. They play for the same reason people masturbate. It's easy and rewarding.

It's all about catching the carrot.  Make one slot machine payout often enough and players will always play that same slot machine.  The key to providing the playerbase with the widest variety of gameplay is to adjust the payout such that all styles of gameplay provide the same level of reward.  It's been said to death in this thread, but Haem has a way of capturing the point at its essence. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waylander on October 20, 2008, 10:07:12 AM
I've seen the F13 discussions linked from Vault and Warhammer Alliance. I hope we don't see an invasion of the trolls, or the mouthbreathers that each have to make a 1,000 posts every day with "Hay Mark Jakobs!".

That said I do have to wonder why Mark wouldn't want to post on Warhammer Alliance considering its userbase, post several times a week on the Vault (which to me is the worst place), and then not get offended at some of the things we say here. We don't flame devs or game managers here, we just tell them like it is in sometimes simple english.

I appreciate all the devs who come here, even Lum, and try to be respectful even if I disagree. The only problem with War using so many different forums is that the message gets chopped up. Garth's new dev tracker looks like its going to find people no matter where they go. I hope that Mark as well as others will continue to communicate with us even though google or Warhammer Alliance/Vault/etc will always find a way to track them down.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hayduke on October 20, 2008, 10:18:41 AM
Of the two remaining originally planned careers, the Dwarf Hammerer and Greenskin Choppa, one is set to return to the game at a later date, but the other will be replaced by an as-yet unknown class.

I'm kind of surprised they don't put in the Dwarf Slayer, personally. Order needs a naked mohawk DPS class to counteract Marauders!


I thought that's what MJ was coyly saying they were doing in the interview.  I mean they're obviously not going to cut the choppa because it has a huge fanbase and looked really cool.  The reaction to the hammerer has been meh to nerdrage.  If they don't put in the slayer which everyone wants what will they put in?  I'm not really up on WAR fluff but it seems if it's not the slayer they'd have to make something new like they did with DoKs.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 20, 2008, 10:30:17 AM
Amen. Schild you are on point. I could not agree more.

Also, he seems knowledgeable of the situation and most of all, he agrees with me and I'm a whore.

Ok, that's just over the top  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 10:30:59 AM
I thought it was pretty great.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 20, 2008, 10:37:52 AM
Thread on Warhammer Alliance (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158809)

Quote from: Garthilk
Hmm,
I belive the community, and the customer shouldn't have to look in 3, or 4, or even two different places to find out the latest developer musing.
I agree with Garthilk wholeheartedly.  It's just about the strongest argument for official forums that one can make.

I like MJ's self-fulfilling prophecy of internet forutms - people on them are nasty and mean and insult you, so we won't use any where that might occur. Of course, this means those looking to try to get some attention head to wherever MJ posted last, which in turn pollutes any forums that MJ could be part of.

Instead of WAR / Mythic not having official forums, can it just be someone's job to keep MJ off the forums? They obviously don't suit him. I recognise that he and Sanya copped a lot of abuse during DAOC, but he withdrew and dismissed the contribution of forums whereas Sanya overcame / accepted that was the nature of MMO fame.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 20, 2008, 10:55:19 AM
Of the two remaining originally planned careers, the Dwarf Hammerer and Greenskin Choppa, one is set to return to the game at a later date, but the other will be replaced by an as-yet unknown class.

I'm kind of surprised they don't put in the Dwarf Slayer, personally. Order needs a naked mohawk DPS class to counteract Marauders!

Adding a class to the Dwarves and NOT making it the Slayer would be the height of stupidity. Slayers are congealed bits of awesome sauce gravy on a bed of awesome lettuce with awesome bits sprinkled all over. The lore really doesn't have a lot of good dwarf classes other than Slayers.

While I'm bitching about stuff:

That little puff of smoke when I summon or desummon my horse. KILL IT GODDAMNIT IT HURTS SO FUCKING BAD. Seriously, every time I get that fucking puff of smoke, my machine slows to a crawl. Which means if I have to get off my horse in PVP, I'm dead because I stand there like a fucking paralytic while I get gang-raped by the opposition. HATE HATE HATE IT. As a matter of fact, give me more granularity in selecting which particle effects get played, because the game just goes overboard in the particle effects category, which is why RVR can be a slideshow at times.

In 6 months, this game is going to be torturous to level in. PQ's will be impossible when everyone is at level 40. There's going to need to be some serious jiggering of the pre-40 game to make alting worthwhile, and frankly, I don't even have a good solution for it. All that t1 and t2 real estate and those RVR lakes are going to be going to waste. I think Mythic is going to need to seriously considering some deleveling mechanism to make those places usable. And scenarios? Imagine how bad t2 would be without Mourkain Temple popping every 10 seconds.

Renown gear past level 15 is assy. As a result, talisman-making is worthless at higher levels. At level 22, most of my gear is either influence or quest-based, and that shit not only looks better, it doesn't contain any talisman slots. So all those talismans I've made are worthless. The Renown gear has slots - it just hasn't kept pace with my PVE gear. That has to change.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 11:13:26 AM
Hey, Mark. When you get around to it, can you reply to this:

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=15008

I think every guild on Earth wants a little clarity on the subject.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: MarkJacobs on October 20, 2008, 11:36:02 AM
Such a commotion.  So, let me clear up a few points:

Haemish - I never said all our players were WoW or ex-WoW players.  What my point was, and still is, that part of what I believe is going on in the game are due to the different expectations of different groups of players.  Not all WoW players played DAoC/SB and not all DAoC/SB players play WoW.  As much as you might not want to believe that, some players might actually prefer to play in scenarios versus open RvR even if we raise the rewards from open RvR substantially.  And I drew a possible correlation with that approach to players being used to playing in WoW versus DAoC.  So, tone down the drama a bit okay?  I'm a lot of things but not stupid enough to call all our players ex-WoW players because I know they are not.  Like I said in one of my posts in regards to potentially different needs/wants of different players is that we have two choices, believe that all players want the same thing from a game or believe that there are different communities of players within a game.  And I was saying to Schild, I choose to believe the second option and *prepare* to take steps in case I am right.  

All - As I've said a number of times, we will be making changes to open RvR in order to encourage players to participate in it but we won't be gutting scenarios in order to do so.  In terms of a no/tiered scenario server, as I've also said before, I want all options to be on the table just in case the prevailing attitude of "Buff it and they will come" is wrong.  Again, I refuse to stick my head in the sand and expect that one approach will work for everybody.  That would be akin to a "silver bullet" approach and my favorite phrase regarding SBs is that they are good for one thing, killing werewolves.  Other than that, I prefer not to believe in them.

BTW, like our fix for the mail system?  Seems to be working great now.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: chargerrich on October 20, 2008, 11:42:09 AM
Exceptional...

Now can you comment on the PvE grind post 20?

Any increase on the horizon? Hopefully on the magnitude of 200-300%. And if so, any time line?


Thank you.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: trias_e on October 20, 2008, 11:52:36 AM
This is concerning whether people are leveling at the 'correct speed' or not.  Does this take into account means of XP accumulation?  It seems that only those who are AE grinding PvE content or doing scenarios nonstop are getting optimal XP.  If these people are leveling as expected, then the rest of your game is far too slow.

Another point:  The industry has been going straight in one direction in this department.  From EQ's insane requirements to DAOC having a brutal PvE grind, to WoW with a 240 hour playtime to max level over 60 levels.  WAR should continue that trend, perhaps lowering this requirement to 120-150 hours.  I feel there will be reluctance here, as people will outlevel your large amount of content without doing most of it.  I reply:  Your PvE experiment from T1-T3 didn't work.  It's time to let it go and focus on making awesome end game PQs instead.  PQs are a great idea.  Just not for the purposes of leveling up in your game, unfortunately.  They will work much better when a large amount of the playerbase gets into T4, and you can fully populate them.  Again though, focus on quality over quantity.  Make em a bit more interesting and difficult as opposed to time-consuming as well, eh? 

One final issue with the leveling speed as you pointed our Mark is that you only have 40 levels instead of 60, which makes each level take goddamn forever.  I think what you did in DAOC might work here.  Consider some sort of mini-dinging perhaps?  I realize adding 9 more talent points to your system wouldn't probably be a great idea due to balance issues, but perhaps add 5 more talent points at 30.5/32.5/34.5/36.5/38.5, and add some new tactics (this can be a bit of love for your classes you were talking about earlier) at 31.5/33.5/35.5/37.5/39.5.  Combine this with making T3 significantly faster, giving up on getting more mileage your 1-39 PvE content and focusing on RvR, and I think you have a solid/at least better model for player retention.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 11:55:19 AM
30-40 is just a cockblock to the end game. They shouldn't be looking at ways to make it less painful other than lessening the EXP requirements by a shitton post 20. Once again, I reiterate, 1-40 should've gone balls-out fast and been nothing more than a tutorial. Were I running this game, I'd want everyone at 40 within 48 hours played - particularly with how hugemongous the T4 zones are.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ingmar on October 20, 2008, 12:00:03 PM
Mark -

Let me just add to the chorus saying an additional server type won't help anything. The only new server type that really succeeded in DAOC was the classic "No TOA/buffbots" server, and there hasn't been a TOA-scale misstep that needs to be corrected here.

Just fix the quality of life issues first and some of the other stuff will naturally fall in line. I may be in the minority opinion here but the issue isn't really a problem with the core gameplay, it is more a question of adjusting some knobs for that part to adjust things like what affects zone control, balancing scenario xp rate between scenarios, or what the reward levels are to incentivize people to participate. What really IMO makes people dissatisfied is the stuff that gets in the way of getting to the core fun:

- Way too much grind for the level side of things - if you have to repeat content to level in 2008 you are doing it wrong, and WAR has this issue in spades. You should be able to level doing each PQ once, each quest once, each scenario once, then move on to the next chapter. Even in CoH I can level without repeating missions, and that game is grindy as hell. Doing it the way WAR is now really screws with your storylines and immersion for people who care about that, too.

- Population imbalance. I have to say that after my experience in DAOC on Igraine/Midgard (one of the smallest realm sides in the game), my single biggest disappointment with WAR is that you seem to have launched with a "we'll see if it is a problem and fix it later" philosophy, despite this being the biggest problem DAOC had. There needs to be something done here, and quickly, and it can't just be things like leveling incentives that take months to pay off. The solutions need to be ones that accept that population imbalance is largely permanent and people generally aren't going to move. NPC help, survivability buffs for the lower populated side in RVR, there are a lot of things you can do here but if you take the approach of actually trying to even out real player population you are not going to succeed.

- Solo/duo leveling options. Perhaps scale PQ difficulty by how many people are participating in them when you reach end points - if you hit the end of phase 2 and there's only 2 people there, then spawn the boss as a champion instead, or whatever. Forcing grouping to get any kind of decent leveling rate narrows your audience. In a post-WoW world, far fewer players are willing to tolerate the equivalent of fin groups or redcaps from DAOC.

- Guild xp system punishing you for letting rarely-played characters be in your guild etc. Alt guilds are stupid. Don't make us use these.

- Crafting being overly complicated and annoying You tried a little bit to fix this with seed drop rates but came at it wrong - the problem wasn't how much they dropped, the problem was there are far, far too many different kinds that didn't stack with each other. Get rid of all the adjectives like 'wispy/hairy/horny beardweed seed' and just have beardweed seeds. Same for potions while you're at it. If an initiate's healing potion heals 300, and a healing potion heals 300, then nothing is being added to the game by having those names being different other than making it so they don't stack. That is an irritant, and when you put enough irritants together you lose players just as much or more than you do from Big Issues.

- All the various performance/graphics type problems

EDIT:

How could I forget this one:

- Mechanical Transparency. Expose and document exactly how all the stats work, what the combat mechanics are, how things scale, etc., etc., etc. When I ready an item I need to know what it actually does for me in order to make an educated decision about whether or not I should use it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: trias_e on October 20, 2008, 12:02:50 PM
Quote
30-40 is just a cockblock to the end game. They shouldn't be looking at ways to make it less painful other than lessening the EXP requirements by a shitton post 20. Once again, I reiterate, 1-40 should've gone balls-out fast and been nothing more than a tutorial. Were I running this game, I'd want everyone at 40 within 48 hours played - particularly with how hugemongous the T4 zones are.

Two possible responses to that:

Either A)  Mythic is of the old school 'relate/care about your character due to time commitment issues' mindset (which is something I can sympathize with...but not in the 1-39 section of this game.  Do this from RR40-80 IMO.  In other words I mostly agree with you.)

or B)  They aren't ready for the entire population to be in the endgame yet.

A) is going to take some convincing.  B) is just a fact of life that you can't avoid.  People were saying that no game has ever failed due to leveling speed being too high...and then the 80's in AoC all quit complaining about the lack of endgame content.  In other words, yes, you can level too quickly.  If the two options are rushing to end game where things aren't ready yet, and having a grind, the grind is undoubtedly a better player retention model.  The best mode of course is getting people to a great endgame quickly, or making your entire game just so many shades of awesome that the endgame doesn't matter.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 20, 2008, 12:03:31 PM
Adding a class to the Dwarves and NOT making it the Slayer would be the height of stupidity. Slayers are congealed bits of awesome sauce gravy on a bed of awesome lettuce with awesome bits sprinkled all over. The lore really doesn't have a lot of good dwarf classes other than Slayers.

Yeah but from memory I believe slayers don't wear armour (so boring to equip) and the sole intention of a slayer is to die in battle.  I can't see how they would get it past GW approval without killing every slayer automatically at RR50 or something.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kirth on October 20, 2008, 12:06:26 PM
The potion thing is amazingly annoying.

The materials to make say 20 strength potions might be taking up 4 or 5 slots in my inventory, and after burning through those materials I can end up having more space taken up because I've randomly created potions of varying level requirements, stat buff amount and duration. each one a separate stack. I would be nice to have an option to "re-mix" a potion to funnel a useless one ( 60 str for 5 minutes ) to the more useful (60 str for 1 hour), maybe by combining multiple low duration ones you can get one of increased duration.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kirth on October 20, 2008, 12:08:03 PM
Of the two remaining originally planned careers, the Dwarf Hammerer and Greenskin Choppa, one is set to return to the game at a later date, but the other will be replaced by an as-yet unknown class.

I'm kind of surprised they don't put in the Dwarf Slayer, personally. Order needs a naked mohawk DPS class to counteract Marauders!

The loading screen description of Khadrin Valley(dwarf T4 chap15+) pretty much lays the groundwork for a slayer class.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Terrorsauce on October 20, 2008, 12:10:59 PM
Fixed Mail system?  You mean taking 1 minute to open a letter instead of 10?  Great fix...

I dont even think Vanguard had mail system troubles lol.  Thats a new one...



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Evildrider on October 20, 2008, 12:11:31 PM
How fast do you really want to level?  I've been making a level a day about since I really started questing in the 30-40 range.. this is only broken up by hours of Open RvR.

The quest rewards are average like 10-13k for most of the stuff I'm completing, let alone the xp you are getting from mobs.  If you wanna Scenario to 40.. umm that's no fun, I've pretty much given up on scenarios.  I may do 1-2 a day, and only if we havent been doing BO's and Keeps.  I do agree that Open RvR still needs more XP incentive.  I mean 4300 xp for taking a t4 keep?  At least make that like 7500-10000 or something.  And maybe give like 2500 or something for capping B.O.'s.

My biggest problem now is that I really don't want to run Bastion's Stairs and Sigmar's Crypts til my fucking eyes fall out of my head for good loot.  However you will need these items when you start heading towards taking the Inevitable City, for the wards they give.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 20, 2008, 12:13:10 PM
BTW, like our fix for the mail system?  Seems to be working great now.

Mark

Yes is much better now. You're at 1/125 on your PQ :P


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Khaldun on October 20, 2008, 12:14:23 PM
Haemish is insulting skilled masturbation.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Terrorsauce on October 20, 2008, 12:18:35 PM
I have a challenge for anyone that works at Mythic, or anyone else who wants to try it.  I did this because im anti-scenario and wanted to see if it was actually possible to do effecively.  

Heres the challenge:  Make a level 1 character on an Open RvR server.  No questing.  No scenarios.  No killing NPC's unless you *must.*  Only level off of world rvr.  Lets see how long it takes you.  I made a level 1 Dwarf engi and ran all the way to Dwarf/Greenskin Chapter 2 and began.  Took me almost a month to hit level 15.  

You can go from 1-9 easily in one night doing scenarios.  So thats the challenge.  Only try to level off of world rvr as ive done for the last month.  Ive loged off feeling frustrated, and even robbed of exp.  Spending 3 hours World RvRing only to get a little more than 1 yellow???  Something is wrong.   Then the big 50% bonus for killing a player in World RvR came.  Thought it was awesome until i found out it only worked in RvR lakes.  

The only difference between an RvR lake and anywhere else on an Open server is that one place has pvp and the other has some useless battle objectives or keeps that noone cares about.  How can you make an Open Server with pvp anywhere but not include the 50% bonus everywhere as well?

So theres the challenge.  Do it and see what kind of state of the game your really in.  Because youll soon find as i did, its not very fun.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 20, 2008, 12:34:18 PM
Haemish - I never said all our players were WoW or ex-WoW players.  What my point was, and still is, that part of what I believe is going on in the game are due to the different expectations of different groups of players.  Not all WoW players played DAoC/SB and not all DAoC/SB players play WoW.  As much as you might not want to believe that, some players might actually prefer to play in scenarios versus open RvR even if we raise the rewards from open RvR substantially.  And I drew a possible correlation with that approach to players being used to playing in WoW versus DAoC.  So, tone down the drama a bit okay?  I'm a lot of things but not stupid enough to call all our players ex-WoW players because I know they are not.  Like I said in one of my posts in regards to potentially different needs/wants of different players is that we have two choices, believe that all players want the same thing from a game or believe that there are different communities of players within a game.  And I was saying to Schild, I choose to believe the second option and *prepare* to take steps in case I am right.

My point wasn't that every player is an ex-WoW player, it's that you are saying the people who love scenarios are all ex-WoW players. That's a bad logical trap to fall into. I love scenarios. Really I do, but it has nothing to do with me playing WoW previously. Had I never played WoW, I'd still love scenarios. Don't silo your players into ex-WoW, ex-DAoC, ex-Anything, even if you know what those terms really mean because it makes it sound like you are only focused on old solutions and other games. Making the mistake of thinking those who love scenarios are ex-WoW players will lead you think of "What did WoW do?"

Of course there are different sub-communities in this game, and there always will be. But that doesn't have anything to do with the previous games played so much as what the player wants. And more importantly, YOU and the team needs to figure out what it is YOU want this game to reward, because you cannot please all of those sub-communities. Therein lies madness and ruin. What do you want your players doing the most of? If it's RVR (and it should be, because that's going to be your main point of difference with every other game out there - no one does RVR like Mythic does except Mythic), then you better damn sure start funneling people into RVR in every way possible. Use the carrot AND use the stick. What both schild and I are telling you is that if you try to focus players into anything other than RVR, you will lose. WoW does PVE better at all levels. Period. That will be an objective fact for the majority of players out there. The more focus you put on your PVE, the more you will lose. You have an asston of PVE content, and most of it really isn't great - WoW's is better. There's no shame in admitting that.

On battlegrounds (WoW) vs. Scenarios (WAR), it's a tossup. The WoW objective-based play is better, but the rewards and ease of use of WAR scenarios is a big positive. That will change, because WoW is about to add in the ease of use that WAR has. So again, on sport PVP, you will likely do no better than hold your on - and that's not even taking into account WoW's arena stuff. Any continued focus on the sport PVP as something other than training for RVR is wrong-headed. As others have said, why are there no scenarios that train you in the art of sieging? That was one of the absolute brilliant parts of DAoC's battlegrounds - they were mini-RVR training grounds and they were FUN. Murderball? WTF?

If you put WAR against any MMOG on the market today, hands down it's main point of difference is the Open RVR/Keep-taking. The only other game that has that is DAoC. Ok, maybe AOC has it, but it's reached its critical mass and failed. There are other games for PVE. There are other games for Sport PVP. NOBODY has your market dominance or experience with RVR mechanics. So focus on that. If you never add another bit of PVE content (or at least not for the next 6 months, or even to the first expansion) and focus exclusively on RVR, you'll be doing yourself and your company a favor. Trying to please all those subcommunities is FOOLHARDY. You'll never do it. This is why I have always said niche games are the way to go. Build your game and your budget to fit that one thing you can do better than anyone else and that's RVR. If you make that the best it can be, even at the cost of those other subcommunities, you win. You'll be profitable. Maybe you won't crack a million subs, maybe you won't make Blizzard treat you with anything other than contempt (fuck them and who cares), but you will succeed.

In other words, you should have taken Mr. Blizzard's comments and responded with a "Heh." That's it. One word. "Heh." Nerd slapfights do no good other than to build page views for the publications where the slapfights take place. Oh and ups the retard quotient around here. Damnit, schild, as soon as Mark spoke up in this thread, you should have dropped some AdSense on this thread alone. Just the flood of Vaultards alone would have paid for a month of the servers.  :why_so_serious:

Also, one other bitch, since this seems to be the bitch at Mark thread: I'm level 22. Been doing quests in the Empire area. Every quest I've finished since about midway through Ch. 12 (which was about midway through 21) that has given me any good items has rewarded me with items that are level 23. It also looks like I'm running out of quests in this area. Itemization/leveling curve is le fucked.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 20, 2008, 12:42:47 PM
I would agree that you should be at the appropriate level by the time you finish your particular PQ chapter town in order to use the rewards you get. However, I found that at 24 I was well ahead of that curve, and I was being forced into the next level that was way over my head. That, and I still couldn't use the items I'd just earned in the last PQ.

So I went abroad into the other lands and just started questing at the beginning of whatever Tier I was in at that time. I did this at rank 17, and again later at rank 22. I don't believe the xp gain on quests is correct if your players have to venture into other racial zones to get things done. Also, I'll say it again, MURDERBALL ISN'T A SCENARIO. It has no objective beyond smashing faces. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, because it's the easiest place to gain rewards, so people flock there. If I want a real scenario I have to wait over half an hour as opposed to 3 minutes.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 20, 2008, 12:43:13 PM

I have a challenge for anyone that works at Mythic, or anyone else who wants to try it. 
Better for them to first tell us how they think leveling should work. The world currently seems like they wanted people doing PvE to get gear to do PQs to get better gear to do RvR. But it's not laid out that way. The way things are structured right now, players are leveling up on quest grinds while waiting for the next Scenario. Given that, what is the leveling speed?

Haemish -

Crap. Now we're going to have people abusing the font size function...  :-P

Seriously guys. 2001 called. It wants its hyperbole back.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Zetor on October 20, 2008, 12:51:31 PM
This thread is awesome on about 7 different levels.
BTW, like our fix for the mail system?  Seems to be working great now.

Mark
I see the server has finally been upgraded to a 486 and its 14k modem upgraded to ISDN! But seriously, it's a lot better now.

Now add an "open all mails" function, an "automatically get attachment when opening a mail" setting, and an "automatically delete mail after taking attachment" setting and it'll all be gravy. :p


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Steel*Faith on October 20, 2008, 12:52:27 PM
sup


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Aurelius on October 20, 2008, 12:53:55 PM
thou


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waylander on October 20, 2008, 12:55:03 PM
Schild you have 2 new mouthbreathers that need to go.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: fuser on October 20, 2008, 12:55:12 PM
Thread on Warhammer Alliance (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158809)

Quote from: Garthilk
Hmm,
 
In the future, hopefully late this fall, we'll begin syndicating all developer posts, regardless of where they post. What this means, is that if a developer posts at Bobs Sellout Palace, we're going to have that post added to our forums, easily found in our devtracker. Over time we'll search out and begin to syndicate developer posts from wherever they are posting on a regular basis. Those developer posts will then in turn be resyndicated via our developer post RSS feed generator, so other fansites can take those developer posts and post them at their fansites.

This ensures that no matter where a developer posts, you'll be able to find the information either here at Warhammer Alliance, or any side that chooses to reproduce the developer posts from our DevRSS feed.
 


I wonder how much CPU time + bandwidth is their digging going to eat up on "Bobs Sellout Palace", because in theory places like SA have always had issues with searching. Curious, Schild WHA contact you about this as a proprietor?

Taking the high road while making plans to implement dev stalking tracking via RSS.  Inter forum drama is da best, greetings to all Warhammer Alliance readers, please make sure to fully read this f13 thread (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=2502.0), before posting.

There will be drama  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 20, 2008, 12:56:40 PM
Since I'm one of them feeble 'carebear' types who wants the games I play to appeal to as many playstyles as possible

Carebear or no, you need to realize that when games try to appeal to everyone, they risk losing appeal to anyone.  Mythic does PvP well... we'd all like to see that nurtured.  Want PvE, play WoW.  They do it best.

Steel*Faith: Less leg humping and more point making, please.  



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 20, 2008, 12:57:36 PM
Now add an "open all mails" function, an "automatically get attachment when opening a mail" setting, and an "automatically delete mail after taking attachment" setting and it'll all be gravy. :p

If you grab QuickMailTool from Curse, you'll have something similar:

/qm take inbox
/qm delete inbox

It even has buttons now if you don't like typing stuff on the command line.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Aurelius on October 20, 2008, 12:58:12 PM
Since I'm one of them feeble 'carebear' types who wants the games I play to appeal to as many playstyles as possible

Carebear or no, you need to realize that when games try to appeal to everyone, they risk losing appeal to anyone.  Mythic does PvP well... we'd all like to see that nurtured.  Want PvE, play WoW.  They do it best.

And should never be challenged?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ard on October 20, 2008, 12:59:37 PM
I finally get off my ass after a few years of lurking, and it's to respond to Haemish and not to stalk a dev... what the hell is wrong with me...

Adding a class to the Dwarves and NOT making it the Slayer would be the height of stupidity. Slayers are congealed bits of awesome sauce gravy on a bed of awesome lettuce with awesome bits sprinkled all over. The lore really doesn't have a lot of good dwarf classes other than Slayers.

The biggest issue here, isn't that they didn't announce the Slayer.  It really seems like, if they were going to go with that, they would have said so, because it would have been, optimistically thinking here, a big win population wise for Order.  Same with verifying the Choppa still being around for destruction, since it wouldn't be a population push there, since most of that crowd went for the Black Ork, for now at least.  This reeks of misdirection for all the wrong reasons, and I hope I'm very wrong on this.   It really seems like there should be no reason for not confirming the classes otherwise.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 20, 2008, 01:01:17 PM
And should never be challenged?

Almost noone gives a shit about the state of PvE in WAR beyond the fact that it takes too long for the xp it gives.  PvE in WAR serves no other purpose than to take people to the endgame and occasionally provide them with better gear to do so.  If it is a matter of resource allocation, spending time on PvE beyond increasing itemization and xp gains would be a waste.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 01:02:19 PM
Sorry guys, I went to lunch.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: amiable on October 20, 2008, 01:03:51 PM

The biggest issue here, isn't that they didn't announce the Slayer.  It really seems like, if they were going to go with that, they would have said so, because it would have been, optimistically thinking here, a big win population wise for Order.  Same with verifying the Choppa still being around for destruction, since it wouldn't be a population push there, since most of that crowd went for the Black Ork, for now at least.  This reeks of misdirection for all the wrong reasons, and I hope I'm very wrong on this.   It really seems like there should be no reason for not confirming the classes otherwise.



I think you may be reading too much into this.  I suspect they announced the Knight first because Order desperately needs folks to roll tanks, and the current ones aren't very appealing for aesthetic reasons.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Micow on October 20, 2008, 01:06:02 PM
I don't know how many of you have made it into Tier 4 yet, but you may not be aware of the potential issues regarding zone capture. As you know from the earlier tiers, there's no way of seeing how many VP's you're earning towards zone control. Last night on my server (Monolith), we took every keep, objective, and won every scenario in dragonwake from 8pm until about 3am. The realm control pin stayed at about 75%. I logged on this morning only to find out Destruction has taken everything back at some point between 3am and 11am. While that is frustrating, it's not nearly as frustrating as the realm control pin moving only to 75% when we owned everything for a good 7 hours. What else were we supposed to do? Farm PQ's and do quests for VP's?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 20, 2008, 01:08:13 PM
I still stick with what I said in beta... you don't need more or new order classes.  You just need to make the existing order classes look cool.  If I don't want to play a dwarf or a gay elf, I'm stuck with a genero-human as a choice.  That's not much of an option.  Have I mentioned that I really am getting sick of fucking elves?  If I'm going to be stuck playing an elf in a game due to lore at least make the elf look cool.  Is that so much to ask?  A MAN WEARING A DRESS (or a nightgown) ISN'T COOL!  




Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ingmar on October 20, 2008, 01:09:38 PM
I still stick with what I said in beta... you don't need more or new order classes.  You just need to make the existing order classes look cool.  If I don't want to play a dwarf or a gay elf, I'm stuck with a genero-human as a choice.  That's not much of an option.  Have I mentioned that I really am getting sick of fucking elves?  If I'm going to be stuck playing an elf in a game due to lore at least make the elf look cool.  Is that so much to ask?  A MAN WEARING A DRESS (or a nightgown) ISN'T COOL!  




Minority opinion again, I know, but I quite like the way the swordmasters look/move overall. The white lion Heidi dresses are what need to change (and the jumper/overalls thing on the shadow warrior doesn't work for me either.)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hayduke on October 20, 2008, 01:11:01 PM
The mail system seems to work great, but primetime will be the real test.  Still the fix is appreciated.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 20, 2008, 01:11:20 PM
I still stick with what I said in beta... you don't need more or new order classes.  You just need to make the existing order classes look cool.  If I don't want to play a dwarf or a gay elf, I'm stuck with a genero-human as a choice.  That's not much of an option.  Have I mentioned that I really am getting sick of fucking elves?  If I'm going to be stuck playing an elf in a game due to lore at least make the elf look cool.  Is that so much to ask?  A MAN WEARING A DRESS (or a nightgown) ISN'T COOL!  

I think your complaint in this particular case needs to be directed at GW instead of Mythic. That said, I actually like the elves. :(


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ard on October 20, 2008, 01:11:29 PM
I think you may be reading too much into this.  I suspect they announced the Knight first because Order desperately needs folks to roll tanks, and the current ones aren't very appealing for aesthetic reasons.

The way I read that one is that they already had the base mechanics down for the two missing tank classes.  They just didn't have time to finish and polish all the classes, and those were the only two safe ones to take out, given there were hard armor healers for those two races (and yes, I know, they still can't really tank, but that was the logic as far as I could tell).

The tanks were always due back in.

The Choppa and the Hammerer though, were yanked because they were too much like other DPS.  Both the Choppa and the Slayer are extremely iconic though, the Hammerer, not so much.  They're both really representative of their races as a whole, and are the sorts of things that draw people to picking a side.  If they were to announce it, I'm of the opinion that it'd be a large enough draw to at least get people playing something else on Order and get established in a guild until such a time as it's released.

But then, I'm also not exactly the best at differentiating my head from my ass.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 20, 2008, 01:14:43 PM
- Crafting being overly complicated and annoying You tried a little bit to fix this with seed drop rates but came at it wrong - the problem wasn't how much they dropped, the problem was there are far, far too many different kinds that didn't stack with each other. Get rid of all the adjectives like 'wispy/hairy/horny beardweed seed' and just have beardweed seeds. Same for potions while you're at it. If an initiate's healing potion heals 300, and a healing potion heals 300, then nothing is being added to the game by having those names being different other than making it so they don't stack. That is an irritant, and when you put enough irritants together you lose players just as much or more than you do from Big Issues.
A design philosophy I've advocated since my MUD days.  The big stuff is important, but lots of little irritants do add up, and are often much easier to fix.

Specifically on the seeds we agree.  Sjofn and I already had that discussion, but it's worth pointing out again.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 20, 2008, 01:16:35 PM
I don't know how many of you have made it into Tier 4 yet, but you may not be aware of the potential issues regarding zone capture.

Of course you don't know. You registered for this forum and posted five minutes later. It has been discussed.

This will be entertaining when multiplied 50,000 times.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Micow on October 20, 2008, 01:21:16 PM
I don't know how many of you have made it into Tier 4 yet, but you may not be aware of the potential issues regarding zone capture.

Of course you don't know. You registered for this forum and posted five minutes later. It has been discussed.

This will be entertaining when multiplied 50,000 times.

I've read through this thread, and I haven't seen zone control even brought up once. Hades made a different thread on the issue, but it was while I was typing my post.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 01:21:46 PM
We discussed that at length in at least 3 threads through 2 forums you can see and possibly one you can't.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 20, 2008, 01:23:38 PM
I'm pretty sure anybody who makes their first post in this thread should be horsewhipped, but it seems that plan is well underway.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: d4rkj3di on October 20, 2008, 01:25:58 PM
Wait, IainC got fired?
No.
And that's the only comment I can make on the subject.
That's the only one you needed to make. Glad to hear it.

On topic:

Not that schild needs his balls cupped anymore in this thread, but pretty much everything he is saying here is well-thought out and frantically typed. I don't bother at all with any ORvR keep defense or attacks because the former gives no reward at all and the latter makes me roll against 20-40 other people for a poorly itemized chest piece, IF THE GOLD BAG EVEN SHOWS UP. If my chances for that crappy set piece were upped to a 1 in 4 chance I would definitely get one, I might reconsider. Read that as if I do damage to the Keep Lord and he dies, I am not rolling against anyone but the "house". If I get a 75 or higher on my 1-100 roll, there will be a set piece inside the PQ chest with my name on it.

While we still seem to have some of Mark's attention let me add that adding a /level command like the one found in DAOC would lessen the amount of eye-bleeding involved with trying another class. Granted, DAOC is 50 levels vice WAR's 40, so the /level should give R18 instead of 20 perhaps? That would put you at the Tier 2 rank that no longer needs bolstering. Just a thought.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Dessad on October 20, 2008, 01:31:02 PM
I can appreciate Mark's situation, and I do hope Mythic can turn the game around (the RvR 'side' of things, anyway)--but, for the love of god, why does he have to use the phrase "In terms of ..." in every other paragraph?  I thought only pseudo-intellectuals, politicians, and wannabe 'news people' use this clumsy, idiotic phrase (as a substitue for the phrase "with regard to") to make themselves appear more intelligent.  Doesn't anyone freakin' read any more?



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 20, 2008, 01:40:59 PM
I wish some of the new guys would at least take the time to throw in some bouncing boob anime pic (which I got ragged on about on wTo), a generic Bruce Campbell pic (always a winner), or pic of their character already! Show some effort! Out of the hundred guys that register, a couple will stick around and maybe in 3 years I'll get in an argument with one and quote their join date as the day they were liberated from ze Vault!

I think Schild is loving this.

Maybe I'm demented but I think I would be.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waylander on October 20, 2008, 01:44:55 PM


I think Schild is loving this.


I've been laughing pretty hard this afternoon as they come in here, post long novels thinking to educate us all, and then see them listed as a "guest" with their post deleted. This isn't the vault where you come in here, bypass the first 9 pages of the thread and then rehash the whole conversation in an attempt to enlighten us all.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kirth on October 20, 2008, 01:46:58 PM
This is how Schild is working out his hate after grinding Tor Anroc for a weekend.  :why_so_serious:

I'll say it again as well, being able to read these forums at work and not be able to post is a kinda private hell I must have done something bad in a previous life to deserve. Considering I get up way before anyone else and saw the dawn of this.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 20, 2008, 01:49:09 PM
Dude, I share your pain. I'm often relegated to reading this forum on my iPod Touch, which is fine for reading but sucky for posting (I mostly type a huge screed and then edit the heck out of it before posting... and then screwing that up anyway). So for most of the weekend I was stuck just reading this flaming ball of flames (and balls) grow. I was getting the shakes...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 20, 2008, 02:10:09 PM
While we still seem to have some of Mark's attention let me add that adding a /level command like the one found in DAOC would lessen the amount of eye-bleeding involved with trying another class. Granted, DAOC is 50 levels vice WAR's 40, so the /level should give R18 instead of 20 perhaps? That would put you at the Tier 2 rank that no longer needs bolstering. Just a thought.

The problem with doing that is you want T1 players, T1 battlegrounds are fun, plus you don't want new players to login to see a ghost town either.  I fully agree alts are very important, if you look at long time WoW players they have several max level characters.  I think a lot of the PVE grind complaints would disappear for WAR if they vastly increased the exp/rr rewards for open RVR and also doubled exp for alts once you had one character at T4, or even rank 40. 

The way it is at the minute, I'm going to have a max level Witch hunter, but I dread starting an alt, that's a shame because I'd love to play a Warrior Priest or an Iron breaker.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kirth on October 20, 2008, 02:22:52 PM
It continues:

http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159953

Apparently this is a terrible no-name forum.

Edit - I didn't read down:
Quote
I'm upset because Mark is actually having dialogue with people (mainly the site's admin Schild). It's crazy, look at what kind of dialogue he is having with this guy, and HE'S TAKING IT ALL VERY SERIOUSLY. Our game is being directly influenced by a minority of jerks like this guy Schild that runs that forum.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: d4rkj3di on October 20, 2008, 02:31:09 PM
The problem with doing that is you want T1 players, T1 battlegrounds are fun, plus you don't want new players to login to see a ghost town either.  I fully agree alts are very important, if you look at long time WoW players they have several max level characters.  I think a lot of the PVE grind complaints would disappear for WAR if they vastly increased the exp/rr rewards for open RVR and also doubled exp for alts once you had one character at T4, or even rank 40. 

The way it is at the minute, I'm going to have a max level Witch hunter, but I dread starting an alt, that's a shame because I'd love to play a Warrior Priest or an Iron breaker.
Thinking in DAOC terms did make me forget that T1 would be completely bypassed. Faster XP for chars on accounts with a max rank character already would work as well, although I'm not sure how difficult that kind of coding would be.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 02:32:08 PM
lol (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159953)

Hey, d4rkj3di, I need that I AM VERY IMPORTANT ON THE INTERNET picture.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Pennilenko on October 20, 2008, 02:33:42 PM
It continues:

http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159953

Apparently this is a terrible no-name forum.

Edit - I didn't read down:
Quote
I'm upset because Mark is actually having dialogue with people (mainly the site's admin Schild). It's crazy, look at what kind of dialogue he is having with this guy, and HE'S TAKING IT ALL VERY SERIOUSLY. Our game is being directly influenced by a minority of jerks like this guy Schild that runs that forum.


Schild isn't a jerk. :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 20, 2008, 02:37:26 PM
I feel bad for the new posters, just because I entirely understand the desperate "Oh God he actually read that thread IT MAY BE MY ONLY CHANCE" thinking. I can't say I wouldn't have done the same during my DAoC days. One could argue I DID do the same in this very thread.  :drillf:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 02:38:04 PM
(http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/39720/me/MMORPGPopular.jpg)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Tarami on October 20, 2008, 02:53:21 PM
That picture fits for so many people I've come to know over recent years. It's a wonderful picture.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 20, 2008, 02:58:11 PM
Sorry guys, I went to lunch.

If you had an iPhone, you could mod your forums while eating.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 03:00:49 PM
I don't bring my phone on lunch. Getting an Android on Wednesday!!!!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Calandryll on October 20, 2008, 03:04:32 PM
I don't bring my phone on lunch. Getting an Android on Wednesday!!!!
:(


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: gratte on October 20, 2008, 03:17:18 PM
Quote
Allrite im the guy with the "retarded" name, as if itchees meant crabs or whatever you thought it meant.

Lets see now if it was my post that made you delete it, or my name. By the way, yes its a wall of text, but no its not "starfucking" or "stalking" and i had valid point to make that by tracking dev postings that are pertinent to the game and arent officially published, this is hardly "stalking" but this comment dissapeared as well. My post is not OMG GUYS THE GAME SUX0RZ LAWL and ive worked 2 years in a game company. It was a big thread so yeah i got things to say.

So here it is again, take 2

wat happen a thousand words dis a pear


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 03:19:26 PM
Jesus christ. You sir, are a fucking maroon.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Xuri on October 20, 2008, 03:23:19 PM
This thread is the best thing since... since... 1925 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese_slicer)!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nija on October 20, 2008, 03:27:23 PM
Jesus christ. You sir, are a fucking maroon.

Man, the thread my awesome image was in got Denned!

Slog said, "It's like we are being sieged by endless Walls of Text."  (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=14997.msg530661#msg530661)

(http://youturd.com/scenery-siege2.jpg)

The first page worth of hits on google image search has never been so kind.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: DiamondGeezer on October 20, 2008, 03:38:34 PM
Yeah but the truth is when people write wallo texto like that its saying i love the game but please make it better. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 03:40:31 PM
Yeah but the truth is when people write wallo texto like that its saying i love the game but please make it better
Actually, no, you just said that in 9 words.

The people posting the Walls of Text:
  • Don't get it
  • Are psychotic
  • Are stalkers
  • Definitely don't get it
  • ARE IMPORTANT!!

Edit: Look, I'm fine with psychotic posters. I don't really care about walls of text. But f13 is not the place for them. I've made that abundantly clear to pretty much... oh.... everyone. You'd have to be here a long damn time to get away with that shit.

Edit 2: Nothing feels better than pushing 2 buttons and making 30 minutes of work disappear.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: garthilk on October 20, 2008, 03:52:49 PM
This thread is the best thing since... since... 1925 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese_slicer)!
It is like the begining of the end of something, or something.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 20, 2008, 04:27:41 PM
Edit 2: Nothing feels better than pushing 2 buttons and making 30 minutes of work disappear.

Forum griefer.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Zetla on October 20, 2008, 04:33:56 PM
At the current state, if there was a "no scenario" server i would reroll to it immediatly, however i wish i wasnt forced to do that to just enjoy RvR. Increasing rewards in RvR would probably help a lot, but youll probably still see majority of players in scenarios because its easy and simple. Alot of the noobs in daoc sat in bridges or keeps waiting for people to come to them, because actually RvRing was too difficult and yielded no good rewards because they couldnt hack it or got zerged down. I honestly dont know if theres any fix for that other than to tell them "tough luck, get better and try harder", but then they will just go back to wow since its extremely noob friendly.

Basically all im saying is that theres no way to please everyone, you just need to please a specific audience. Right now it seems like your trying to please the same audience that WoW is pleasing, and when wrath comes out youll be shit out of luck. The only people staying will be the ones hoping for a real RvR game to come eventually.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nija on October 20, 2008, 04:40:01 PM
Edit 2: Nothing feels better than pushing 2 buttons and making 30 minutes of work disappear.

See, you woulda loved playing UO with Rasix and I!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 20, 2008, 04:41:38 PM
Edit 2: Nothing feels better than pushing 2 buttons and making 30 minutes of work disappear.

See, you woulda loved playing UO with Rasix and I!

Corp Por?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Signe on October 20, 2008, 04:50:55 PM
God, sometimes I wish I had a penis. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 20, 2008, 05:09:45 PM
God, sometimes I wish I had a penis. 

Have you spoken with your other half about this?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Xuri on October 20, 2008, 05:11:01 PM
I just spent some time constructing an elaborate joke that somehow managed to involve both Warhammer, Signe and strap-on penises - but luckily I came to my senses before posting it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 20, 2008, 05:12:03 PM
I just spent some time constructing an elaborate joke that somehow managed to involve both Warhammer, Signe and strap-on penises - but luckily I came to my senses before posting it.

It's all for the best. Schild would have deleted it with his "30 minute work eraser"  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Khaldun on October 20, 2008, 05:20:22 PM
Oh my god, Schild's *in* that thread over there.

 :popcorn:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Goreschach on October 20, 2008, 05:38:15 PM
Oh my god, Schild's *in* that thread over there.

 :popcorn:

You've gotta admit, it would be kinda funny if he got banned.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: JWIV on October 20, 2008, 05:38:46 PM
I'm LOVIN' IT.  The complete mind boggingly sense of entitlement of people barging in throwing up walls of text and when getting called on it, spouting off bullshit of  " Fuck you! I  registered to stalk talk to Mark and you can't stop me!"


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Tmon on October 20, 2008, 05:51:00 PM
Yeah it is pretty funny to see them swoop in, make a post that contains more words than I have posted since I registered here in '04, and then get all pissy because they were not greeted (greetzed?) with hosannas and paeans to their intellect and acumen.     


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 20, 2008, 05:52:27 PM
Oh my god, Schild's *in* that thread over there.

 :popcorn:

Someone give me a link... I beg you.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ingmar on October 20, 2008, 05:54:20 PM
The thread was linked earlier, but it is already locked. Assuming its the same thread!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 20, 2008, 05:57:14 PM
The thread was linked earlier, but it is already locked. Assuming its the same thread!

There are several.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 20, 2008, 06:02:04 PM
The thread was linked earlier, but it is already locked. Assuming its the same thread!

There are several.

At least two. And those, combined with watching the rapid banniation here, have kept me unproductive for most of the day. Some funny stuff - Itchee of the 1,500 word essay that went poof twice - is having a good cry. (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159698&page=5) (Thread is the sans Schild one, the other is indeed locked.)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: JWIV on October 20, 2008, 06:11:22 PM
Oh my god, Schild's *in* that thread over there.

 :popcorn:


Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Schild, my son!
The forums banned, the posts undone!
Beware the Jewdian mod, and shun
The frumious 'Istration!"

He took his vorpal phone in hand:
Long time the manxome dev he sought --
So rested he by the forum F13,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Schild, with eyes of lame,
Came smoking through the tulgey wood,
And snorgled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The forums  went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Schild?
Come to my arms, my beamish noob!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled as he lubed.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Xeyi on October 20, 2008, 06:12:45 PM
Someone give me a link... I beg you.

Probably this one. (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159416)

edit - I messed up the link


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kirth on October 20, 2008, 06:17:44 PM
You should have kept Itchees around his a good replacement for grunk:

Quote
The whole argument against "walls of text" is idiotic, how can you do a well argumented point about the state of this game with 3 lines of text

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 20, 2008, 06:30:54 PM
Quote
The whole argument against "walls of text" is idiotic, how can you do a well argumented point about the state of this game with 3 lines of text

"Overall the PvP is great, there are some issues with server population and class balance, not many have explored the endgame as of yet, PVE is pretty boring if you're a veteran of these,  and the levelling curve in Tiers 3 and 4 need some looking into."

Oh, sorry, that was 2 lines. :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: amiable on October 20, 2008, 06:30:58 PM
You should have kept Itchees around his a good replacement for grunk:

Quote
The whole argument against "walls of text" is idiotic, how can you do a well argumented point about the state of this game with 3 lines of text

 :why_so_serious:

I think my favorite quote from him in that other thread is this:

Quote
So? theyd rather have what, a bunch of people posting witty images that have nothing to do with the OP, than my constructive criticism of the game?


It just so encapsulates the sense of entitlement...  "How dare they post funny pictures when I, random dude on the interwebs, has something important to say!!!!!!"   :drill:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kirth on October 20, 2008, 06:40:01 PM
I'd suggest a 1 day delay on new account being able to post. Or not ...  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hayduke on October 20, 2008, 06:50:49 PM
I'd suggest a 1 day delay on new account being able to post. Or not ...  :why_so_serious:


I don't think the mods do delayed gratification.  /ducks banstick


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 20, 2008, 07:02:44 PM
Thanks for the links. 

I went over to WHA to see their side of the story.  You really can't understand nor appreciate the value of any community until you've spent some time with it.  Most of us have been rattling around the same posters for 10+ years... I'm guessing they don't understand that level of familiarity.  They're passionate about WAR and I can certainly appreciate and respect that.  Sadly, it's not really about WAR in this case.  It's about barging into a community that you aren't a part of and beating your chest.  I'm not sure they recognize this as the case... ok, some appear to.

I apologize for the derail.

 



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kirth on October 20, 2008, 07:22:10 PM
Thanks for the links. 

I went over to WHA to see their side of the story.  You really can't understand nor appreciate the value of any community until you've spent some time with it.  Most of us have been rattling around the same posters for 10+ years... I'm guessing they don't understand that level of familiarity.  They're passionate about WAR and I can certainly appreciate and respect that.  Sadly, it's not really about WAR in this case.  It's about barging into a community that you aren't a part of and beating your chest.  I'm not sure they recognize this as the case... ok, some appear to.

I apologize for the derail.

 



This thread went off the rails about 4 stations back. Its in hurt town now, and schilds the mayor.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nerf on October 20, 2008, 07:39:41 PM
I'd be happy to rerail it for you -- for a fee of course. I've re-railed threads in brockway, ogdenville, and north havenbrook and it put them on the map!
No more questions about why the devs are here in this no-name forum, no siree!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 20, 2008, 07:57:01 PM
Whoa, epic thread in progress and I didn't even know. We need that "F13 OMG" Bat Signal.

except that EA wanted to shut down UO when they gave it to us but I convinced them to spend more money on the game

You are now officially cool in my book forever.  :heart: :heart: :heart:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 20, 2008, 07:59:18 PM
I went over to WHA to see their side of the story.  You really can't understand nor appreciate the value of any community until you've spent some time with it.  Most of us have been rattling around the same posters for 10+ years... I'm guessing they don't understand that level of familiarity.  They're passionate about WAR and I can certainly appreciate and respect that.  Sadly, it's not really about WAR in this case.  It's about barging into a community that you aren't a part of and beating your chest.  I'm not sure they recognize this as the case... ok, some appear to.

I think that's a valid observation in general, however I don't necessarily think it applies in this case.

They're a fansite that feels slighted, one-upped by a bunch of nobodies in some site they had to google. It's the entitlement thing mentioned by others here. They're Warhammer Alliance, only doing one thing. So of course they should be the eipcenter of all things WAR and how dare Mythic send official representation anywhere else. So instead of accepting that they didn't do things well enough and maybe, ya know, changing, they lash out. Introspection is hard and stuff.

The icing is just the irony of them thinking we're doing something better over here, in a sub-game forum probably graveyard'ed before Christmas  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 20, 2008, 08:01:11 PM
Except for not wanting to innudate the poor mods of WHA <waves at Garthlik>, I'd love for a horde of people to register to write thousand word essays to ... a poster whom shall remain nameless ... which will promptly be ignored, because we'd all be new posters with no connection to the existing community, nor doing anything but spewing our supposed wisdom.

Egads, why aren't trolls a playable race!?  Wallateks hits you for 1000 points of word damage!

Forget RvR and all that other stuff.  We need trolls, stat!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: spud on October 20, 2008, 08:04:34 PM
Mod edit: Man, I bet this was a lot of effort.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 20, 2008, 08:05:52 PM
Quote from: Lantyssa wrote
I'd love for a horde of people to register to write thousand word essays

Serious question: why?

It's all been discussed. Everyone with a valid opinion has stated it already, and probably a large percentage of them did it in Beta. Mythic is going to do what they want. In this era of the genre, even the WoW newbs need to recognize these games will only move as fast as the one group of people actually accountable to that game will move it. Everyone else is either an active account or not.

Every single possible thing that needs to be said at this stage has been. We're just repeating ourselves while the neophytes come in, ignore everything they said before and we said here, and repeat it all again. It's cathartic or something :-)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: NiX on October 20, 2008, 08:10:56 PM
I have nothing to add to this thread. I just want to point out that it's funny how they come charging in and address MJ directly, like he's the dear abbey of giving a fuck.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Megrim on October 20, 2008, 08:13:42 PM
I have nothing to add to this thread. I just want to point out that it's funny how they come charging in and address MJ directly, like he's the dear abbey of giving a fuck.


Well, to be fair, so did we. But you know, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has them, and everyone uses them for pretty much the same purpose.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 20, 2008, 08:16:46 PM
Darniaq, you're so innocent.  I'm talking about registering at those other boards.  For a very specific poster whose feelings are hurt, to drive home a point 'cause the schadenfreude is strong with me today.

Yes it's all been said, probably in beta.  That's why all these people registering and posting after Jacobs here is so funny.  They're not saying anything we didn't cover when he commented.  We'd be doing the same there, only to a nobody.  Which would be amusingly ironic, but mean to their mods.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Montague on October 20, 2008, 08:17:18 PM
WTS:

1 F13 posting account. 625 posts.

Write walls of text to Mark Jacobs without grinding posts and rep!

Only $1500. Paypal only please.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Soln on October 20, 2008, 08:18:39 PM
I wish I was in WAR if only for this thread.  The only thing it's missing are holocrons. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 20, 2008, 08:20:32 PM
I'm talking about registering at those other boards.  For a very specific poster whose feelings are hurt, to drive home a point 'cause the schadenfreude is strong with me today.

Oh, that, heh. Yea, carry on  :oh_i_see:

This has been fun, but it's just another unfinished MMO waiting for the eventual tight player community coalesce around its future. Ya'all have fun now, ya hear?  ;D

(we need a straw hat toothpick eatin' hand wavin' goodbye emote...)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Wasted on October 20, 2008, 08:24:09 PM
But but but, even though everything has been said before, the right combination of words, with the right resonance and timing can move the world.

The world ... of warhammer.

The internet is the 1000 monkeys at their typewriters made reality, one day such a work of perfection will spring forth from the most obscure of threads that we will all be born to a new age.

The chance that that magic post will contain the name Mark Jacobs is increasing.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fabricated on October 20, 2008, 08:25:03 PM
WTS:

1 F13 posting account. 625 posts.

Write walls of text to Mark Jacobs without grinding posts and rep!

Only $1500. Paypal only please.
SChild is a griefer. He'll PK ur txt


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 20, 2008, 09:14:28 PM
Mark does this thing where he seems to keep a relatively low profile, but then he comes here and shoots from the hip a little, and the crazies flock over here to scream for the attention of their master. It happened with the "UO dev team shitcanned" story when some Stratics retards came over here to yell at him for not posting there.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: fuser on October 20, 2008, 09:27:03 PM
Mark does this thing where he seems to keep a relatively low profile, but then he comes here and shoots from the hip a little, and the crazies flock over here to scream for the attention of their master. It happened with the "UO dev team shitcanned" story when some Stratics retards came over here to yell at him for not posting there.

And in the end, we all win!  :awesome_for_real:

The funnies haven't stopped all day!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 09:32:24 PM
Quote
i read the threads and while i agree with most of the sentiment i must say the admin and mods there are jerks. Epeener jerks who believe that their access to MJ makes them better than anyone else.

i wanted to post there but realized theres no reason, the whining is just as loud there as it is on the VN boards, the whining however is coming from the admins and mods ....

I am amazed MJ cannot see the trap there tbh. MJ has already explained while he agrees with most of the points there he cannot snap his fingers and make it happen instantly. And yet the admin and mods keep trolling him telling to do it now do it now do it now cos they know better .. its a sucker trap, MJ should never respond like that . Its foolish to respond to threads like that , they are just attention wh0ring with him as an audience. And now they got him, they wont let go.

WE'RE AN (EPEEN) TRAP (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159416&page=5&highlight=14972)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 20, 2008, 09:41:15 PM
OUR ACCESS TO MARK JACOBS MAKES US BETTER THAN ANYONE!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

 :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 20, 2008, 09:49:53 PM
Why would any dev listen to anybody anywhere? That's a serious question. I don't think we are special and unique snowflakes here. I think we type in mostly well-documented English. Perhaps that seperates F13 from other forums. I don't know, and I don't want to find out.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 20, 2008, 09:58:55 PM
Depends if people are putting forth suggestions or symptoms.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 20, 2008, 09:59:42 PM
Quote
Only thing i can say about f13 is this place is full of stone cold tolls tards.

I mean you can't go 1 page without seeing a troll...damn the mods in this forum must have an easy job.
& i'm not happy about the state of RVR now but i'm overall happy about warhammer as a game.
It's a casual game that have great features & fun to play though it needs like 3 months to be polished but that's all fine.

One thing i believe is that MJ needs to leave these trolls alone.
Man you did a good job on the game & if the whiners don't shut up then leave the...nothing you can do about tards you know....it's their nature.

Gift that keeps giving. These guys are awesome.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: fuser on October 20, 2008, 10:11:59 PM
Why would any dev listen to anybody anywhere? That's a serious question. I don't think we are special and unique snowflakes here. I think we type in mostly well-documented English. Perhaps that seperates F13 from other forums. I don't know, and I don't want to find out.


 I would say it's a bastardized focus group. What I cannot figure out is how you would classify the metric and try to weigh it against the crazies factor.

  # of can do no wrong posts * # of give them time posts / # unsubscribed posts + # mouth breather posts - # mod deletions =  some random number that means nothing

 Shrug, perhaps your right and its best not to think of these things.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: NiX on October 20, 2008, 10:19:17 PM
Gift that keeps giving. These guys are awesome.
When do we raise our banner and attack back? Apparently this is customary in these kinds of internet turf wars.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 20, 2008, 10:21:45 PM
Slap fight!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slyfeind on October 20, 2008, 10:39:44 PM
Mark does this thing where he seems to keep a relatively low profile, but then he comes here and shoots from the hip a little, and the crazies flock over here to scream for the attention of their master. It happened with the "UO dev team shitcanned" story when some Stratics retards came over here to yell at him for not posting there.

I just can't understand how they don't understand this kind of thing. You play cool, they play cool. You act like a fucking retard, they go somewhere else.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 20, 2008, 11:04:22 PM
The *real* question is, will Mark post here again and will that stir up the hive again  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 20, 2008, 11:19:58 PM
When do we raise our banner and attack back? Apparently this is customary in these kinds of internet turf wars.

I'm down. You guys don't realize it, but I actually make an effort to behave here. In my natural state, I'm even more insufferable. I shall go there and turn every thread into a discussion of UO and start a 4000 page thread on Trammel while proclaiming Phantom Menace to be the finest art film ever made. Once everyone there is totally fed up with me, I'll go out in a blaze of Tubgirl. It'll be great. Let's all go.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Rasix on October 20, 2008, 11:29:21 PM
I'm down. You guys don't realize it, but I actually make an effort to behave here. In my natural state, I'm even more insufferable.


I have no doubts of this. I remember UO communities.  You've been there for longer than a third of my lifetime.  :ye_gods:

Don't kick them.  I really don't enjoy denning and deleting posts.  Well, sometimes it's nice.  30 minutes to type. 10 seconds to delete.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Velorath on October 20, 2008, 11:38:18 PM
Vajuras, Grunk, and thejeni have found their fourth horseman in Itchees.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: NiX on October 20, 2008, 11:44:20 PM
Internet apocalypse incoming?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: debichu on October 20, 2008, 11:56:07 PM
too lazy to be snarky


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Micow on October 20, 2008, 11:58:12 PM
stalker shit

Please e-mail him.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 21, 2008, 12:03:50 AM
stalker shit

 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: lamaros on October 21, 2008, 12:08:59 AM
Damn I wish I was a patriot.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 21, 2008, 12:12:20 AM
Geez!
It hurts my eyes to see so much retardation on the internet. It looks like 4chan is down and /b/ let out all its users.

Mark, I freaking love you. And I'm not being sarcastic or stalker-ish now.
I love WAR. It's like your not-hot-but-cute girlfriend: she's got her quirks but you love her.
There're a few things I'd change, but as I see, they're on their way. So, as a patriot, I'll wait for the patches and just be happy that it's being worked on.
Imagine that WAR wasn't being updated...?

Keep up the good work!

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e121/GrimDysart/jarjarmudkip.jpg)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: FatuousTwat on October 21, 2008, 12:23:18 AM
Quote
F13 does not house a majority of their player base. It houses the vast minority of verbally disruptive, rude, and entitled players.

Well, DUH.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 21, 2008, 12:30:25 AM
Quote
I didn't think there would be a place where mental retards who just want the chance to flame a games designer exisisted!

Boy those people need to learn some maners and respect .... although saying that 1/2 the post here these days feel like they were written by a 9 year old retard filled to the brim with coffee!


Good to see old MJ defending himself and not letting the retards get away with flamming comments, but personaly he should just ignore them ... getting a respence is like giving a kid a new toy ... they will just sceam even more next time for the next toy!

My new, favorite post. (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2269844&postcount=81)

I particularly like the part where it devolved into absolute nonsense. Which was right after he called all you disruptive, rude and entitled jerks a bunch of "mental retards." Man, who do you people think you are?! Learn some maners and respct! Personaly, I'm thinking of ignoring the lot of you. With all your flamming, you don't even deserve a respence from me.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 21, 2008, 12:45:02 AM
Linky (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/mythic-flattered-by-warcraft-s-imitation-combat)

Quote
Mythic "flattered" by Warcraft's imitation combat
Blizzad's latest move to introduce open world PVP combat to World of Warcraft is "absolutely a reaction to Warhammer," according to Mark Jacobs, CEO of Mythic.

Speaking to GamesIndustry.biz, Jacobs talked about the latest PVP features to be included in the World of Warcraft expansion, Wrath of the Lich King, many of which, he claims, are based on Warhammer Online.

"Oh absolutely," responded Jacobs, when asked if this was a move by Blizzard to position World of Warcraft against Warhammer Online. "I think imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

"You have a game that's been out for four years, they've never put in world PVP like ours, they've never been able to level through PVP like in ours. I think it's absolutely a reaction to Warhammer," Jacobs added. "It wasn't like all of a sudden the idea of open world PVP or levelling through PVP came into their heads and went 'nobody's ever done this before'."

"I don't think it was accidental that they're talking about doing it when Warhammer comes out. Four years and suddenly, miraculously, at the same time Warhammer comes out that's when they start talking about these things... I think it was Jeff Kaplan who said they like to look at other games and learn from them - well, I'm flattered."


Mythic's CEO, went on to discuss the uncertainty involved in predicting how many of the currently registered users will be converted into paying subscribers, following the end of the 30 day free trial that comes packaged with the boxed product.

"If we're successful, we'll have a high conversion rate and we'll keep the vast majority of our subs," he explained, adding: "No one has been billed yet, so we won't know this really for at least several months, in terms of how well we're doing, unless we start off horribly."

"Everything we've done internally, in terms of looking at internal polls, people posting on forums, emails from people, all we've seen so far is that we're well on track."

Mark Jacob's full interview with GamesIndustry.biz can be found here (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/mmo-war).

Funny stuff.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 21, 2008, 12:53:40 AM
Quote
I didn't think there would be a place where mental retards who just want the chance to flame a games designer exisisted!


It's pretty awesome, no?   :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: lamaros on October 21, 2008, 01:04:38 AM
snip

Gah. He really is an idiot. I feel bad.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 21, 2008, 01:08:46 AM
eh?  I thought it was funny because it's true, plus Blizzard started this pissing contest.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 21, 2008, 01:14:30 AM
Except it's nothing new.


Blizzard 'copying' other games design features? The Scandal  :ye_gods: !


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 21, 2008, 01:24:14 AM
Who said "new"?  Blizzard said half of the WoW players who left for WAR came back.  Mythic is now saying WoW is copying WAR for pvp level advancement.  It's a press release pointing out an alternative, it's not meant for us, it's meant for ex-WoW players, current WoW players or potential WoW players.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: lamaros on October 21, 2008, 01:26:12 AM
Who said "new"?  Blizzard said half of the WoW players who left for WAR came back.  Mythic is now saying WoW is copying WAR for pvp level advancement.  It's a press release pointing out an alternative, it's not meant for us, it's meant for ex-WoW players, current WoW players or potential WoW players.

That's basiclly me. (I haven't played WAR)

And you see my response above.

Hence, he's an idiot and I feel bad for him.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 21, 2008, 01:27:05 AM
Then even at that, it's failed.

"That thing you came to WAR for? Blizz is doing it too now, feel free to go back!"


-fake edit- I'm replying to A.P.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 21, 2008, 01:29:39 AM
"That thing you came to WAR for? Blizz is doing it too now, feel free to go back!"

Really?  That's great, when is it going live?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 21, 2008, 01:35:20 AM
Who said "new"?  Blizzard said half of the WoW players who left for WAR came back.  Mythic is now saying WoW is copying WAR for pvp level advancement.  It's a press release pointing out an alternative, it's not meant for us, it's meant for ex-WoW players, current WoW players or potential WoW players.

Do we really want to troll back through who said what first? I can find comments from Barnett that dis WoW very easily.

I really don't care if Mythic and Blizzard get into a pissing contest - it's really all just  :popcorn: for us anyway. What I hate is Mythic trying to act all innocent and outraged just because Blizzard said some things that most people agree with.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 21, 2008, 01:44:41 AM
Who said "new"?  Blizzard said half of the WoW players who left for WAR came back.  Mythic is now saying WoW is copying WAR for pvp level advancement.  It's a press release pointing out an alternative, it's not meant for us, it's meant for ex-WoW players, current WoW players or potential WoW players.

Do we really want to troll back through who said what first? I can find comments from Barnett that dis WoW very easily.

I really don't care if Mythic and Blizzard get into a pissing contest - it's really all just  :popcorn: for us anyway. What I hate is Mythic trying to act all innocent and outraged just because Blizzard said some things that most people agree with.

Saying he's "flattered", isn't exactly acting "all innocent and outraged".  He's playing it differently in that piece so that's why I quoted it.  If you are still annoyed about the events of the other day, you can post it without directing it as a response to me.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on October 21, 2008, 01:46:11 AM
"That thing you came to WAR for? Blizz is doing it too now, feel free to go back!"

Really?  That's great, when is it going live?


The DaoC RvR style PvP bit? Nov 13.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 21, 2008, 01:59:58 AM
I meant the pvp leveling bit.  Maybe I should have posted that quote in the other thread, but I'd already repeated myself a couple of times there, so was kinda done with it.  On who started it, I think it's kinda retarded, but ok Paul mentioned WoW first, the timing of the Blizzard response just before the free subscription period ending and the day before State of the Game certainly escalated it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: drammar on October 21, 2008, 04:00:08 AM
whore


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Modern Angel on October 21, 2008, 04:57:36 AM
It strikes me that it's never worked talking smack about how the guy with *ten times your subscriber base* sort of sucks.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kriton on October 21, 2008, 05:06:57 AM
Responding to 3-day old post, starfucking.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 21, 2008, 05:19:44 AM
Of the two remaining originally planned careers, the Dwarf Hammerer and Greenskin Choppa, one is set to return to the game at a later date, but the other will be replaced by an as-yet unknown class.

I'm kind of surprised they don't put in the Dwarf Slayer, personally. Order needs a naked mohawk DPS class to counteract Marauders!

My assumption would be that Slayer will be the rep for Hammerer. Slayers are one of the most interesting and beloved things in the WFB Dwarf army. Kind of like Goblin Fanatics (and to a lesser extent, Goblins with Squigs.)



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 21, 2008, 05:26:09 AM
Somebody mentioned tattoos as a possible replacement for armour on Slayer characters.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Tharrn on October 21, 2008, 05:36:05 AM
Too lazy to fucking read.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 21, 2008, 05:39:33 AM
Somebody mentioned tattoos as a possible replacement for armour on Slayer characters.

Tattoos, earrings, piercings, bracers, greaves, chains, bigger mohawks, hair gel, and bling like Mr.T.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Modern Angel on October 21, 2008, 05:58:17 AM
I was always shocked by the lack of slayers. They're one of the three or four iconic archetypes in the Warhammer world.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: kaid on October 21, 2008, 06:06:56 AM
I was pretty shocked that the melee DPS class for dwarves was no the slayers. Just seemed like a perfect light high damage low armor melee DPS class and very iconic.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Zzulo on October 21, 2008, 06:25:32 AM
They removed the original slayer class because of lore reasons and possibly because of how gear would have to work with the class.

Removing the choppa and replacing it with another generic MDPS orc class seems the most logical stepfor this new mystery class they're adding, since they then don't have to replace any of the graphical assets. If they remove the hammerer for the slayer though, they'll have to throw away all that hammering goodness.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Logie on October 21, 2008, 06:29:22 AM
Some greats posts in this threads, with the people posting ideas etc as they are, game has a bright future!

I'm not a hardcore player, i have enjoyed War up to 21 where i noticed a massive slow down in leveling, i know its been said many times but i also agree its turned to a massive grind.

  Completing most the quests available at a given time in the current map normally gives around 40% (In my experiance) leaving Scenarios etc to get the rest.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 21, 2008, 06:32:48 AM
I keep seeing these new guys posting hoping for some quality material, but it looks like we are through the mouthbreather phase and on to the possible "hey maybe I'll not hump legs and scream from mark's attention" crowd.

Part of me is disappointed, the other relieved.

Welcome, non-idiots!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hayduke on October 21, 2008, 06:38:03 AM
But that's precisely the point, there is no hammering goodness.  Nobody gives a shit about the class but people love the choppa (including MJ who absolutely gushes about them every time someone tangentially mentions them).  Slayers not wearing armor isn't a big deal.  There's already a class in game that only wears hooker boots and a bikini.  And high elves still get gear in all of those slots even though you'll never see it underneath their robes.  So they can just put tattoos or whatever there.

What I don't think these WHA people understand is that there's a difference between profanity and venom.  There's a lot of profanity on this board and people can be very passionate, but venom, drivel and toadying won't get you far.  There's far, far more venom at some of the other places.  But you know some of these people won't be happy till MJ is answering troll responses on Yahoo! Answers.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 21, 2008, 06:45:46 AM
I keep seeing these new guys posting hoping for some quality material, but it looks like we are through the mouthbreather phase and on to the possible "hey maybe I'll not hump legs and scream from mark's attention" crowd.

Part of me is disappointed, the other relieved.

Welcome, non-idiots!

They must have read the WHA threads where some f13 members mention to let yourself gently into the water at first here, rather than not reading anyfuckingthing and posting the Unibomber's WAR Manifesto instead. On Page 14.

(Do you think Mark will read this post?  :grin:  :awesome_for_real: Should I change my Avatar? :uhrr: :ye_gods:)

Still, this thread is epic fun. I should have gone to bed an hour ago.  :drill:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: leodido on October 21, 2008, 07:00:21 AM
Just found this awesome board!
Yeah I'm one of those new comer slap me etc...
Just wanted to say that reading all this crap made me laugh numerous times.  :popcorn: (wow your smiley selection rock)
Did not figure yet who is the saddest tho ! Guess I'll hang around a bit longer if I'm allowed.

Oh and just wanted to add that the slayer does not make sense to be added in the game. A slayer is supposed to be a dwarf who, and here i quote wikipedia, "suffered a great shame, loss or humiliation" and "He will then go out into the world, seeking out an honorable death in combat". This game is based on an IP which it must follows so I doubt that Gameworkshop will allow that.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Microwavegerbil on October 21, 2008, 07:06:05 AM
tl;dr starfucking


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: rattran on October 21, 2008, 07:06:51 AM
Meh, they've already taken a dump on most of the IP, so having player Slayers doesn't seem to be much of a stretch. And adding Slayers might do a bit to fix the pop imbalance. If it still matters by the time they're in.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Signe on October 21, 2008, 07:09:13 AM
Did that one guy mean "stone cold TROLL TURDS"?  because "trolls tards" isn't making any sense to me.  He must have meant "troll turds".  I'm sure of it.  Anyway, hello to all the new people!   Please stay!  :vv: 

I miss thejeni.  Maybe these are her heavy hitters.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: leodido on October 21, 2008, 07:13:07 AM
Oh don't get me wrong, the slayer looks like it could be an awesome career and boost the order coolness factor by quite a bit.
I was merely pointing that GameWorkshop should validate Mythic actions and I'm not sure they'll allow that.

Thanks for the warm welcome signe, I don't know who thejeni is tho.. Will try to do better than him/her

edit:typo


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: debichu on October 21, 2008, 07:15:36 AM
Quote
lol this forum is like North Korea. If you don't agree with the management, your out.

Didn't even read the rest, I assume you agree with me, still out!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: lamaros on October 21, 2008, 07:17:37 AM
Woot! A few psychos are still getting through.  :eat:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Erdrick on October 21, 2008, 07:20:10 AM
I've been here a day and I'm surprised at how many people don't "get it".


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: RaquelisKISLEV on October 21, 2008, 07:22:41 AM
I didn't bother resizing my avatar and my sig is centered. I am a tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: rattran on October 21, 2008, 07:24:03 AM
lol this forum is like North Korea. If you don't agree with the management, your out.

It's called 'Stalinizing Posts' and has a long tradition. Don't mock our traditions!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: debichu on October 21, 2008, 07:26:52 AM
lol this forum is like North Korea. If you don't agree with the management, your out.

It's called 'Stalinizing Posts' and has a long tradition. Don't mock our traditions!
... okay?
Well it should say on the registration page: "We keep the right to Stalinize all your posts. It's tradition".


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Draegan on October 21, 2008, 07:29:43 AM
Since this thread is epic, I think we should name it.  How about "The Thread That Was Heard Around The World".  The world being Schild's ego.

Oh and  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Triforcer on October 21, 2008, 07:32:56 AM
Did that one guy mean "stone cold TROLL TURDS"?  because "trolls tards" isn't making any sense to me.  He must have meant "troll turds".  I'm sure of it.  Anyway, hello to all the new people!   Please stay!  :vv: 

I miss thejeni.  Maybe these are her heavy hitters.

You are mixing board mythology!  "Heavy hitters" was some other retard whose name escapes me at the moment.  He wasn't quite at the level of the Big Four (itchees, thejeni, Vajuras, Grunk, I'd add $P$Money but thats before this board's time) but he was close.  Damn, now I won't be able to sleep until I find the original reference.   :|


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 21, 2008, 07:39:05 AM
That was Poseidon (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=6346.msg157447#msg157447).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 21, 2008, 07:39:36 AM
I would like to say that WOW is a much better game than warhammer which will ultimately fail and turn into a niche product). All the warhammer players that keep hoping their game will improve are just delusional and shouldn't be wasting their time arguing about something that won't improve and that they will probably quit in a month when WOTLK comes out.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hutch on October 21, 2008, 07:44:14 AM
lol this forum is like North Korea. If you don't agree with the management, your out.

It's called 'Stalinizing Posts' and has a long tradition. Don't mock our traditions!
... okay?
Well it should say on the registration page: "We keep the right to Stalinize all your posts. It's tradition".

And if it said that, would you have paid any attention? Be honest.

Besides, if the registration page put up that warning, in a big bright colored font for good measure, and the new kidz all paid attention to it, how would we get threads like these?

No no no. The system we have exists for a reason.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: RaquelisKISLEV on October 21, 2008, 07:44:27 AM
I would like to say that WOW is a much better game than warhammer which will ultimately fail and turn into a niche product). All the warhammer players that keep hoping their game will improve are just delusional and shouldn't be wasting their time arguing about something that won't improve and that they will probably quit in a month when WOTLK comes out.
I won't argue that WoW is good, but better than Warhammer?  That is a matter of opinion.  WoW has better PvE, Warhammer has better PvP.  You really can't compare the two games.  They are fundamentally different, in terms of concept.  For the record, I'm not saying Warhammer is better than WoW either.

On a serious note: Is WoW your "1st MMO" or have you played others.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waylander on October 21, 2008, 07:45:07 AM
Man that WHA post on pages 5 and 6 is pretty funny to read. We're all basement dwellers who think we're cool because "Red Names Post Here!".  I don't know about basement dwellers, but most of us here are long time community veterans who love gaming and who generally know what we are talking about. These forums are also more tightly regulated than major sites, and we can have honest and frank discussions with others here without 1,000 mouthbreathers hijacking every discussion.

Here are my new user ban predictions for today so far:

debichu - nothing constructive, calls us North Korea
drammar - absolutely worthless 1 liner for his first post
Tharrn - 1st post = "I admit I haven't read all 14 pages", insert novella


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: lac on October 21, 2008, 07:51:31 AM
I love a good threadwreck with my coffee. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Johny Cee on October 21, 2008, 07:57:51 AM
Did that one guy mean "stone cold TROLL TURDS"?  because "trolls tards" isn't making any sense to me.  He must have meant "troll turds".  I'm sure of it.  Anyway, hello to all the new people!   Please stay!  :vv: 

I miss thejeni.  Maybe these are her heavy hitters.

You are mixing board mythology!  "Heavy hitters" was some other retard whose name escapes me at the moment.  He wasn't quite at the level of the Big Four (itchees, thejeni, Vajuras, Grunk, I'd add $P$Money but thats before this board's time) but he was close.  Damn, now I won't be able to sleep until I find the original reference.   :|

It was EvE "Aces over Eights" dude.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 21, 2008, 07:58:11 AM
Man, i have a busy weekend, and get a cold, and miss this epic thread.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 21, 2008, 08:03:59 AM
lol this forum is like North Korea. If you don't agree with the management, your out.

Welcome to f13. We eat our own young. And you should amend this statement. It's not about agreeing with the management (see my disagreements with schild over the Wii). It's about not pissing the management off. It's their playground, don't piss in the sandbox and you'll survive if you care to.

The Slayers are an iconic GW class. Not including them even in the initial design phase was something I always felt was just off. It's Warhammer - there must be Slayers. It's like making Skaven a playable race but not having Rat Ogres or Assassins. You just don't do it. As for their gear, tattoos are going to be the main source of upgrades. The lore allows for tats to boost all sorts of thing - strength, armor, resists, etc. Their seeking of death certainly doesn't go against the lore of the MMOG, since just about everyone seeks death in some form or fashion. I'd think they would get natural bonuses to fighting certain types of monsters, like trolls or dragons (and for that matter orcs) or against certain classes as well. What would Hammerers be? Iron Breakers who use 2-handed hammers.

Level 22 just hit me in the junk. I now have a total of 2 quests in my current racial area. To get to those quests, I have to fight through mobs that are 5-8 levels above me, and who knows what level the quest mobs are. That's it, there are no other quests being given in the Talabacland area. Which really means I have to hit the scenarios or use up the content in other racial areas (which will kill my ability to experience new content with alts). And the rewards for those quests will probably not go over 4000 xp - which is roughly 2% of my level or less? WTF? There has got to be a decimal point missing in some table somewhere, because that is totally fuxx0red. People are running Tor Anroc because there's just nothing else to do for experience.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: JWIV on October 21, 2008, 08:04:13 AM
Did that one guy mean "stone cold TROLL TURDS"?  because "trolls tards" isn't making any sense to me.  He must have meant "troll turds".  I'm sure of it.  Anyway, hello to all the new people!   Please stay!  :vv: 

I miss thejeni.  Maybe these are her heavy hitters.


Stone Trolls?  

(http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1280449_99060209195_ColStoneTrollRockMain_445x319.jpg)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Megrim on October 21, 2008, 08:06:51 AM
I K.O. ed a dude like that. Shot him off the STC pacifier ramp, he flew over to one of the points and got bouldered. It was marvellous.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 21, 2008, 08:15:02 AM
Oh and just wanted to add that the slayer does not make sense to be added in the game. A slayer is supposed to be a dwarf who, and here i quote wikipedia, "suffered a great shame, loss or humiliation" and "He will then go out into the world, seeking out an honorable death in combat". This game is based on an IP which it must follows so I doubt that Gameworkshop will allow that.

I'm no Warhammer lore expert, but there were complaints that the Hammerer was too elite a Dwarven unit to be a common class.

Also, the reality is that Witch Hunters should be shooting those Archmages in the back, just to be sure, while the Marauders should run a random chance of chaos mutating into something completely useless.

Slayers are too cool a unit to leave out. Make them insanely high burst damage with paper armour.

... oh, and dying gives them a self-buff :-)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 21, 2008, 08:16:19 AM
To the people deleted this morning and future starfuckers:

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=15001.0



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 21, 2008, 08:21:09 AM
I don't know about basement dwellers, but most of us here are long time community veterans who love gaming and who generally know what we are talking about.

I, for one, dwell in an attic. With my equally aged sister and other younger siblings. Our mother has left us in the care of our grandmother, but promised she'll be back any day now. For now, we feast on donuts.

... I know where that came from, and I'm ashamed :ye_gods:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 21, 2008, 08:22:18 AM
I don't know about basement dwellers, but most of us here are long time community veterans who love gaming and who generally know what we are talking about.

I, for one, dwell in an attic. With my equally aged sister and other younger siblings. Our mother has left us in the care of our grandmother, but promised she'll be back any day now. For now, we feast on donuts.

... I know where that came from, and I'm ashamed :ye_gods:

I look forward to reading your diary.



 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: trias_e on October 21, 2008, 08:28:04 AM
Quote
Level 22 just hit me in the junk. I now have a total of 2 quests in my current racial area. To get to those quests, I have to fight through mobs that are 5-8 levels above me, and who knows what level the quest mobs are. That's it, there are no other quests being given in the Talabacland area. Which really means I have to hit the scenarios or use up the content in other racial areas (which will kill my ability to experience new content with alts). And the rewards for those quests will probably not go over 4000 xp - which is roughly 2% of my level or less? WTF? There has got to be a decimal point missing in some table somewhere, because that is totally fuxx0red. People are running Tor Anroc because there's just nothing else to do for experience.

Yes, in Tier 3 you realize that althood post level 20 is unachievable until they change things.  I've been doing all three pairings along with scenarios to level up, and at 28 am just barely treading water in the PvE quest completion department.  

I do plan on making some alts and bringing them to 20 though.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: rk47 on October 21, 2008, 08:36:07 AM
Pretty much understood RvR at the current state is pretty dull. I spent 2 hours just capping keeps and BOs with a warband in another server. The zone control moved but not enough to cap it. We had to 'quest' to do it. I don't understand why this is the case at all. Is there a good reason behind this aside from 'oh noes PVE must contribute'? Because when they do PVE they're already upgrading themselves at the cost of forsaking RVR, why must their actions affect the overall RVR status in the region if they do it on the relative safety of flag/unflag system? I simply don't get it. So we can't take over zone control either because they don't do scenarios or they quest hardcore.

Congrats, you just cockblocked 2 sides from your  :awesome_for_real: endgame, I hope you're happy. Those people saying RR80 taking a long time to achieve is a 'good thing' is delusional. If all you do is grind scenario and cap BOs/Keeps but not achieving any zone control to advance to capital city, then wtf is the point? I'm not even setting a target for Renown levels anymore. I just want to siege altdorf and take a look what's it like before my subs run off. It's just maddening to think that people who don't participate in RVR are actually cockblocking RVR progress. And guess what? I bet Mythic loves them too, cause they're holding off the endgame, therefore lengthening the subs for those who really want to see what it's about. Enough with these hidden mechanics and clusterfuck PVE spawns in PQs that crossover with single quests. Trying to loot a 5 sec item while 3-5 mobs respawns around you with a champ patrol is enough to drive me nuts. And i'm a tank, I shudder to think what a healer have to go through just to 'fetch 3 kegs of beer' in T3 zones that is already going overboard with spawns.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 21, 2008, 08:44:01 AM
lol this forum is like North Korea. If you don't agree with the management, your out.

It's called 'Stalinizing Posts' and has a long tradition. Don't mock our traditions!

(warm glow of fatherhood)




Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ghost on October 21, 2008, 08:52:24 AM
This is patently the best internet thread I've read in many moons.

You should have a "wall of text" contest....


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Messana on October 21, 2008, 08:54:36 AM
Quote
I'm new here, so these may have been discussed already

o rly?

MAYBE YOU SHOULD'VE READ MORE AND NOT OPENED YOUR GODDAMN MAW.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: mavor on October 21, 2008, 08:55:29 AM
starfucking


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tommh on October 21, 2008, 08:59:41 AM
SO hello,

I came upon this forum through a cross post but it seems to have a weirdly large number of intelligent reasonable posters...I'll see what I can do to bring down the average.

I don't want to mash over the strong and weak point of WAR that s been covered more then adequately I do have a few specific ideas to deal with one problem: the lack of player density due to player partition.

While adding more players per server would be all to the good, even if technical issues can be dealt with you have the issues of "slosh" and prime-time.

I think a better solution is ways for players to more quickly get to the action as has been mentioned previously in this thread. A mechinism that would work for both pqs and RvR would be good.

What about allowing guild banners to be planted at PQs as well as in RvR areas and then having a tele-port to banner ability?



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 21, 2008, 09:00:46 AM
Fuck, that was intelligent, cogent and brief. Where did you come from?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 21, 2008, 09:10:59 AM
My new favorite post:
Quote
You know ... I looked at the "f13 guys/gals" website yesterday. And ... wow .. what a bunch of whining, prattling children! MMO 'veterans' my a$$. All you have over there are hardcore MMO 'grinders' and gold farmers.

I've been playing MMO's/MUD's for nearly two decades, and these 'kids' at f13 don't remind me of anyone from my Me59, UO, Avalon, etc. days. At best, they've played Shadowbane, DAoC and WoW--and think they have the authority to tell every other MMO gamer what to think. It's pretty damn hilarious, to be honest.

If MJ doesn't want to post here, that's fine: He's only shooting himself in the foot, however, by doing so.

GUYS, STOP GOLD FARMING. JESUS.

From: http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158809&highlight=14972&page=7


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ethion on October 21, 2008, 09:12:57 AM
I think that scenarios are a fun part of the game for someone that only have a little time to play.  I'm concerned that as people adjust or are encouraged to do other parts of the game that we will see scenario queue times become too long to be something that works when you only got 30-60 minutes to play.  I'm kinda hoping that you will implement something like wow did with cross server scenarios.  Although I'm wondering how this will affect the server war status....

I think that the scenarios need to have their rewards adjusted.  Maybe drop any xp awards for scenarios and only provide renown.  Then scenarios become a good way to get some renown and maybe loot while not being a good way to get xp.

What about tiering the game more for the activities.

1. PvE give max XP, good rewards
2. Scenarios give moderate Renown, low XP
3. Open RvR gives max Renown, low XP, And maybe special rewards for killing keeps etc.

Any changes would be something to make slowly incrementally.  But I'd drop the xp reward for winning a scenario and I'd decrease the player xp/renown reward per kill somewhat.  Finally I'd make everyone in the scenario a warband so that there wouldn't be anything where people drop from groups etc hoping to get better xp.  I'm not sure what the best solution is but I'd make sure the group aspect didn't really matter so droping from a group wouldn't be any advantage for renown/xp.

I prefer a server with scenarios.  I find them fun esp when I don't have a lot of time.  They can be kinda adictive.  However I'd like enough people not in scenarios to do PQs and open RVR when I have more time to play.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 21, 2008, 09:14:25 AM
What about allowing guild banners to be planted at PQs as well as in RvR areas and then having a tele-port to banner ability?

I like that, but have not thought of the repercussions and possible exploits of it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 21, 2008, 09:15:01 AM
Fucking Epic. Is someone preserving this for posterity?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: rattran on October 21, 2008, 09:19:19 AM
GUYS, STOP GOLD FARMING. JESUS.

The spawn time on jesus is too long for effective farming.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 21, 2008, 09:19:47 AM
Everytime I read this thread, thanks to schild, Nine Inch Nails 'Starfuckers Inc" gets stuck in my head.

Gold farming dick.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 21, 2008, 09:20:07 AM
GUYS, STOP GOLD FARMING. JESUS.

The spawn time on jesus is too long for effective farming.
Touche.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: fuser on October 21, 2008, 09:22:30 AM
Linky (http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2277627&postcount=114)

Quote
damm dat got dang f13 webbsite sure is dum

Which one of you magnificent bastards posted that?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 21, 2008, 09:26:02 AM
Man. 100 pages here we come. Only thing that's going to blunt this is MJ posting in the Bioware/LA annoucement today.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 21, 2008, 09:29:58 AM
Man. 100 pages here we come. Only thing that's going to blunt this is MJ posting in the Bioware/LA annoucement today.
Yes, but the only people I'd be deleting in that thread are actual members of the community. I fully intend to look at the announcement, laugh at them biting off more than they can chew, and then go on my merry way.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: garthilk on October 21, 2008, 09:47:53 AM
I think that's a valid observation in general, however I don't necessarily think it applies in this case. They're a fansite that feels slighted, one-upped by a bunch of nobodies in some site they had to google. It's the entitlement thing mentioned by others here. They're Warhammer Alliance, only doing one thing. So of course they should be the eipcenter of all things WAR and how dare Mythic send official representation anywhere else. So instead of accepting that they didn't do things well enough and maybe, ya know, changing, they lash out. Introspection is hard and stuff. The icing is just the irony of them thinking we're doing something better over here, in a sub-game forum probably graveyard'ed before Christmas  :awesome_for_real:
Hmm.

I think the limited population of these boards definately helps. Though I think you're pretty much off base why a good portion of the community is upset.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nevermore on October 21, 2008, 09:49:38 AM
lol this forum is like North Korea. If you don't agree with the management, your out.


Wait, people are expelled from North Korea?  :headscratch:

Anyway, I've been so tempted to troll the fuck out of the thread.  But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be good.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 21, 2008, 09:50:45 AM
I think that's a valid observation in general, however I don't necessarily think it applies in this case. They're a fansite that feels slighted, one-upped by a bunch of nobodies in some site they had to google. It's the entitlement thing mentioned by others here. They're Warhammer Alliance, only doing one thing. So of course they should be the eipcenter of all things WAR and how dare Mythic send official representation anywhere else. So instead of accepting that they didn't do things well enough and maybe, ya know, changing, they lash out. Introspection is hard and stuff. The icing is just the irony of them thinking we're doing something better over here, in a sub-game forum probably graveyard'ed before Christmas  :awesome_for_real:
Hmm.

I think the limited population of these boards definately helps. Though I think you're pretty much off base why a good portion of the community is upset.

AFAIK, MJ, and others have been posting here for years.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Merusk on October 21, 2008, 09:53:59 AM
My new favorite post:
Quote
You know ... I looked at the "f13 guys/gals" website yesterday. And ... wow .. what a bunch of whining, prattling children! MMO 'veterans' my a$$. All you have over there are hardcore MMO 'grinders' and gold farmers.

I've been playing MMO's/MUD's for nearly two decades, and these 'kids' at f13 don't remind me of anyone from my Me59, UO, Avalon, etc. days. At best, they've played Shadowbane, DAoC and WoW--and think they have the authority to tell every other MMO gamer what to think. It's pretty damn hilarious, to be honest.

If MJ doesn't want to post here, that's fine: He's only shooting himself in the foot, however, by doing so.

GUYS, STOP GOLD FARMING. JESUS.

From: http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158809&highlight=14972&page=7

If only Psychochild still posted here to give us some cred with the super-wide M59 crew. Oh dear.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 21, 2008, 09:54:54 AM
I think that's a valid observation in general, however I don't necessarily think it applies in this case. They're a fansite that feels slighted, one-upped by a bunch of nobodies in some site they had to google. It's the entitlement thing mentioned by others here. They're Warhammer Alliance, only doing one thing. So of course they should be the eipcenter of all things WAR and how dare Mythic send official representation anywhere else. So instead of accepting that they didn't do things well enough and maybe, ya know, changing, they lash out. Introspection is hard and stuff. The icing is just the irony of them thinking we're doing something better over here, in a sub-game forum probably graveyard'ed before Christmas  :awesome_for_real:
Hmm.

I think the limited population of these boards definately helps. Though I think you're pretty much off base why a good portion of the community is upset.

AFAIK, MJ, and others have been posting here for years.

Bingo. Not only that though, it's not just about the limited population. It's about knowing how you want the boards to be, remain, and act and controlling them to that effect. This isn't a democracy. I'd say pretty much every community manager across the fansites and third party boards across the web have far too much interest in "being friends and liked by all." Man, fuck that. If one isn't willing to maintain the status quo then what's the fucking point?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nevermore on October 21, 2008, 09:56:22 AM
Quote
198 Guests are viewing this topic.

 :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 21, 2008, 09:56:28 AM
Does Warhammer Alliance have some prearranged communication agreement with Mythic regarding the game?  If not, expecting ANYTHING from Mythic would be a serious case of entitlement issues.  Right?  


Naming my website sexexpert.com doesn't mean that I'm necessarily an expert on sex.  It just means that I paid the cash for the domain name. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Merusk on October 21, 2008, 09:57:01 AM
Bingo. Not only that though, it's not just about the limited population. It's about knowing how you want the boards to be, remain, and act and controlling them to that effect. This isn't a democracy. I'd say pretty much every community manager across the fansites and third party boards across the web have far too much interest in "being friends and liked by all." Man, fuck that. If one isn't willing to maintain the status quo then what's the fucking point?

Well, if I had to guess based on previous CMs.. Fleeting Internet fame and driving traffic to your softcore porn site.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 21, 2008, 09:59:58 AM
Does Warhammer Alliance have some prearranged communication agreement with Mythic regarding the game?  If not, expecting ANYTHING from Mythic would be a serious case of entitlement issues.  Right?  


Naming my website sexexpert.com doesn't mean that I'm necessarily an expert on sex.  It just means that I paid the cash for the domain name. 


 :rimshot:

I dunno, ask garthilk, i think hes the admin over there.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nevermore on October 21, 2008, 10:00:54 AM
Well, if I had to guess based on previous CMs.. Fleeting Internet fame and driving traffic to your softcore porn site.

Here we just get our softcore porn from Merusk's avatar.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Brogarn on October 21, 2008, 10:05:13 AM
This post is proof that I was here during the great Starfucking thread of aught eight.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Tarami on October 21, 2008, 10:11:57 AM
First time reader, already a poster is generally not a good way to go about things, regardless of where you are. You're bound to appear like an uninformed tool (because really, you are).

It's not like the mentioned status quo is that hard to reach anyway. After all, I'm let to post here. :ye_gods:



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lounge on October 21, 2008, 10:13:05 AM
When are they patching in pre TOA Emain Macha?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: wufiavelli on October 21, 2008, 10:15:45 AM
Quote
Some of you guys make the darkfall forums look mature.  That is quite a feat i would be proud of yourself.

Lol, you read the darkfall forums. Go away.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Signe on October 21, 2008, 10:24:50 AM
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2194/jesuslolzp1.gif)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 21, 2008, 10:26:21 AM
My previous troll was unsuccessful, I am saddened.

Permission to add more vitriol?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ard on October 21, 2008, 10:35:34 AM
Oh and just wanted to add that the slayer does not make sense to be added in the game. A slayer is supposed to be a dwarf who, and here i quote wikipedia, "suffered a great shame, loss or humiliation" and "He will then go out into the world, seeking out an honorable death in combat". This game is based on an IP which it must follows so I doubt that Gameworkshop will allow that.

I'm no Warhammer lore expert, but there were complaints that the Hammerer was too elite a Dwarven unit to be a common class.

Also, the reality is that Witch Hunters should be shooting those Archmages in the back, just to be sure, while the Marauders should run a random chance of chaos mutating into something completely useless.

Slayers are too cool a unit to leave out. Make them insanely high burst damage with paper armour.

... oh, and dying gives them a self-buff :-)

Not to mention that the Slayer is a huge draw to the lone wolf retard crowd.  You know, the same people who play Disciples of Khaine and name them Drizzt.  It'll be fun :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 21, 2008, 10:35:51 AM
Let's play a game, who can we blame for this?

Warhammer Alliance (11 threads about this, 3 threads about us, and counting)
The French (Canard PC & Jeuxonline)
The Vault
Kotaku - twice
FoH
Clan Scum
The Google Translator (Starfuckers of the world unite)
Something Awful
Stratics
Hrose (SHOCKING)
Old Timers Guild
MMORPG.com
Darkstar
Lum (huh? he blindsided peole with a link)
uoforums.com
Eternal Keggers
TTH
Warcry
Brutality

So far somewhere around 90% of the posters that have posted have been deleted. What does this say for the internet at large? Are we too strict? Or should they not be let out of their bubbles? Discuss.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 21, 2008, 10:40:36 AM

I think a better solution is ways for players to more quickly get to the action as has been mentioned previously in this thread. A mechinism that would work for both pqs and RvR would be good.

What about allowing guild banners to be planted at PQs as well as in RvR areas and then having a tele-port to banner ability?



Um, this is a great idea. Banners that allow guild members to teleport to the action. Needs to not be cockblocked by Guild Rank 40 or someshit but this would work. The more I think about it the more I like this idea. It's not a freebie - you have to have guild members in the action already, and one who's a banner carrier but it would really solve the 'chase the puck' game of finding a fight.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waylander on October 21, 2008, 10:41:17 AM
I think you said it best already. This is a community and not a fansite.  If people can't come in here and become part of the community gradually, then I say fuck em. If you start allowing "Hay Mark Jaykobs!", "Hey LumZ", mouthbreathers in here who post solely to get some red name's attention, then you become a fansite.

We all talk about a lot of things here, and we talk to one another as much as we talk to red names who may be interested in something. Personally, that's why I like this place even though many of us have our own posts modded or deleted from time to time.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Erdrick on October 21, 2008, 10:42:40 AM
So far somewhere around 90% of the posters that have posted have been deleted. What does this say for the internet at large? Are we too strict? Or should they not be let out of their bubbles? Discuss.

I'm a bit new, but if I may.

Coming from a total newb who stumbled apon you guys like everyone else I can completely understand what you are doing and like I said above I simply cannot believe that people don't get it. Even if these new posters write a masterpiece of information there is less than a 1% chance they will actually be responded too. Not to mention the people who have been coming here have likely posted those exact same thoughts on 6 other sites and the devs are likely tired of reading them let alone wish to respond to them. Why on earth would you guys want to be the filter for repeated filth let alone want them to stick around should they choose?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ard on October 21, 2008, 10:47:17 AM
I'm a bit new, but if I may.

Coming from a total newb who stumbled apon you guys like everyone else I can completely understand what you are doing and like I said above I simply cannot believe that people don't get it. Even if these new posters write a masterpiece of information there is less than a 1% chance they will actually be responded too. Not to mention the people who have been coming here have likely posted those exact same thoughts on 6 other sites and the devs are likely tired of reading them let alone wish to respond to them. Why on earth would you guys want to be the filter for repeated filth let alone want them to stick around should they choose?

For more or less the exact reason you said it, because people just don't get it, it's funny, and it's mostly restricted to this thread because people haven't seemed to figure out that there are forums here other than the warhammer one.  It's also the sole reason I delurked and actually posted something.  Here's to hoping I get deleted so  I don't have to live with my first set of posts having been in this thread, because I just know that one is going to come back and bite me in the ass later, especially now since I managed to fuck up choosing quote over modify to fix this post.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 21, 2008, 10:56:05 AM
From: http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158809&highlight=14972&page=7

If only Psychochild still posted here to give us some cred with the super-wide M59 crew. Oh dear.

As far as I know, at least a dozen former MUD devs and admins still post here. We should really get colored names though. In a monospaced font. ESC[0m.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: kam on October 21, 2008, 10:58:49 AM
Uh hey. I'm the one who posted the original f13 thread on WHA.

I just wanted to say sorry. I didn't stop to think that the morans in RvR might think it's a brilliant idea to swarm your forums like crack babies drawn to cocaine cut with lizard piss.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 21, 2008, 11:10:51 AM
lol this forum is like North Korea. If you don't agree with the management, your out.

No. I've personally given Schild all sorts of grief over the years, and I'm still here. I think this forum has banned all of maybe three serious not-utterly-retarded posters in it's history. Your problem, and that of your cohorts, is that you're a fucking moron. Not that I give a fuck what you think, but someone ought to say it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 21, 2008, 11:21:45 AM
Anyway, I've been so tempted to troll the fuck out of the thread.  But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be good.
Doo eet!

Nah.  That'd probably be bad.  It is tempting enough as is.  I don't need encouragement either.

My new favorite post:
Ah, a true child of the internet generation.  You have a new favorite every five minutes.  (Now if only they'd stop giving you material... though this cross-board mocking war is kind of fun.)

Uh hey. I'm the one who posted the original f13 thread on WHA.

I just wanted to say sorry. I didn't stop to think that the morans in RvR might think it's a brilliant idea to swarm your forums like crack babies drawn to cocaine cut with lizard piss.
Presumably you did it to spread the info.  No harm in that as you cannot control what others do.  (And goes to show just how badly there need to be official forums.  Harp.  Harp.  Harp.)  Schild and a bunch of us seem to be having fun with it, so I'd say no real harm done.  You might even get to say you were indirectly responsible for an Epic thread, which is worth, like, 15 seconds of internet fame.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Wershlak on October 21, 2008, 11:32:57 AM
Presumably you did it to spread the info.  No harm in that as you cannot control what others do.  (And goes to show just how badly there need to be official forums.  Harp.  Harp.  Harp.)  Schild and a bunch of us seem to be having fun with it, so I'd say no real harm done.  You might even get to say you were indirectly responsible for an Epic thread, which is worth, like, 15 seconds of internet fame.

No real harm done? I've spent the past day and a half at work trying to catch up with this thread. Those TPS reports won't generate themselves!  :sad_panda:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Xuri on October 21, 2008, 11:43:14 AM
It should be mandatory to lurk on these forums for a minimum of three years before even being allowed to register a username.  The big spaghetti monster in the sky knows I did.  :oops:

Oh and, yeah, Warhammer 'n stuff. etc.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hutch on October 21, 2008, 11:44:59 AM
Let's play a game, who can we blame for this?

...

So far somewhere around 90% of the posters that have posted have been deleted. What does this say for the internet at large? Are we too strict? Or should they not be let out of their bubbles? Discuss.

Normal Person + Audience + Anonymity = Total Dipshit (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/), for a given value of "Normal Person".




Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 21, 2008, 11:49:03 AM
lol this forum is like North Korea. If you don't agree with the management, your out.

No. I've personally given Schild all sorts of grief over the years, and I'm still here. I think this forum has banned all of maybe three serious not-utterly-retarded posters in it's history. Your problem, and that of your cohorts, is that you're a fucking moron. Not that I give a fuck what you think, but someone ought to say it.

To be fair to the new guys, I think it was Raph Kosterfucking that brought me here...er well to wTo...back in the day. He has never once responded directly to me  :heartbreak: ... This is a lesson to you starfuckers out there....leg humping never pays off....look at me!!!

Oh fuck being fair, you're mostly tools. Never go full retard.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Maladee on October 21, 2008, 11:50:58 AM
When are they patching in pre TOA Emain Macha?

Speaking of TOA (sort of):  Anyone notice that Cetus (a la ML1 fame) is frozen into the lake in Blackfire Basin with only his horn above the ice?  It made me giggle as I died (again)!   :ye_gods:

I miss old Emain!  Endless battles at the MGs, throwing keyboards at the wall in frustration because of asshats who can't seem to figure out that when you line of sight your healers, you do not get heals!  Getting a phone call at 4am because the Albs were doing a relic raid and Hibbies needed to defend.  ("I haven't slept in 4 days...Can't we just take the relics back while the Albs are at school?...fine, fine I'm logging on now.")   Oh yeah, those were the days!  Mythic did open field PvP/RvR like nobody's business and I still have high hopes that MJ will find a way to make it so again...eventually!


There was an insane (read:  fun) open field battle last week in the T3 HE zone.  Ironically, it started because someone yells "let's go take this keep back while we wait for TA to pop".  The battle lasted for about 3 hours and Order would push to the keep door, then get pushed back to the bridge...rinse, repeat.  Nothing was ever accomplished (realm-wise) but it did give me hope that eventually there will be "real" PvP/RvR action instead of the WoW-esque BG grind.  


At least the folks at Mythic are aware of the complaints, even if there aren't any insta-solutions being passed down.  Hmm, does this make me an optimist rather than a cynic?  Give me time!  I'll work on my negativity!  :awesome_for_real:



P.S.  Sorry for returning to the original topic.  If I should switch gears and complain about trolls instead, let me know!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 21, 2008, 11:55:13 AM
It can't be helping this game that it's PVP system sounds utterly inscrutable even to a reasonably MMO savvy chap like myself. I've been reading about it in these threads and I still have no idea how it works.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 21, 2008, 11:56:34 AM
To be fair to the new guys, I think it was Raph Kosterfucking that brought me here...er well to wTo...back in the day. He has never once responded directly to me  :heartbreak: ... This is a lesson to you starfuckers out there....leg humping never pays off....look at me!!!
Ha ha!  He's responded to me, like, twice!  Okay, once was on the SWG boards when I answered his "To be first name this Miyazaki movie with its full Japanese name" update.  So maybe you're better off.  You could be ME.

It can't be helping this game that it's PVP system sounds utterly inscrutable even to a reasonably MMO savvy chap like myself. I've been reading about it in these threads and I still have no idea how it works.
Find enemies.  Kill them.

Finding them is the problem, seeing as it is the main focus of the game.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 21, 2008, 11:57:17 AM
WUA, don't feel bad - the people who have been playing the game all the way through beta and launch have no idea how it works. In fact, we're not even convinced that it does.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nevermore on October 21, 2008, 12:10:06 PM
Yeah, but us spectators can't even figure out how it's supposed to work.  And I PvPed in DAoC for years.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: voblat on October 21, 2008, 12:15:40 PM
It can't be helping this game that it's PVP system sounds utterly inscrutable even to a reasonably MMO savvy chap like myself. I've been reading about it in these threads and I still have no idea how it works.

It has to be that way so players have something to discuss on the official forums.

Oh , wait.....


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 21, 2008, 12:19:03 PM
Yeah, but us spectators can't even figure out how it's supposed to work.  And I PvPed in DAoC for years.

Neither can the players, which is why most of them keep hitting the same scenario button over and over again. Hence my comment about monkeys stimulating themselves.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: EWSpider on October 21, 2008, 12:23:51 PM
One could have previously described it as cliff diving without a parachute. :rimshot:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: AcidCat on October 21, 2008, 12:26:27 PM
Well, this thread was more entertaining than my time in the WAR beta.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 21, 2008, 12:30:18 PM
To be fair to the new guys, I think it was Raph Kosterfucking that brought me here...er well to wTo...back in the day. He has never once responded directly to me  :heartbreak: ... This is a lesson to you starfuckers out there....leg humping never pays off....look at me!!!

Oh fuck being fair, you're mostly tools. Never go full retard.

I just searched, and Raph has responded to me SEVEN times here on f13, bitches! Seven!

(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ksIH-c-65AO_gM:http://www.legendsofhorror.org/images/bates/ppic1.jpg)

In the process, I found this two-year old howler (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=8501.msg234237#msg234237) from Falconeer:

Quote
Bottom line:
WoW will start to churn and get old soon. In fact it will show very soon after The Burning Crusade release.
And will be beaten by Warhammer Online in late 2008.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hayduke on October 21, 2008, 12:36:19 PM
I love the game but I think you can go back four *weeks* and find posts like that.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 21, 2008, 01:21:29 PM
I miss old Emain!  Endless battles at the MGs, throwing keyboards at the wall in frustration because of asshats who can't seem to figure out that when you line of sight your healers, you do not get heals!  Getting a phone call at 4am because the Albs were doing a relic raid and Hibbies needed to defend.  ("I haven't slept in 4 days...Can't we just take the relics back while the Albs are at school?...fine, fine I'm logging on now.")   Oh yeah, those were the days!  Mythic did open field PvP/RvR like nobody's business and I still have high hopes that MJ will find a way to make it so again...eventually!

This.  I (in my sick and twisted mind) was hoping that WAR would be more this and less WoW-ish scenario grinding.  I do enjoy the fact that scenarios allow for quick entry into the action, but miss the organic, sandbox feel of old frontiers.  I'm hopeful that Mythic will find ways to improve the state of open RvR, but fear that the timeline will come at their usual rate. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Beign on October 21, 2008, 01:26:46 PM
I miss old Emain!  Endless battles at the MGs, throwing keyboards at the wall in frustration because of asshats who can't seem to figure out that when you line of sight your healers, you do not get heals!  Getting a phone call at 4am because the Albs were doing a relic raid and Hibbies needed to defend.  ("I haven't slept in 4 days...Can't we just take the relics back while the Albs are at school?...fine, fine I'm logging on now.")   Oh yeah, those were the days!  Mythic did open field PvP/RvR like nobody's business and I still have high hopes that MJ will find a way to make it so again...eventually!

This.  I (in my sick and twisted mind) was hoping that WAR would be more this and less WoW-ish scenario grinding.  I do enjoy the fact that scenarios allow for quick entry into the action, but miss the organic, sandbox feel of old frontiers.  I'm hopeful that Mythic will find ways to improve the state of open RvR, but fear that the timeline will come at their usual rate. 

I'm the same way, I like scenarios (a lot) but I miss frontiers.





Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tommh on October 21, 2008, 01:40:54 PM
Another Idea is to add various mechanisms to spy on the other side, as well as ways tgo interact more. All of these could use expended items and thus also double as money sinks

 Mark players that kill you so that they show up on the map.
Ability to locate a specific "enemy" player - MAYBE even have the ability to challenge him or his party to a duel?
Guild wars (ala EVE) Guilds have to pay a war fee but the members of these guilds can engage each other anywhere

Some other ideas:
Guilds have a associated set of NPC squads. These squads can be stationed at keeps (maybe only where the guild has a banner?)
When a guilds squads are attacked the guild members are alerted and get some ability to respond (ala guild teleport scrolls)
Squads earn guilds exp points




Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ingmar on October 21, 2008, 01:46:43 PM
From: http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158809&highlight=14972&page=7

If only Psychochild still posted here to give us some cred with the super-wide M59 crew. Oh dear.

As far as I know, at least a dozen former MUD devs and admins still post here. We should really get colored names though. In a monospaced font. ESC[0m.

As the former Arch of World on Ancient Anguish, I endorse this plan.  :drill:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Tmon on October 21, 2008, 01:47:33 PM
Neither can the players, which is why most of them keep hitting the same scenario button over and over again. Hence my comment about monkeys stimulating themselves.

I got to experience a special kind of hell today with my Engineer Alt.  I queued up and oddly enough Phoenix popped up.  I joined, only to find myself 8 minutes in to Destruction Curb Stomping.  They had two premade groups of mostly level 17+.  The nice touch was the four level 20+ sorcs  supported by two DOKs and a Shaman circled around the order flag.  They didn't even bother to guard their own since they just killed the flag bearer when he came running up to the order end.  Every couple minutes they'd send the order flag off in the hands of level 21 BO escorted by a dedicated healer a couple marauders and a Witch Elf.  The really cool part was that the next two times the scenario popped it was basically the same story.  Fortunately lunch time ended and I had to get back to work.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 21, 2008, 01:57:26 PM
My new favorite post:
Quote
You know ... I looked at the "f13 guys/gals" website yesterday. And ... wow .. what a bunch of whining, prattling children! MMO 'veterans' my a$$. All you have over there are hardcore MMO 'grinders' and gold farmers.

I've been playing MMO's/MUD's for nearly two decades, and these 'kids' at f13 don't remind me of anyone from my Me59, UO, Avalon, etc. days. At best, they've played Shadowbane, DAoC and WoW--and think they have the authority to tell every other MMO gamer what to think. It's pretty damn hilarious, to be honest.

If MJ doesn't want to post here, that's fine: He's only shooting himself in the foot, however, by doing so.

GUYS, STOP GOLD FARMING. JESUS.

From: http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158809&highlight=14972&page=7

That post is magnificent.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nonentity on October 21, 2008, 02:05:34 PM
I can't stop gold farming, okay? Respeccing is EXPENSIVE.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Khaldun on October 21, 2008, 02:07:59 PM
When you see the Buddha in the road,

remember to loot his corpse.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 21, 2008, 02:08:52 PM
Well, he's right, I *have* played Shadowbane, DAOC and WoW.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 21, 2008, 02:16:32 PM
Well, he's right, I *have* played Shadowbane, DAOC and WoW.

I haven't played Shadowbane. I am incomplete. :(


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 21, 2008, 02:18:47 PM
Just found this awesome board!
Yeah I'm one of those new comer slap me etc...
Just wanted to say that reading all this crap made me laugh numerous times.  :popcorn: (wow your smiley selection rock)
Did not figure yet who is the saddest tho ! Guess I'll hang around a bit longer if I'm allowed.

Oh and just wanted to add that the slayer does not make sense to be added in the game. A slayer is supposed to be a dwarf who, and here i quote wikipedia, "suffered a great shame, loss or humiliation" and "He will then go out into the world, seeking out an honorable death in combat". This game is based on an IP which it must follows so I doubt that Gameworkshop will allow that.

Fuck Wikipedia. If you're familiar enough with the IP (which I am) I can't see any legit reason that Slayers don't fit this game ferpectly. Approval from GW? $$$=approval from GW. Well, £££ to be more exact.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 21, 2008, 02:21:53 PM
Did that one guy mean "stone cold TROLL TURDS"?  because "trolls tards" isn't making any sense to me.  He must have meant "troll turds".  I'm sure of it.  Anyway, hello to all the new people!   Please stay!  :vv: 

I miss thejeni.  Maybe these are her heavy hitters.

You are mixing board mythology!  "Heavy hitters" was some other retard whose name escapes me at the moment.  He wasn't quite at the level of the Big Four (itchees, thejeni, Vajuras, Grunk, I'd add $P$Money but thats before this board's time) but he was close.  Damn, now I won't be able to sleep until I find the original reference.   :|

Big four? I mean, thejeni, Vajuras, and Grunk I'll pay.

But itchees? No way! Fuck man, he was just a sanded-down speedbump in one thread. I didn't even get to experience his stupidity.

Poseidon gave us a meme, he's clearly above itchypants in the hierachy of amusing stupid.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tommh on October 21, 2008, 02:23:49 PM
Quote
I got to experience a special kind of hell today with my Engineer Alt.  I queued up and oddly enough Phoenix popped up.  I joined, only to find myself 8 minutes in to Destruction Curb Stomping.  They had two premade groups of mostly level 17+.  The nice touch was the four level 20+ sorcs  supported by two DOKs and a Shaman circled around the order flag.  They didn't even bother to guard their own since they just killed the flag bearer when he came running up to the order end.  Every couple minutes they'd send the order flag off in the hands of level 21 BO escorted by a dedicated healer a couple marauders and a Witch Elf.  The really cool part was that the next two times the scenario popped it was basically the same story.  Fortunately lunch time ended and I had to get back to work.

I would expect this to become more and more common. One of the reasons Mythic is worried about scenarios dominating RvR has nothing to do with player base fragmentation. Instead it is the bane of online PVP (especially if their is a skill component): the "not enough losers" problem.
People hate losing more then they hate wining. People who lose the least tend to keepd doing that thing while people who lose alot tend to quit. This has a constant evolutionary effect on the player base, decreasing the number of players who are "competitive" (since the bar keeps rising) and also raising the bar to entry for the same reason.

If scenarios remain/become the center of RvR, WaR will be in serious trouble.

Edit by Trippy: fixed your quoting


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 21, 2008, 02:30:15 PM
I would expect this to become more and more common. One of the reasons Mythic is worried about scenarios dominating RvR has nothing to do with player base fragmentation. Instead it is the bane of online PVP (especially if their is a skill component): the "not enough losers" problem.
People hate losing more then they hate wining. People who lose the least tend to keepd doing that thing while people who lose alot tend to quit. This has a constant evolutionary effect on the player base, decreasing the number of players who are "competitive" (since the bar keeps rising) and also raising the bar to entry for the same reason.

If scenarios remain/become the center of RvR, WaR will be in serious trouble.

Your point has been discussed at length here.  Think about your point again, this time with FPS games being the focus instead of an MMO.  People only hate losing when they're punished severely for it.  People also hate losing if they have no way to improve their odds of winning.  In an FPS, there is almost no penalty for losing and playing more increases skil (read: win-loss ratio). 

If you prefer to keep the discussion on an MMO, players improve their chances by getting better gear and higher reknown rank or by joining an established guild.   As long as the death penalty stays as trivial as it is currently and players stand to improve through time-related mechanisms, you'll still see many players remain even if their win-loss ratio stinks.  Open RvR allows for numbers to overcome skill.  Level allows for the same.  At the endgame, it will be fun + small death penalty that will keep even the worst players interested, especially if they see marginal gains due to gear and reknown along the way.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 21, 2008, 02:35:57 PM
I would like to see both scenarios in WAR and bgs in WoW have a stiffer respawn penalty. One minute should be the minimum in my view, because anything less just creates situations where you just killed somebody, only to have them be right back in your face the next second. It also throws a lot of tactics or smart play out the window because you can suicide into groups with almost no downtime.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 21, 2008, 02:41:20 PM
I would like to see both scenarios in WAR and bgs in WoW have a stiffer respawn penalty. One minute should be the minimum in my view, because anything less just creates situations where you just killed somebody, only to have them be right back in your face the next second. It also throws a lot of tactics or smart play out the window because you can suicide into groups with almost no downtime.

Oh God, please no. Thirty seconds feels like an eternity already. Make it so I respawn further away or something, but don't make me stare at my dead body for even longer.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 21, 2008, 02:41:24 PM
I would like to see both scenarios in WAR and bgs in WoW have a stiffer respawn penalty. One minute should be the minimum in my view, because anything less just creates situations where you just killed somebody, only to have them be right back in your face the next second. It also throws a lot of tactics or smart play out the window because you can suicide into groups with almost no downtime.

I think the better way to implement this is to have rapid respawn times, but have the respawn location some distance from the playing field.  That way the player is actively engaged (albeit with travel), but still takes time x to get back into the fray.


Note: Sjofn beat me to it by seconds...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Miasma on October 21, 2008, 02:42:33 PM
I wonder who the new Andy_Mythic red name is up there and if he will rate as much frothing at the mouth as the rest of the new registrations coming in for slaughter.  I need more entertainment, we haven't even seen a terribly misguided introduction thread from one of the new crazy people yet.

Unless he wants a bunch of lunatics emailing him he should probably hide his email address, I'm also not sure how Andy comes out of what appears to be first_initial_last_name@ea.com.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 21, 2008, 02:42:55 PM
Heh, I get annoyed because I spawn facing the wrong direction, you guys want more downtime?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 21, 2008, 02:44:16 PM
Fuck the spawn timer getting longer. I'd really like it if the spawn point wasn't in some place that required me to take 1/3 of my hit points in falling damage just to get into the action area.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 21, 2008, 02:44:22 PM
Heh, I get annoyed because I spawn facing the wrong direction, you guys want more downtime?
You know what? This annoys the hell out of me and I can't really figure out why. It's not a big deal at all but I curse everytime. And I'm not even mildly OCD.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 21, 2008, 02:45:03 PM
Heh, I get annoyed because I spawn facing the wrong direction, you guys want more downtime?

I just want enough downtime to ensure that when I kill the same player repeatedly that I continue to get full reknown for them.  


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tommh on October 21, 2008, 02:45:13 PM
I agree Nebu and I understand that Mythic is attacking the problem from many directions (low death penalties being a good example). Whether in the end it will be enough in the long term is anybodies guess but I believe they have a good game plan. I was just pointing out that the scenarios due to their nature are morevulnurable to this problem do to the clear winners/losers breakdown and the general "sports like" setup.

 




Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: FrogSkin on October 21, 2008, 02:45:30 PM
Bland starfucking.

Also, really, signing your post and the same thing in your sig? Go away.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: veredus on October 21, 2008, 02:53:31 PM
I can't stop gold farming, okay? Respeccing is EXPENSIVE.

Sorry not to derail with a serious question, but what does respeccing cost?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 21, 2008, 02:55:37 PM
I agree Nebu and I understand that Mythic is attacking the problem from many directions (low death penalties being a good example). Whether in the end it will be enough in the long term is anybodies guess but I believe they have a good game plan. I was just pointing out that the scenarios due to their nature are morevulnurable to this problem do to the clear winners/losers breakdown and the general "sports like" setup.

I'm not suggesting that my thoughts on the matter were the only options, rather that there are many things to consider when it comes to what retains the playerbase.  Personally, I don't mind losing more than winning so long as the losing is still fun.  When losing becomes so penal that it feels like a kick in the nads, there's not much incentive to head back to the playing field.  


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Zira on October 21, 2008, 02:57:27 PM
I would like to see both scenarios in WAR and bgs in WoW have a stiffer respawn penalty. One minute should be the minimum in my view, because anything less just creates situations where you just killed somebody, only to have them be right back in your face the next second. It also throws a lot of tactics or smart play out the window because you can suicide into groups with almost no downtime.

no way.... Play as a Witch Elf and see if you still think this.  Witch Elf is a behind the lines class... we die lots already.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: frogskin on October 21, 2008, 02:58:26 PM
That's not how it works around here, hombre. Read the stickies.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nija on October 21, 2008, 03:00:21 PM
I hope they release a goldrush-style scenario when they release the "Meet the Witch Hunter" movie. That'll add some much needed variety to the four forms of murderball.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: veredus on October 21, 2008, 03:01:52 PM
Quote
Personally, I don't mind losing more than winning so long as the losing is still fun.

Some of the most fun I have had is when when it has come down to the wire. Win or lose.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Maladee on October 21, 2008, 03:05:58 PM


I would expect this to become more and more common. One of the reasons Mythic is worried about scenarios dominating RvR has nothing to do with player base fragmentation. Instead it is the bane of online PVP (especially if their is a skill component): the "not enough losers" problem.
People hate losing more then they hate wining. People who lose the least tend to keepd doing that thing while people who lose alot tend to quit. This has a constant evolutionary effect on the player base, decreasing the number of players who are "competitive" (since the bar keeps rising) and also raising the bar to entry for the same reason.

If scenarios remain/become the center of RvR, WaR will be in serious trouble.

 

*makes confused faces @tommh*  Uhh, what?  I *think* what you just said is "losers quit when they lose and this causes evolution".  Am I close?  :oh_i_see:

I can't stand the tedium of doing the same scenarios over and over again (win or lose) while trying to grind out a level so the mobs in the next zone up are equal or challenging con to my toon, BUT even when Order loses non-stop for the dumbest of reasons (get the dude with the thing!), I know I will still get 2 hits of quest XP each time (PK + Scenario quests).  I haven't noticed an amazingly significant difference between winning and losing (insofar as XP gain goes) because if I have to grind it out to be able to go on to the next zone successfully, I just sit and read a book while standing at the WarMaster waiting for scenario pops.  That being said, the moment I hear about a keep/objective take, I haul ass to join the warband even if it's not the best XP.  Fun != Monotony...or something.  Math never was my strong suit. 

That being said, I still can't figure out if I agree with you or not!  Scenarios can be mindless, tab-targeting, pot-draining time-sinks, but you can see your progress a bit more readily (while leveling).  I don't imagine that when enough people hit 40 that scenarios will truly be an issue.  Once you're in the "big boy" range, we'll be out in open field on a regular basis, right?  Rather like DAoC where people did Molvik and such to cap out then got a PL to 50 to go stand at the PKs and spam "LFG" in region chat.  I suppose the difference here is that you get RPs regardless just by being on the scene in WAR.  Hell, you can wander up after the keep has been taken and get a fat RP chunk just for being there at the changeover, all without ever having seen an enemy.  You don't get heals in a scenario (generally speaking) and so it shouldn't be a shock when you don't get heals in open field, so no point in NOT running out to see what's up at a keep/objective when you see things on fire.

I haven't seen too many 40s in scenarios...I'm keeping my fingers crossed that if I can just suck it up and grind it out a wee bit longer, I won't have to queue on my main ever again.



Oooh and did anyone else get a visual while reading the SotG of MJ as Mr. Cheezle (from Grandma's Boy) saying "Good things are coming!  Good things!"?  Maybe I'm just twisted.   :headscratch:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tommh on October 21, 2008, 03:22:28 PM
Well the thing is for a certain type of player what you see as monotony is what they see as a level playing field. Its like saying why play chess or basketball when the board or court never changes?  The nature of online games makes it easier for a specific pool of players to keep getting better and better as the average player's skill level increases. This is because better players tend to stay/play more while ooprer players tend to leave/play less. Of course as you play more in general your skills also tend to improve.

Open RvR is much less susceptable to this, since it has long term goals and non-zero sum outcomes. For example your goal may be to hold your keep and stop the zone from flipping while your opponent may be trying to distract you from reinforcing another keep (or simply looking for kills). In RVR you can both succeed to lesser and greater extents



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Xuri on October 21, 2008, 03:25:46 PM
Heh, I get annoyed because I spawn facing the wrong direction, you guys want more downtime?
But... but... don't you know that one of the Laws of Online World Design (http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/laws.shtml) states: Socialization Requires Downtime ? :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Maladee on October 21, 2008, 03:47:49 PM

But... but... don't you know that one of the Laws of Online World Design (http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/laws.shtml) states: Socialization Requires Downtime ? :grin:


Ooh Xuri...good point!  Socialization means whining in /sc about how everyone else is doing it wrong and other such nonsense like "zomg wru healz!??!" and "u guyz suck!!eleventy!11!", right?   :drillf:   Personally, I spend my 30 seconds of downtime screaming at a box of kittens after the same WE has chased me down to kill me 5x in a row no matter what I did to get away.  Does that make me anti-social?   :ye_gods: 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tommh on October 21, 2008, 03:55:52 PM
not if your a kitten



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 21, 2008, 03:56:21 PM
You made it to 8 posts, don't forget your shift key now. Comeon.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Molsen on October 21, 2008, 04:00:25 PM
Mark,

I had a post here. But I am a tool. It is gone now. And so am I.

Love, Molsen


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ingmar on October 21, 2008, 04:02:26 PM
Yay, I finally hit refresh fast enough to see a wall of text pre-ban!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Soln on October 21, 2008, 04:05:21 PM
an other brick in the wall


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sparky on October 21, 2008, 04:09:08 PM
What exactly is starfucking?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 21, 2008, 04:10:07 PM
A starfuck is one who delights in making a positive impression on those in a position of power, usually of some celebrity or high political status.

(v) Starfucking

Aka Leg-Humping, Obsessive Stalkers, Armchair Game Designers, Whores, etc.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Goreschach on October 21, 2008, 04:11:44 PM
What exactly is starfucking?

I think I have a general idea, but every time I try to get a solid hold on it all that comes to mind are japanese  :pedobear: cartoons.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tommh on October 21, 2008, 04:26:38 PM
heres a example:

"Mark! Mark! Hey Mark!
Whats your favorite color? Whats your quest?  Please have my babies!"



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 21, 2008, 04:29:13 PM
I would like to see both scenarios in WAR and bgs in WoW have a stiffer respawn penalty. One minute should be the minimum in my view, because anything less just creates situations where you just killed somebody, only to have them be right back in your face the next second. It also throws a lot of tactics or smart play out the window because you can suicide into groups with almost no downtime.

The hell?! One goddamned minute?! After taking 2-4 minutes just to get back to the action you want the newly respawned and unbuffed to get instastomped back to sitting on their ass for a full 60 seconds? Fast track to the Cancel Account link that.

Forget downtimes. People hate them and rightfully so. Go with diminishing returns instead. Needing to kill the same player over and over is often a reality in Scenario/BGs with 5 or 10 opponents. At some point their role is more important than their nature as an XP faucet, so you shouldn't be slapped for continuing to harangue the healer, for example.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: hal on October 21, 2008, 04:49:44 PM
I am a pve type who has never had such a great time pvp as this. I haven't rvr as of yet but scenarios are so much fun. I like your vision and await with bated breath the adjustments to rvr. Really nice game guy.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Merusk on October 21, 2008, 04:56:53 PM
From: http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158809&highlight=14972&page=7

If only Psychochild still posted here to give us some cred with the super-wide M59 crew. Oh dear.

As far as I know, at least a dozen former MUD devs and admins still post here. We should really get colored names though. In a monospaced font. ESC[0m.

As the former Arch of World on Ancient Anguish, I endorse this plan.  :drill:

I was an IMM on several MUDs.. I vehemently disagree with this plan!  :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 21, 2008, 05:08:57 PM
Let's play a game, who can we blame for this?

Warhammer Alliance (11 threads about this, 3 threads about us, and counting)
The French (Canard PC & Jeuxonline)
The Vault
Kotaku - twice
FoH
Clan Scum
The Google Translator (Starfuckers of the world unite)
Something Awful
Stratics
Hrose (SHOCKING)
Old Timers Guild
MMORPG.com
Darkstar
Lum (huh? he blindsided peole with a link)
uoforums.com
Eternal Keggers
TTH
Warcry
Brutality

So far somewhere around 90% of the posters that have posted have been deleted. What does this say for the internet at large? Are we too strict? Or should they not be let out of their bubbles? Discuss.

You forgot to add Mark and Mythos in big, bold flashing letters at the top. If they'd had official forums, we'd not have been inundated with starfuckers and idiot freaks*, and Mark's posts here would have just been considered a footnote instead of WTF TEH DEV IS POSTING ON TAHT LAME SITE OF ELITISTS AN GOL D FARMERZ BUTT WE R TEH WARHAMSTER ALLIUANCE!

(* Besides our own, of course.)

Admittedly, this clusterfuck trainwreck is far more amusing than seeing what tidbits Blue lets loose, but so far more unprofessional and amateur of MJ/Mythic.
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 21, 2008, 05:13:57 PM
I would like to see both scenarios in WAR and bgs in WoW have a stiffer respawn penalty. One minute should be the minimum in my view, because anything less just creates situations where you just killed somebody, only to have them be right back in your face the next second. It also throws a lot of tactics or smart play out the window because you can suicide into groups with almost no downtime.

The hell?! One goddamned minute?! After taking 2-4 minutes just to get back to the action you want the newly respawned and unbuffed to get instastomped back to sitting on their ass for a full 60 seconds? Fast track to the Cancel Account link that.

Forget downtimes. People hate them and rightfully so. Go with diminishing returns instead. Needing to kill the same player over and over is often a reality in Scenario/BGs with 5 or 10 opponents. At some point their role is more important than their nature as an XP faucet, so you shouldn't be slapped for continuing to harangue the healer, for example.


2-4 minutes to get back into the action? What scenario are you playing? In 2 minutes I can ride back and forth to any objective on the map, not to mention jump into at least 2 frays I would have passed up. What's the timer at now? 15s? Why not just make them instantly jump up and kick people in the ass right after they die? I just get sick of killing Legolassx, only to get plunked with his arrows 20s later.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ard on October 21, 2008, 05:17:33 PM

As far as I know, at least a dozen former MUD devs and admins still post here. We should really get colored names though. In a monospaced font. ESC[0m.

As the former Arch of World on Ancient Anguish, I endorse this plan.  :drill:

I was an IMM on several MUDs.. I vehemently disagree with this plan!  :grin:

I was a fake IMM on one, and I endorse this plan only if the font is also pink and blinky, like every god damned spammer on every mud I ever played on used  :drill:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Typhon on October 21, 2008, 05:27:06 PM
I would like to see both scenarios in WAR and bgs in WoW have a stiffer respawn penalty. One minute should be the minimum in my view, because anything less just creates situations where you just killed somebody, only to have them be right back in your face the next second. It also throws a lot of tactics or smart play out the window because you can suicide into groups with almost no downtime.

The hell?! One goddamned minute?! After taking 2-4 minutes just to get back to the action you want the newly respawned and unbuffed to get instastomped back to sitting on their ass for a full 60 seconds? Fast track to the Cancel Account link that.

Forget downtimes. People hate them and rightfully so. Go with diminishing returns instead. Needing to kill the same player over and over is often a reality in Scenario/BGs with 5 or 10 opponents. At some point their role is more important than their nature as an XP faucet, so you shouldn't be slapped for continuing to harangue the healer, for example.


2-4 minutes to get back into the action? What scenario are you playing? In 2 minutes I can ride back and forth to any objective on the map, not to mention jump into at least 2 frays I would have passed up. What's the timer at now? 15s? Why not just make them instantly jump up and kick people in the ass right after they die? I just get sick of killing Legolassx, only to get plunked with his arrows 20s later.

Not in Tor-fucking-Anroc, you can't.  Fucking hate Tor Anroc! HATE!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 21, 2008, 05:44:42 PM
2-4 minutes to get back into the action? What scenario are you playing? In 2 minutes I can ride back and forth to any objective on the map, not to mention jump into at least 2 frays I would have passed up. What's the timer at now? 15s? Why not just make them instantly jump up and kick people in the ass right after they die? I just get sick of killing Legolassx, only to get plunked with his arrows 20s later.

30s on a rolling clock. Could be 29s or 5s or whatevs depending on when you die. Feels like an eternity above 20s. Getting from the respawn point in, say, Nordenwatch, to the Fort (where it usually is going on) feels like about 45s (never timed it and cancelled so probably won't). Life thereafter depends on the number of people in the fight and how long until they notice I'm beating on the healer. And that's just one player.

Extrapolating that across 20 players would have the immediate affect of ensuring Nordenwatch (to continue the example) ends at 15 minutes rather than a team reaching 500 people. It would not force people to play smarter, as any 3 players focus-firing is the death of anyone no matter what. It would instead mean battle avoidance, requiring forced-makeup groups thus requiring healers thus require the very classes that aren't played because players voted them out as largely unfun. All in a game where things are still pretty unbalanced.

All of that makes more sense in RvR where organization can counter a zerg as long as the ratio isn't too nuts. But for Scenario/BGs where the team sizes are not imbalanced and where organization already is key, better to employ diminishing returns so people are stuck watching the respawn timer. Downtime sucks and chases people away to games that aren't so arduous about it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: photek on October 21, 2008, 06:33:31 PM
I'll lay it out with you honestly from a veteran gamers perspective : It takes too long to level. People are fucking lazy and need to be catered to a certain degree where things seem achievable and within reach with regular effort and don't have to break their balls (read:grind) over stuff. Rewards are currently weak and itemization seems randomized at times. Decent at best. The words "balance the budget" comes to mind. I got it installed, just stopped at level 21 as now its taking way too long for me to bother and World of Warcraft offers more bang per buck at the moment since Blizzard has made everything available. You can do the million, just not in the current state.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Firstborn on October 21, 2008, 07:13:44 PM
Another Idea is to add various mechanisms to spy on the other side, as well as ways tgo interact more. All of these could use expended items and thus also double as money sinks

 Mark players that kill you so that they show up on the map.
Ability to locate a specific "enemy" player - MAYBE even have the ability to challenge him or his party to a duel?
Guild wars (ala EVE) Guilds have to pay a war fee but the members of these guilds can engage each other anywhere

Some other ideas:
Guilds have a associated set of NPC squads. These squads can be stationed at keeps (maybe only where the guild has a banner?)
When a guilds squads are attacked the guild members are alerted and get some ability to respond (ala guild teleport scrolls)
Squads earn guilds exp points




This morning I logged on and spent a couple of hours playing. I was qued for all three Tier 2 Scenerios for the entire time I was on and never got called for my turn. I am Destruction on Heldenhammer. I had about reached my limit on questing for the day. I wanted some RvR. So I wandered down to the RvR lake, and ran around. Just looking for someone, anyone to fight with. I didnt see a soul. Pretty discouraging but it got me to thinking about what would make these lakes "worth it". This is what I came up with.

Make the lakes places to hang out and experience. I pictured a base camp on each side of the lake with standard mobs to kill mobs in the center. The experience and renown gained should be significant and the % of random rare drops should be about four times that of PvE. This would accomplish three things.

Incentive for people to hang out in RvR.
Greater rewards for the for greater risk. (Rare Drops)
Eliminates the feeling of wasting your time in a lake if you make the trip and no one is there, you can still experience.

I even thought about a spawn mechinism to control the mobs in the center. Picture a lever at each end of the area, both have to be changed to your side or you do not get mob spawns. If you die you respawn at the RvR base camp.

I am sure someone has probably thought of this before, but I figured I would throw it out there anyway.

I love this game, I want it to succeed in the worse way, but I am not sure how long I can keep playing in a RvR game where I only see my enemy in a scenerio.

Give me a reason to hang out in RvR and I will be a happy subsciber.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 21, 2008, 08:00:49 PM
What I really like about this whole thread, and the cross-border incursions that the WHA forumites (including the normal hu-mans, starfuckers and manifesto writers) pretty much agree with the f13 crowd in terms of what they want out of the game, how fucked the pre-release supernerfs were, the lack of official forums and so on and on, yet MJ still keeps talking about scenario-free servers, not alienating WoW players and how everything else needs to be superslowgradual but is coming soon.

bleugh.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kamen on October 21, 2008, 08:15:03 PM
I just realized that I'm finding myself spending more time reading this thread than playing WAR.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: NiX on October 21, 2008, 08:55:46 PM
I just realized that I'm finding myself spending more time reading this thread than playing WAR.
I think that happens to everyone at F13 at some point in time.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 21, 2008, 11:04:33 PM
Well, he's right, I *have* played Shadowbane, DAOC and WoW.

I haven't played Shadowbane. I am incomplete. :(

I played Shadowbane South-East Asia, run by En-Tranz. If you thought Wolfpack / Ubisoft were bad ...

Heh, I get annoyed because I spawn facing the wrong direction, you guys want more downtime?

OMG this. How annoying is this? And why is it even happening in the first place?

What I really like about this whole thread, and the cross-border incursions that the WHA forumites (including the normal hu-mans, starfuckers and manifesto writers) pretty much agree with the f13 crowd in terms of what they want out of the game, how fucked the pre-release supernerfs were, the lack of official forums and so on and on, yet MJ still keeps talking about scenario-free servers, not alienating WoW players and how everything else needs to be superslowgradual but is coming soon.

bleugh.

I really do question why Mythic made a lot of decisions regarding WAR that seem completely counter what they said the game was going to be. And no, I don't have an answer for any of those questions.

Someone send MJ a fruit basket as thanks for this thread. We'll all pitch in a few bucks to show our appreciation.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Megrim on October 21, 2008, 11:14:49 PM
I just realized that I'm finding myself spending more time reading this thread than playing WAR.
I think that happens to everyone at F13 at some point in time.

c.f. EvE online.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 21, 2008, 11:38:59 PM
You think we'll see numbers for warhammer anytime soon?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on October 21, 2008, 11:53:20 PM
Only if they break 1 million subs.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Meldrath on October 21, 2008, 11:58:32 PM
Been playing PVP games since 1990 - Muds (Nodeka/Medievia/Diku Godwar Muds etc), LOTRO, WoW, Guild Wars and I'm just going to interject this opinion in here, I've read alot of this and the direction you plan on taking your game, this is dumb. Period. I've scenarioed my ass off, ran BS many times for those 1 in 100 chance of getting loot from bosses due to the horrendous drop rate rewards and messed up pq contributions, open RVR, 200 tali (the time/money sink of the game)/salvaging... and guess what? It's stinking. It smells like rotten tomatoes in the distance. If you don't clean up the gameplay, streamline the pvp to more openRVR, and fix itemization. More loot from PVP, more XP, MORE FOCUS/CONCENTRATION OF PLAYERS IN THE PVP AREA OF A ZONE.

Seriously, if this ever gets read, and you want one thing to take out of this post:

MAKE OPEN RVR FUN AND REWARDING


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on October 22, 2008, 12:12:57 AM
Only if they break 1 million subs.



I totally see this happening.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Goreschach on October 22, 2008, 12:24:49 AM

Seriously, if this ever gets read,


You're in luck, I just read it! You can now return to whence you came, satisfied that your voice has been heard, and your mission complete.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 22, 2008, 12:25:46 AM
Only if they break 1 million subs.


There's a comment from Mark on vnboards that states they will be releasing sales figures after the end of this month and will continue to do so in future.  It's all to do with the stock market or something.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on October 22, 2008, 12:27:27 AM
Sales figures are (mostly) pointless. What's interesting are the sub figures.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Margalis on October 22, 2008, 12:30:54 AM
Quote
Look, I agree with you in theory 100%.  However, what we've seen so far is that a sizable percentage players don't want to leave the scenarios.  We will keep upping the rewards but my concern is that a sizable percentage will still want to stay in the scenarios because that is what they are used to doing so I want to be prepared for that.  It doesn't mean we will do it but it would be foolish of us not to prepare for it. 

Late to this thread but I have to chime in. I don't get this at all.

People who like RVR aren't doing RVR because the rewards for it suck. Makes sense. (In MMO land anyway) The proposal is to make the rewards good. The new problem is that some people still don't want to do RVR...how is that a problem?

Isn't different people finding different things they enjoy a GOOD thing? Isn't that the whole point of having different activities in the first place? It's like building a road and then complaining that CARS ARE DRIVING ON IT!!!

If people running scenarios is in itself a problem then scenarios should be removed and your game design is fundamentally broken. But it sounds like the problem is that even people who don't enjoy them do them because they are compelled to.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Simond on October 22, 2008, 12:35:06 AM
Sales figures are (mostly) pointless. What's interesting are the sub figures.
Pretty much - the only press release from EA-Mythic so far is "We've sold 700K boxes!" which sounds pretty good...right up until the point you remember that Funcom said they sold 1.2 million AoC boxes.  :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 22, 2008, 12:36:55 AM
(http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/images/smilies/buttlick.gif)

How is this guy not culled already? Addressing a developer directly without being involved in a dialogue or responding directly to something specific always reeks of Stratics trash. Or fansite trash in general, I guess, but that's my background and "Stratics trash" has a certain ring to it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Tarami on October 22, 2008, 12:46:55 AM
(http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/images/smilies/buttlick.gif)

How is this guy not culled already? Addressing a developer directly without being involved in a dialogue or responding directly to something specific always reeks of Stratics trash. Or fansite trash in general, I guess, but that's my background and "Stratics trash" has a certain ring to it.
Mr. Stalin and the NKVD are sleeping? :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ashrik on October 22, 2008, 12:47:08 AM
Sales figures are (mostly) pointless. What's interesting are the sub figures.
Pretty much - the only press release from EA-Mythic so far is "We've sold 700K boxes!" which sounds pretty good...right up until the point you remember that Funcom said they sold 1.2 million AoC boxes.  :grin:
While it might be interesting to know how many boxes were sold and subscriptions kept from a pure scholarly standpoint, I'm much more interested in how it works in the context of the game.

I mean, 100k or 200k subscribers might be low in comparison to many other games, but if everyone is comfortable on their server, then it doesn't effect you at all does it? hmm That's not much more clear is it.

I guess I'm trying to say that I'm more interested in hearing about the ability to merge/split servers as needed to make sure that regardless of the size of the game, errvrybody is playing in a decently populated environment. There were 11 mil subs to warcraft, but my server only holds 30k-40k, so as long as there is 35k subscribed in total- it doesn't affect me so long as they're all on my server.

Quote
How is this guy not culled already? Addressing a developer directly without being involved in a dialogue or responding directly to something specific always reeks of Stratics trash. Or fansite trash in general, I guess, but that's my background and "Stratics trash" has a certain ring to it.
Dear Mista Mythic

I just first want to say I LOVE UR GAME OMG I TTTLY WOULD BUY YOU A BEER

And now that that's over with, let me list the 127 ways in which you must improve your game or fail immediately. Namaste.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 22, 2008, 01:04:36 AM
Sales figures are (mostly) pointless. What's interesting are the sub figures.


I can't find the two quotes now, vnboards search is complete crap, also no official forums continues to annoy. 

I said "sales" because I can't find the quotes to phrase it exactly as he did.  I got the impression that they needed to be very open about how the game was doing because of the EA stock price, the inference being, quoting figures like Blizzard does, but I don't think he specifically stated the numbers quoted would be the current/active subscriber totals.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 22, 2008, 01:16:36 AM
I just first want to say I LOVE UR GAME OMG I TTTLY WOULD BUY YOU A BEER

And now that that's over with, let me list the 127 ways in which you must improve your game or fail immediately. Namaste.

I would like to, erm, watch you buy Mark a tittily beer.
 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 22, 2008, 01:20:45 AM
Found the first quote (http://vnboards.ign.com/Message.aspx?topic=108862513&brd=22997&start=108863837)

The thead is titled "Subscription numbers?"

Quote from: MarkJacobsEA
Quote from: Ghilin_MacAlister
Quote from: SupbroFool
There was a post by Mark Jacobs stating that now that Mythic is part of a publicly traded company, subscription/population info cannot be readily released for corporate reasons.

Blizzard releases their subscriptions and they are part of that larger company, starts with a V...god I can't remember the name.

Blizzard releases it's numbers at certain specific times of the year, as will mythic.
They are held to certain restrictions, being publicly traded.


Correct. 

Mark

Edit to add

More talk about WAR appearing on consoles here (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=264601)

Quote
When asked if he was specifically referring to SWTOR and Warhammer Online, Gibeau replied, "They're both under consideration." However, he added, "We're not really in a place to commit or announce anything specific with regards to those."


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 22, 2008, 02:17:18 AM
WAR is going to trail off into numbers lower than peak EQ1 and WoW shall be bestride the world as a colossus more than ever. And deep in our bitter little hearts we'll be glad that WoW is around, because without it the most successful game in Western MMO history would still be a ten year old relic that really only succeeded to that extent on a fluke.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 22, 2008, 03:25:20 AM
Are you trolling our new trolls, WUA?



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 22, 2008, 04:41:55 AM
Quote
Look, I agree with you in theory 100%.  However, what we've seen so far is that a sizable percentage players don't want to leave the scenarios.  We will keep upping the rewards but my concern is that a sizable percentage will still want to stay in the scenarios because that is what they are used to doing so I want to be prepared for that.  It doesn't mean we will do it but it would be foolish of us not to prepare for it. 

Late to this thread but I have to chime in. I don't get this at all.

People who like RVR aren't doing RVR because the rewards for it suck. Makes sense. (In MMO land anyway) The proposal is to make the rewards good. The new problem is that some people still don't want to do RVR...how is that a problem?

Isn't different people finding different things they enjoy a GOOD thing? Isn't that the whole point of having different activities in the first place? It's like building a road and then complaining that CARS ARE DRIVING ON IT!!!

If people running scenarios is in itself a problem then scenarios should be removed and your game design is fundamentally broken. But it sounds like the problem is that even people who don't enjoy them do them because they are compelled to.

I feel compelled to say that no scenarios does not equal more RvR. I can flick that scenario switch, go and do other things, then choose if I want to take part in a scenario that pops. RvR requires me to patrol a zone that is pretty much empty just in case some enemy are lurking there - this may reflect the boredom of war, but I'm not paying $15 a month for that particular privilege.

That the whole "duh how bout we take out scenarios that'll fix things" line even came up and has gained traction shows how much Mythic is scrambling to work out what to do.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Simond on October 22, 2008, 05:25:13 AM
WAR is going to trail off into numbers lower than peak EQ1 and WoW shall be bestride the world as a colossus more than ever. And deep in our bitter little hearts we'll be glad that WoW is around, because without it the most successful game in Western MMO history would still be a ten year old relic that really only succeeded to that extent on a fluke.
...and the ten year old relic is still a better game than DAoC.  :drill:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sahrokh on October 22, 2008, 05:56:07 AM
Quote
What I really like about this whole thread, and the cross-border incursions that the WHA forumites (including the normal hu-mans, starfuckers and manifesto writers) pretty much agree with the f13 crowd in terms of what they want out of the game, how fucked the pre-release supernerfs were, the lack of official forums and so on and on, yet MJ still keeps talking about scenario-free servers, not alienating WoW players and how everything else needs to be superslowgradual but is coming soon

What I find peculiar is how MJ sounds like not liking the feedback and thus leaving a forum for the next, where he hopes to convince anyone again.
Guess what, all those no life forum posters like me, are throwing stones at MJ because they want WAR to succeed not because of some odd hate.

What about suggesting a no scenario server, when the real issue is that the current open RvR implementation just does not cut it?
Forget the scenarios for a second. What would happen if all we had were outdoor RvR? Would it suddenly make RvR exp less pathetic? Would the acquired drops suck somewhat less (I got +melee damage and +melee crit on my class tagged gear... and am a Sorceress)? Would conquering and keeping a castle suddenly bring some "plus" that I have not seen? Because when we got "our" keep, all we really got was an huge hole in our guild budget.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Beign on October 22, 2008, 06:04:09 AM
If we didnt have scenarios the game would turn into DAoC.. people would gather at a common area and repeatedly farm each other. (Emain Macha)

A non-scenario server would fail just like all of DAoCs *special* servers. They're always a novel idea, but hardly anyone stays on them. (I.E. DAoC RvR server, PvE server etc)





Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: shred on October 22, 2008, 06:22:03 AM
HULK SMASH SHIFT KEY


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 22, 2008, 06:34:14 AM
Look! It's the second coming of e. e. cummings!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Triforcer on October 22, 2008, 06:38:14 AM
Anyone have any idea why almost all the newcomers have a name that doesn't start with a capital letter?  Nothing wrong with that, plenty of community members do it, but its strange that almost all the idiots are doing it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 22, 2008, 06:38:59 AM
It's hard work pushing that shift key.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 22, 2008, 06:41:55 AM
Anyone have any idea why almost all the newcomers have a name that doesn't start with a capital letter?  Nothing wrong with that, plenty of community members do it, but its strange that almost all the idiots are doing it.

Kids. Anti-establishment behavior. The usual crap.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 22, 2008, 06:42:05 AM
Its just how the name generator in WHAbot 1.0 works. I hear there's a content patch for it that is going to allow you to choose whether it creates capitalized names or not and which will increase the posting speed from once every 20 seconds to once every 5 seconds.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Triforcer on October 22, 2008, 06:43:25 AM
90 guests are viewing this topic right now.  :awesome_for_real: Hi!  Stay for tea!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Beign on October 22, 2008, 06:48:01 AM
Anyone have any idea why almost all the newcomers have a name that doesn't start with a capital letter?  Nothing wrong with that, plenty of community members do it, but its strange that almost all the idiots are doing it.

Kids. Anti-establishment behavior. The usual crap.

Dammit... I kenw I should've went with bEiGn


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Vinadil on October 22, 2008, 06:51:42 AM
It's hard work pushing that shift key.

On a related note, the "a" button stopped working on my home computer.  It is not that it won't work, I just have to press it twice as hard as the other keys, so my "normal" typing force won't cut it.  Just saying, sometimes it IS hard work pressing a certain key.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 22, 2008, 06:55:26 AM
Dammit... I kenw I should've went with bEiGn
Wouldn't it be something like 3E1GN or some such?

Side note: I always laugh when I see l33t speak in MMOs because it always feels contrived, like everyone's in on the joke. Meanwhile, in FPS games I do get the sense it's actually how people talk, at least going by the server and player names...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ashrik on October 22, 2008, 07:07:59 AM
Specialty and niche servers (in an already niche game) are a bad idea in my book. Specially when so many people feel at a loss for ways to reach out for each other.

I'd like to go on the record as saying that I tried to get a capital A, and was pretty sure I actually did put one in. But I had been drinking my way to illiteracy at the time of my sign up, and cite the confusing placement of my shift key as a direct cause.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: zumbos on October 22, 2008, 07:43:26 AM
blahblahblahblahimimportantblahblahblah


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Brogarn on October 22, 2008, 07:45:13 AM
Looking down at my keyboard I notice that there are 2 shift keys on either side of it in convenient locations. Just thought I'd throw that out there.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kiwoo on October 22, 2008, 07:54:50 AM
Quote
Now in all this time one mod stood out from the rest. Tiggs (yes, I know, we all love Tiggs) firstly from the SWG forums. Was a sad day for them when she "left".

No we don't and no we weren't. Go away.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 22, 2008, 07:57:27 AM
Looking down at my keyboard I notice that there are 2 shift keys on either side of it in convenient locations. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I just pry up my keys and spell out dirty words with the letters. Impresses the hell out of my co-workers.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: reaper_9782 on October 22, 2008, 07:57:56 AM
EXCUSE ME

CAN SOMEONE ALERT KOTAKU

IT SEEMS ALL THE SHIFT KEYS HAVE RUN AWAY


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nevermore on October 22, 2008, 08:02:54 AM
Anyone have any idea why almost all the newcomers have a name that doesn't start with a capital letter?  Nothing wrong with that, plenty of community members do it, but its strange that almost all the idiots are doing it.

Kids. Anti-establishment behavior. The usual crap.

Dammit... I kenw I should've went with bEiGn

Oh, you were so close!  This is like that Japanese obstacle course show (Viking?).  You almost got to the end, but then came the epic faceplant.

I'd have posted this on the denned thread, but I'm not awesome enough to be able to post there. ;_;


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: fua_9782 on October 22, 2008, 08:07:19 AM
Read the fucking stickies, douchebag.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 22, 2008, 08:10:54 AM
(http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/images/smilies/buttlick.gif)

That smiley is so win.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: McSteak on October 22, 2008, 08:18:28 AM
so why does my post get erased, then my account deleted? looks like schild has too much fun on here. you can ban me again if you want i suppose, you're just composte heap any goddamn way. ill just keep on comin back too if i so desire.

I noticed you're gangsta.


I'm pretty gangsta myself.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lum on October 22, 2008, 08:26:03 AM
...and the ten year old relic is still a better game than DAoC.  :drill:

Yeah, that PvP in EQ is AWESOME. (glare)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Yoru on October 22, 2008, 08:51:13 AM

Oh, you were so close!  This is like that Japanese obstacle course show (Viking?).  You almost got to the end, but then came the epic faceplant.


Eric Schild Presents... Takeshi's Castle - F13 Edition.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: fuser on October 22, 2008, 08:58:48 AM
(http://www.binfuser.com/files/captain.jpg)

General Schild?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: STICKIES_9782 on October 22, 2008, 09:53:32 AM
Read the fucking stickies, douchebag.

fail


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 22, 2008, 09:55:28 AM
IP Ban in .... 3...2...1...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on October 22, 2008, 09:59:11 AM
Read the fucking stickies, douchebag.

lol fuck you

Your eloquence has moved me.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: raydeen on October 22, 2008, 10:07:52 AM
IP Ban in .... 3...2...1...

I'm surprised it's taken this long. It's like /b/ and Digg got togethor, had a few cocktails, forgot the condoms, had some babbys and the babbys found their way into our dark corner of the cyberverse. What the babbys doen't realize is that there are grues lurking in the darkness...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 22, 2008, 10:09:56 AM
What the fuck are babbys?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: raydeen on October 22, 2008, 10:13:37 AM
What the fuck are babbys?

http://www.somethingawful.com/flash/shmorky/babby.swf (http://www.somethingawful.com/flash/shmorky/babby.swf)

Edit: I was going for teh funny. Sometimes I hit. Mostly I miss.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 22, 2008, 10:14:44 AM
So awesome.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 22, 2008, 11:24:27 AM
What the fuck are babbys?

http://www.somethingawful.com/flash/shmorky/babby.swf (http://www.somethingawful.com/flash/shmorky/babby.swf)

Edit: I was going for teh funny. Sometimes I hit. Mostly I miss.

Ah, internet cavemen make everything funny.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Cylus on October 22, 2008, 11:59:49 AM
http://www.somethingawful.com/flash/shmorky/babby.swf (http://www.somethingawful.com/flash/shmorky/babby.swf)

Edit: I was going for teh funny. Sometimes I hit. Mostly I miss.
Hah, thank you for that.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Jarachelle on October 22, 2008, 02:40:05 PM
wat


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nevermore on October 22, 2008, 02:53:32 PM
I, for one, am happy Mark feels he has to take a stance. Shows he cares for the game which tells me there are many positive changes to come...

(http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/images/smilies/buttlick.gif)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kardlonoc on October 22, 2008, 03:04:22 PM
After reading through a good portion of the thread the main form of contention seems to be in scenarios VS rvr/pve and  problems with all three mostly concerning repetition. The increase rvr gains are a fine solution but i think a one solution that can realistically be applied in a few months is to add more variety to the scenarios that would appeal to more players in general. A "take the keep" scenario for instance with more players and more rewards that would last about 30 minutes. Also a "warzone" type scenario where you have to kill the npc general and his army while fighting off his npc army and enemy players, all the while protecting your own general. A death match scenario with low rewards and low time (like 5 minutes) might not alleviate the problem here but i think would be a good idea nonetheless.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Takhomasac on October 22, 2008, 03:07:30 PM
Whew, there was another one.  We're only on page 20.

I was worried that I would have to step in and submit a monologue waxing eloquent on the virtues of Mark Jacobs, Mythic, and the world in general to give Schild something to do.  Oh well, maybe when the thread slows to a bit more of a crawl.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 22, 2008, 04:59:24 PM
Quote
(http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/images/smilies/buttlick.gif)

I stole this smiley from eastsideboxing.com and I think f13 needs to steal it officially. It's turning out to be quite frequently appropriate lately.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: RUiN 427 on October 22, 2008, 05:20:44 PM
What the fuck are babbys?

http://www.somethingawful.com/flash/shmorky/babby.swf (http://www.somethingawful.com/flash/shmorky/babby.swf)

Edit: I was going for teh funny. Sometimes I hit. Mostly I miss.

Dude, I am crying right now at my desk... co-workers are looking at me strangely. Too awesome.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Stoz on October 22, 2008, 06:11:47 PM
Ur a towel.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: gimpyone on October 22, 2008, 06:14:44 PM
I think Schild needs the love letters, not Mark Jacobs.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 22, 2008, 06:36:47 PM
Now I know what my problem is... I haven't been addressing enough of my posts to people. 

Dear Schild,

We miss you!

Love, Nebu


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kirth on October 22, 2008, 07:52:05 PM
So I figured it out.

EA needs to buy funcom , merge it with mythic.then Take AoC's combat, graphics, and maybe player made structures and combine it with everything in WAR.

Conanhammer: Age of hyproibion adventure craft


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 22, 2008, 09:44:09 PM
So I figured it out.

EA needs to buy funcom , merge it with mythic.then Take AoC's combat, graphics, and maybe player made structures and combine it with everything in WAR.

Conanhammer: Age of hyproibion adventure craft


Id settle for an optomized AoC graphcs engine...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Paelos on October 22, 2008, 11:14:52 PM
Dear Mark Jacobs,

<Insert kissass comment here>
<Insert 20 paragraph tirade here>
<Jack off at the idea you were taken seriously here>

Sincerely,
All the new assholes


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kageru on October 23, 2008, 12:01:26 AM

I must admit I was absolutely fascinated to see if they had a practical and workable answer to the issues of population imbalance. It seems obvious now that they didn't have anything of interest to offer as a balancing mechanic. However scenarios which are inherently population balanced conceal any realm imbalance, which might explain why they are so keen on keeping them as a premier part of the game. If incentives do force people into RvR and they realize the future involves being repeatedly routed by population and class imbalances I cannot see a high degree of retention.

Upcoming game mechanics fun involves seeing how they can make endgame RvR not look like an obvious and vicious grind. Followed by how you can expand the world when you already have the ultimate leaders of a faction (more so for alliance maybe) as the first level of progression. Adding additional battlefields is possible but not without even further diluting the player base which is already an issue. Add in the normal class balance issues and fanboys (of which warhammer has some of the most obsessive) feeling betrayed and it should be a very entertaining game to follow in the forums.

Not play mind you, but then it seems like the mechanics are fairly much designed to discourage you from signing on if you missed the surge at release.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 23, 2008, 06:31:06 AM
Not play mind you, but then it seems like the mechanics are fairly much designed to discourage you from signing on if you missed the surge at release.

I was berated when I said this early on.  The whole thing is a circular mess.   You need a decent group to do the PQ's. PQ's drop the best loot. Without people you can't find a decent group OR your new found group vanishes when their scenario pops OR a guild group is doing the PQ and is keeping their group closed.   Without critical mass, PQ's just become a ghost land for any that don't have a steady group to run with. 

Is this really the social structure they want to promote in a game that attracted many pre-built social groups?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: AW on October 23, 2008, 06:47:43 AM
Dear Mark Jacobs,

<Insert kissass comment here>
<Insert 20 paragraph tirade here>
<Jack off at the idea you were taken seriously here>

Sincerely,
All the new assholes

How about a chart? Did I mention this NASDAQ is live!

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=15021.0

Keep checking back as the Warhammer brand runs; circles around Ultima Worlds projections.

 :why_so_serious:



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 23, 2008, 08:31:46 AM
Now AW has 7 posts that aren't denned. If he keeps this up he might get to 10%.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 23, 2008, 08:44:58 AM
Now AW has 7 posts that aren't denned. If he keeps this up he might get to 10%.

What on earth would make you encourage him?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tolakram on October 23, 2008, 08:46:38 AM
I think a better comparison chart might be this:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=world+of+warcraft%2C+warhammer+online%2C+age+of+conan&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=1

WoW is blue, AoC is yellow, WAR is red
(http://www.google.com/trends/viz?q=world+of+warcraft,+warhammer+online,+age+of+conan&date=ytd&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=1&sa=N)

WoW is the evil!  I have no opinion on the trends, I just like graphs.

edit:

Another one.

http://trends.google.com/trends?q=wotlk%2C+warhammer+online%2C+age+of+conan&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=1

WotLK is blue, AoC is yellow, WAR is red
(http://trends.google.com/trends/viz?q=wotlk,+warhammer+online,+age+of+conan&date=ytd&geo=all&graph=weekly_img&sort=1&sa=N)

I lied about not having comments.   My concerns:

AoC more popular initially with steep fall, WAR less popular but rapidly falling.
WotLK now surpassing WAR, but that's probably expected.

If you add DAOC to that chart and go back as far as the data goes (2004) you'll see that DAOC interest was just below what WAR interest is now.  That's my biggest concern, WAR seems to be stabilizing at the same level DAOC did as far as web searches go.

Where is the advertising?  WAR ads should be everywhere, lets bring some people in!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: BitWarrior on October 23, 2008, 09:09:27 AM
Where is the advertising?  WAR ads should be everywhere, lets bring some people in!

This would be a mistake. Firstly, yes they have been advertising. However, I would not be surprised if they let their current contracts expire. The game has been revealed as flawed based on their initial delivery promise, and their retention rates are probably lower than expected. I don't have any real statistical data on it, but being that there hasn't been some announcement or even slight discussion about it on the Herald or from MJ on any forum, it can be safe to assume bragging rights they are not.

Once they feel the game is in a strong position, and EA feels they would like to throw additional dollars at it already, I'm sure we'll see more advertising. In the meantime, bringing people into a game which isn't as "sticky" as it probably should be is only going to hurt you in the long run.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 23, 2008, 09:31:30 AM
Now AW has 7 posts that aren't denned. If he keeps this up he might get to 10%.

What on earth would make you encourage him?

I was trying to remind you to den the other 7.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 23, 2008, 09:31:58 AM
Now AW has 7 posts that aren't denned. If he keeps this up he might get to 10%.

What on earth would make you encourage him?

I was trying to remind you to den the other 7.
I'm good, thanks.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: raydeen on October 23, 2008, 09:36:53 AM
Does any discussion about WAR really matter any more? WOW HAS ZOMBIES!!!!!!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 23, 2008, 09:38:52 AM
Does any discussion about WAR really matter any more? WOW HAS ZOMBIES!!!!!!

WAR had zombies at launch with more than 6 polygons. What's your point?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: raydeen on October 23, 2008, 09:39:54 AM
Does any discussion about WAR really matter any more? WOW HAS ZOMBIES!!!!!!

WAR had zombies at launch with more than 6 polygons. What's your point?

Because now I can be a zombie and have a zombie army. :P

Edit: You've been living in this forum for the past 72 hours or so haven't you. Go look in the WoW forum. (I hope you have already)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 23, 2008, 09:42:49 AM
Does any discussion about WAR really matter any more? WOW HAS ZOMBIES!!!!!!

WAR had zombies at launch with more than 6 polygons. What's your point?

Because now I can be a zombie and have a zombie army. :P

Edit: You've been living in this forum for the past 72 hours or so haven't you. Go look in the WoW forum. (I hope you have already)
No no, I'm good. I saw it already.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 23, 2008, 10:25:05 AM
WOO!

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e121/GrimDysart/tramcahrt.jpg)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 23, 2008, 10:32:29 AM
Needs a new title update. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Seanzor on October 23, 2008, 11:01:16 AM
WOO!

I've always loved that chart - it's goddamn funny, and it's somehow accurate enough that I can point to the loop in the 'fun' line and say, yeah, that's where I quit and never looked back (IPY aside).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 23, 2008, 11:06:03 AM
Ok, I guess a thread this epic needs it's own.

(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e121/GrimDysart/warchart.jpg)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sparky on October 23, 2008, 11:23:42 AM
Funny stuff.  But f13 went fanboy over PotBS?  I must have blinked and missed it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: raydeen on October 23, 2008, 11:26:01 AM
Funny stuff.  But f13 went fanboy over PotBS?  I must have blinked and missed it.

I think it was for about 13 days or so. Not quite a fortnight.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Montague on October 23, 2008, 11:38:01 AM
Funny stuff.  But f13 went fanboy over PotBS?  I must have blinked and missed it.

I think it was for about 13 days or so. Not quite a fortnight.

Hellgate London should be in there somewhere as well.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 23, 2008, 01:29:10 PM
"It's not a worthless IP, it's big in Europe!"

Awesome.  WUA, you have the best charts.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 23, 2008, 01:57:03 PM
"It's not a worthless IP, it's big in Europe!"


Wait... Isn't Warhammer lore just a big rip off of Warcraft?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 23, 2008, 01:59:10 PM
Wait... Isn't Warhammer lore just a big rip off of Warcraft?

(http://th202.photobucket.com/albums/aa223/munky0621/th_suicide-7.gif)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tolakram on October 23, 2008, 02:12:14 PM
"It's not a worthless IP, it's big in Europe!"


Wait... Isn't Warhammer lore just a big rip off of Warcraft?

That never gets old.   :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on October 23, 2008, 02:12:46 PM
I assumed that wasn't in green for extra effect.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 23, 2008, 02:13:00 PM
linky (http://vnboards.ign.com/Message.aspx?topic=109125388&brd=22997&start=109126462)

Quote from: MarkJacobsEA
Folks,

Let's see, we've fixed the slowness of the mail system, put in another round of open RvR changes and have more stuff coming. We've been working on changing healer renown and experience based on feedback and I've been looking into some of the class balance stuff that's been brought up as well. Yep, I've been ignoring the Vault all right!  

Mark

Can't say I care about that much about class balance (except that magus/engineer mass pull ability), hopefully something incoming to reduce the level grind.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ingmar on October 23, 2008, 02:14:23 PM
What is this, the passive-aggressive school of PR?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 23, 2008, 02:16:21 PM
Mark has always been a bit of a bitch.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 23, 2008, 02:17:07 PM
Well there's a link to the thread there so you can decide that on the context if you want.

linky (http://vnboards.ign.com/Message.aspx?topic=109126569&brd=22997&replies=8)

Quote from: MarkJacobsEA
Folks,

Over the last few weeks the team has implementing a transfer system to allow both players and guilds to move between our servers. This technology was not available for WAR at launch and building it has proven to be a little more complex than originally expected. I’m happy to say that starting next week we will begin public testing of the service and if things go well, we will be able to offer it free to our players (for a limited time) either next week or the week after that. I apologize for the delay in making this service available but again, it did take a little longer than we originally expected.

We will be posting details next week about the public test and then the parameters for the free service.

Mark


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ingmar on October 23, 2008, 02:22:04 PM
It will be interesting to see if the effect is to cause people to pile on to already populated 'winning' realms. There was a bit of that when WoW first implemented the go-anywhere transfers (not the specific Server X->Server Y ones), I seem to recall?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: trias_e on October 23, 2008, 02:22:46 PM
Well, this might work.  Everyone transfer to the popular servers, and we can merge servers on our own.  I sure as hell am getting off of ulthuan and on to one of the most popular servers if they give me the option.  I'd rather have a 30 minute queue and have fun when I play rather than play in a ghost-server.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 23, 2008, 02:23:15 PM
That is... very clever.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sanvar on October 23, 2008, 02:23:44 PM
Quote
New to this site
--
Sanvar Soulblight
Marauder of Drifting Castle

Obviously.
--
Schild
Your Lord and Master


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tazelbain on October 23, 2008, 02:25:45 PM
Bat Country is fucked then


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 23, 2008, 02:28:29 PM
Sanvar Soulblight
Marauder of Drifting Castle

How, exactly, does your castle drift?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: trias_e on October 23, 2008, 02:29:21 PM
Quote
Bat Country is fucked then

Well, if Ulthuan is allowed to transfer to higher pop servers, it's pretty much assumed that everyone is going to leave.  

So, bat country will simply move to a different server.  Where's the problem?

What I'm worried about is that Ulthuan will be designated a medium pop server, thus no transfers will be allowed off of it, and since we're aren't high population no one will transfer on to it, leaving us in ghost-server land still.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: khaine on October 23, 2008, 02:31:03 PM
Wouldn't the faster and more effective solution be to just merge servers ?

In essence that's what they are doing by sounding the death knell for low pop ones currently , if they are afraid of bad press for that what are they going to do once everyone abandons ship on the low pop ones , leave them open just to be able to say they havent shrunk in subs at all ?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 23, 2008, 02:33:34 PM


Quote from: MarkJacobsEA
Folks,

Over the last few weeks the team has implementing a transfer system to allow both players and guilds to move between our servers. This technology was not available for WAR at launch and building it has proven to be a little more complex than originally expected. I’m happy to say that starting next week we will begin public testing of the service and if things go well, we will be able to offer it free to our players (for a limited time) either next week or the week after that. I apologize for the delay in making this service available but again, it did take a little longer than we originally expected.

We will be posting details next week about the public test and then the parameters for the free service.

Mark

Well, if transfers from Ulthuan are allowed and the bold bit is accurate can't BC just move en masse?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Goreschach on October 23, 2008, 02:35:42 PM
What is this, the passive-aggressive school of PR?

Anyone getting the feeling that pretty soon now we'll be seeing Mark go the way of Gaute?

Maybe when Lord British gets his head out of the clouds they can start a new MMO company together.  :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: vex on October 23, 2008, 02:37:45 PM
Quote

What I'm worried about is that Ulthuan will be designated a medium pop server, thus no transfers will be allowed off of it, and since we're aren't high population no one will transfer on to it, leaving us in ghost-server land still.

I for one welcome our ghost-server overlords... or something.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 23, 2008, 02:38:38 PM
What I'm worried about is that Ulthuan will be designated a medium pop server, thus no transfers will be allowed off of it, and since we're aren't high population no one will transfer on to it, leaving us in ghost-server land still.

If the transfer is quick and easy I don't see the reason for any restrictions on it at all.  If everybody piles on the same server, they will just get pissed off by the queue and transfer somewhere else anyway.  

Again, if the transfer is quick and easy, this will let them experiment with different server types on the very low population ones without much negative reaction.  I wouldn't like to play on a "no scenario" server because I like the odd scenario, but I wouldn't mind playing on a server that had scenarios deactivated at the weekends.

Edit:typo


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Zzulo on October 23, 2008, 02:39:01 PM
Quote
Wouldn't the faster and more effective solution be to just merge servers ?

well I prefer server transfers to server mergers

gives us players more choice. For example, I'm hoping my guild will end up wherever another guild I like ends up. Stuff like that.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tazelbain on October 23, 2008, 02:40:19 PM
Really Mythic is going allow me to force everyone in BC to switch servers?

More likely they are going to allow me to move the Bat Country tag and guild rank to a new server so we don't have start over.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Zzulo on October 23, 2008, 02:43:32 PM
best thing is if they use that cloning system they used before

so I can have my characters on multiple servers  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sparky on October 23, 2008, 02:45:56 PM
Make them timestaking, like collecting 100 pieces of wood, with random spawns of wood all around the RVR area (outside the safety of the keep).  Have a wood pile inside the keep with a mouse-over signifying turn in progress:  100 of 1500 needed.  Each player could do the quest once (per cycle), encouraging more players to come and collect the damn wood. 

I can endlessly play with my wood without WAR.  Makes DAOC crafting sound fun by comparison (your wood quest, not playing with my wood).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 23, 2008, 02:50:51 PM
I loved DAoC crafting.  Buy stacks of materials, start macro program, go to bed.  It was perfect. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sparky on October 23, 2008, 02:55:09 PM
See I actually pressed a button and waited for the ding like a sucker.  Got a lot of reading done though.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nevermore on October 23, 2008, 03:09:46 PM
Sanvar Soulblight
Marauder of Drifting Castle

How, exactly, does your castle drift?

Laputa


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: EWSpider on October 23, 2008, 03:23:28 PM
When Mark previously discussed server transfers he mentioned they would work similar to how they work in WoW.  In other words, only designated servers will be allowed to transfer, and you'll only be allowed to transfer to servers designated by Mythic.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 23, 2008, 03:29:05 PM
When Mark previously discussed server transfers he mentioned they would work similar to how they work in WoW.  In other words, only designated servers will be allowed to transfer, and you'll only be allowed to transfer to servers designated by Mythic.

You have a link to the exact quote?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 23, 2008, 03:36:49 PM
When Mark previously discussed server transfers he mentioned they would work similar to how they work in WoW.  In other words, only designated servers will be allowed to transfer, and you'll only be allowed to transfer to servers designated by Mythic.

You have a link to the exact quote?

I fail at finding the link, but I also remember the quote.

Some thing like "We want to offer people the opportunity to transfer from Low pop servers to medium population ones. We also would like to offer people on high pop servers to also transfer to medium population ones."


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 23, 2008, 03:45:39 PM
linky (http://herald.warhammeronline.com/warherald/NewsArticle.war?id=386)

Quote
Other changes for 1.1 include major additions to the chat system (item linking and more) as well as continued work on our targeting system, including adding Main Assist and Target of Target.  In addition to the server balancing methods that have worked so well over the last week, we will also be offering the first server transfers to our players to continue to help even out the server populations.  These transfers will be free of charge but they will be limited to moves off high-population servers to select mid-population servers or off of low-population servers to a selection of mid-population servers. Much like we are doing now, we will select certain mid-population servers and let people transfer there.  Once they reach a certain population level, we’ll remove them from the list and give their spot to another server.  We will publish the list ahead of time so players can plan their moves accordingly.

Yeah, I forgot about that, ignore my earlier comment.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: lamaros on October 23, 2008, 03:53:15 PM
Sanvar Soulblight
Marauder of Drifting Castle

How, exactly, does your castle drift?

It's on an iceberg, obviously.

(It's not an outlier! The next ice age is coming!)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Goreschach on October 23, 2008, 03:58:02 PM
linky (http://herald.warhammeronline.com/warherald/NewsArticle.war?id=386)

Quote
Other changes for 1.1 include major additions to the chat system (item linking and more) as well as continued work on our targeting system, including adding Main Assist and Target of Target.  In addition to the server balancing methods that have worked so well over the last week, we will also be offering the first server transfers to our players to continue to help even out the server populations.  These transfers will be free of charge but they will be limited to moves off high-population servers to select mid-population servers or off of low-population servers to a selection of mid-population servers. Much like we are doing now, we will select certain mid-population servers and let people transfer there.  Once they reach a certain population level, we’ll remove them from the list and give their spot to another server.  We will publish the list ahead of time so players can plan their moves accordingly.

Yeah, I forgot about that, ignore my earlier comment.

So their intent is for every server to be listed as medium population?  :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Vinadil on October 23, 2008, 04:04:47 PM
For end-game that is probably best... as their servers cannot handle high vs high come Tier 4.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: JWIV on October 23, 2008, 04:53:42 PM
Wait... Isn't Warhammer lore just a big rip off of Warcraft?

(http://th202.photobucket.com/albums/aa223/munky0621/th_suicide-7.gif)

 :mob:

Me and my dolls are not amused.     :drill:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 23, 2008, 05:36:30 PM
Wouldn't the faster and more effective solution be to just merge servers ?

This allows them to avoid the bad PR of server merges mere months after a hugely hyped launch. Nobody ever says "server merges = successful business". Even when it actually improves the game, it really is only needed a) when you rapidly lose population; or, b) over estimated the popularity of your game.

So here, they can allow players to chase population themselves, watch some servers clear out, eventually not allow new players to make characters on those servers, and then slowly and silently phase them out.

Win win. Gives players the option to find the action at all tiers (instead of just the cap) and allows Mythic to avoid bad press until people calm the hell down.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on October 23, 2008, 05:39:29 PM
So here, they can allow players to chase population themselves, watch some servers clear out, eventually not allow new players to make characters on those servers, and then slowly and silently phase them out.
There will still be a merge at some point, though, even if only a small one cause some people will *never* leave a low pop server.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Omiko on October 23, 2008, 09:04:13 PM
Whoops!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 23, 2008, 09:06:42 PM
I could probably go on and on with ideas but I don't want to make a huge wall of endless text ...

Too late.   :uhrr:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Zupa on October 23, 2008, 09:08:09 PM
If my first post is absolutely nothing like the one above from Omniko, can I stay?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: rk47 on October 23, 2008, 09:13:18 PM
i think we pretty much have similar ideas, it's just quite tiring to read it over and over again. If you feel you have to make a point here, go read the whole thread first, pick some short quotes and add a little in. Pasting a huge wall of text that sounds repeated over 20 pages is just brutal.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ghost on October 23, 2008, 09:15:22 PM
There should be a sticky at the top entitled:  "Essays on Warhammer".
 :ye_gods:



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 23, 2008, 09:20:12 PM
So here, they can allow players to chase population themselves, watch some servers clear out, eventually not allow new players to make characters on those servers, and then slowly and silently phase them out.
There will still be a merge at some point, though, even if only a small one cause some people will *never* leave a low pop server.


Yea, I agree. However, by that point the servers might be light enough that their closure is like a tree falling in the woods. Nobody whose vocal is around to hear it :-)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slyfeind on October 23, 2008, 10:11:44 PM
Sorry there just wasnt a way to put all those ideas out in a super short form :P

I'll bet Schild could figure out a way.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Crushyou on October 23, 2008, 11:50:26 PM
lol, where's my shift key


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sleep on October 24, 2008, 12:14:42 AM
Quote
/end plug

/pulling plug on brown-nosing.

It's people like you that are doing it wrong. Don't let your low standards get in the way of progress, thx.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 24, 2008, 12:21:17 AM
The most exciting aspect of this game, and the whole industry, is the fact that it is a work in progress. I am excited to see where this game goes over the next few years. Hopefully a merger will be sooner then later, but anyone who lets post launch hickups blind their view on the game so much that they are actually willing to attempt the mess called WoW once more...well so be it. It certainly is not the majority who feel this way.

Sleep, you really need to wake the fuck up.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Wasted on October 24, 2008, 12:27:05 AM
The most exciting aspect of this game, and the whole industry, is the fact that it is a work in progress. I am excited to see where this game goes over the next few years. Hopefully a merger will be sooner then later, but anyone who lets post launch hickups blind their view on the game so much that they are actually willing to attempt the mess called WoW once more...well so be it. It certainly is not the majority who feel this way.

Sleep, you really need to wake the fuck up.

But its exciting, paying to beta.  Especially with wow being such a mess an all.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Vinadil on October 24, 2008, 05:06:30 AM
The biggest danger is that WoW will figure out an enjoyable Real World PvP system.  They have gone a long way to making Raiding guild friendly... if they can figure out how to do some decent guild-based PvP, well that would probably be a big pull to some of the WAR guilds.  The biggest thing keeping us with WAR is it is the only guild-friendly game out that has PvP and is not Spreadsheets in Space.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ghost on October 24, 2008, 06:20:48 AM
The biggest danger is that WoW will figure out an enjoyable Real World PvP system.  They have gone a long way to making Raiding guild friendly... if they can figure out how to do some decent guild-based PvP, well that would probably be a big pull to some of the WAR guilds.  The biggest thing keeping us with WAR is it is the only guild-friendly game out that has PvP and is not Spreadsheets in Space.

Is this really a "danger"?  I am going to play whichever of the games is most fun for me.  It's not about taking some sort of political stand against Blizzard.  If they can make a better product, great.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kamen on October 24, 2008, 06:50:34 AM
But its exciting, paying to beta.  Especially with wow being such a mess an all.

*Snort

You're mean.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tommh on October 24, 2008, 07:03:35 AM
I wonder how much server pop will improve game-play. Certainly having a lot of players interacting (especially opposing players) is the key to making WAR a success, but as the game stands I still think that many of these people will just go into rotating through scenarios.

It will potentially reduce wait times for scenarios.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ashmodai on October 24, 2008, 07:11:19 AM
I wonder how much server pop will improve game-play.

I'm not on a low-pop server, thankfully, but I can't think of any advantages of being on one, ever, in any game, that don't get smothered under the weight of the disadvantages.  It's an MMO, meant to play with other people, if there's not many other people around, whoops.

Being able to transfer off of low pop servers for free is actually a very sensible idea.  Not sure why you'd ever want to not play on the highest population server bearable, though, unless queues to login were too high.  At this point in the game I don't think we have any consistently Full servers anymore, so I don't see why people would transfer off the High pop servers.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Vinadil on October 24, 2008, 07:46:18 AM
Wait until everyone is T4 and you will see how it could be nice to play on a Low Pop server, as long as that Pop plays in the same timezone.  Somewhere between the end of Guild Beta and Release the game lost the ability to handle 100 v 100 keep sieges.  Sure we had way more CTD back then, but at least the game did not turn to molasses when you had hundreds of people running around a zone.  Think of a "high" pop server where every T4 zone has hundreds of people in it... and honestly I could see myself wishing for a medium or low-pop server.  Now, if they can fix the lag issues... well then the more the merrier.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 24, 2008, 07:53:33 AM
That would be a good goal to anticipate except:

- Getting to T4 is a pita for a good chunk of people trained by the pace of WoW
- The people at T4 are currently biyotching about it, thus not compelling people with dreams of glory

I'm constantly reminded of AC2 and some of the stuff they were theoretically trying. At one point they finally had to come out and say that a good chunk of the big-world/economic/resource stuff only works with appropriately dense player population that never showed up. To that I always added "...because we flubbed some very critical components like functioning chat, an actual currency, and combat that made sense".

Here the causes may be different, but the end could line up the same way: not enough people enjoying the way the game should be played providing the compulsion for everyone else to get there.

This wasn't so bad in WoW because of two factors WAR doesn't have currently:

1) The joy of leveling as fast as we did even at launch sorta glossed over the lack of anything to do at the cap at that point.
2) A whole slew of genre newbs who, because WoW was their first game, weren't leveling up at a pace the veterans were but whom kept hearing praise from the veterans about how wonderful it was to not be playing the d1ckpunching grind EQ1 and DAoC used to be.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Vinadil on October 24, 2008, 08:01:03 AM
I agree that you have an issue if T4 play is not Fun.  The point was more to the population needs than the fun of the gameplay.  Right now I am not sure that the game can HANDLE a high population in T4, especially if everyone enjoys the design and wants to RVR all day.  That is a big problem too.  What happens if people DO want to play the game the way you designed it and then the technical issues drain all the fun out of it?  Well, Shadowbane happens (yes I know they had other issues... but technical has to be near the top).  High pop just makes the techinical problems more visible.

I suppose time will tell... because I am living on an Outlier server where the news is mostly good and people ARE singing the praises of Tier 4, constantly encouraging the lower levels to keep pressing just to "get here and have fun".  I just hope Mythic can keep our server running when the hundreds of T2/3 people finally get to T4.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ashmodai on October 24, 2008, 08:12:28 AM
I suppose time will tell... because I am living on an Outlier server where the news is mostly good and people ARE singing the praises of Tier 4, constantly encouraging the lower levels to keep pressing just to "get here and have fun".  I just hope Mythic can keep our server running when the hundreds of T2/3 people finally get to T4.

T4 is terrible atm, it's a spam cc fest, and especially ruined by electromagnet/magnetic rift, which are possibly the two most ill-thought out abilities to ever be given to any classes in any MMO, ever.  I'd like to hear about contenders for that dubious honor if anyone disagrees with that statement, they might provide me with a few laughs.

http://files.filefront.com/Beam+Burn+Vol+3avi/;12044451;/fileinfo.html

This is T4 RvR.  If it doesn't make you laugh, at least a bit, you need a better sense of humor.  Destro's can do the same, of course, so RvR is a simple matter of who can do it first/better.  Or if one side lacks the ability, lol you are probably getting farmed (unless the other team sucks).  Any thoughts of strategic positioning, holding a line, any other tactics etc can immediately be abandoned when you start playing 32+.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Maladee on October 24, 2008, 08:13:03 AM

The biggest danger is that WoW will figure out an enjoyable Real World PvP system.  They have gone a long way to making Raiding guild friendly... if they can figure out how to do some decent guild-based PvP, well that would probably be a big pull to some of the WAR guilds.  The biggest thing keeping us with WAR is it is the only guild-friendly game out that has PvP and is not Spreadsheets in Space.

Is this really a "danger"?  I am going to play whichever of the games is most fun for me.  It's not about taking some sort of political stand against Blizzard.  If they can make a better product, great.

Have you guys seen this?

Original source:  http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/mythic-flattered-by-warcraft-s-imitation-combat (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/mythic-flattered-by-warcraft-s-imitation-combat)
Blizzad's latest move to introduce open world PVP combat to World of Warcraft is "absolutely a reaction to Warhammer," according to Mark Jacobs, CEO of Mythic.
Speaking to GamesIndustry.biz, Jacobs talked about the latest PVP features to be included in the World of Warcraft expansion, Wrath of the Lich King, many of which, he claims, are based on Warhammer Online.
"Oh absolutely," responded Jacobs, when asked if this was a move by Blizzard to position World of Warcraft against Warhammer Online. "I think imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."   


It's got to be mind-boggling to continue to "improve" a game without being making things cookie-cutter-esque and to use player feedback to "fix" things when the average player wants things fast-food style (exactly how you ordered it-- hot and immediately!).   

I'm not a fangurl by any means, but you have to give kudos to MJ (well, any frontman, really) for being willing to admit things are fucked up knowing that no matter what he does, people are going to bitch about it.    I'm a rather impatient and judgmental bitch at the best of times, but I'd rather see a change that doesn't work and know that it'll change again soon over seeing the ostrich method (read:"working as intended"), because at least you know they're paying attention.

If nothing else, I can always PvE in WoW and use WAR's PvP (flawed though it may be) to burn off the frustration of asstard carebears.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Vinadil on October 24, 2008, 08:18:06 AM
I suppose time will tell... because I am living on an Outlier server where the news is mostly good and people ARE singing the praises of Tier 4, constantly encouraging the lower levels to keep pressing just to "get here and have fun".  I just hope Mythic can keep our server running when the hundreds of T2/3 people finally get to T4.

T4 is terrible atm, it's a spam cc fest, and especially ruined by electromagnet/magnetic rift, which are possibly the two most ill-thought out abilities to ever be given to any classes in any MMO, ever.  I'd like to hear about contenders for that dubious honor if anyone disagrees with that statement, they might provide me with a few laughs.

http://files.filefront.com/Beam+Burn+Vol+3avi/;12044451;/fileinfo.html

This is T4 RvR.  If it doesn't make you laugh, at least a bit, you need a better sense of humor.  Destro's can do the same, of course, so RvR is a simple matter of who can do it first/better.  Or if one side lacks the ability, lol you are probably getting farmed (unless the other team sucks).

Eh, we don't have any problem with Magus pull... and our T4 engies have mostly specced OUT of Magnet because it is not the best line.  It is more a matter of having the right pieces in the right places.  Sure, if you have no tanks or healers then Magus + sorc will kill you.  Add in a couple tanks and healers who know what they are doing and Magus pull = dead magus, or Magus pull = "whoops we resisted and now all your sorcs are dead".  I have no problem with ANY of the current ability sets... just the lag associated with large amounts of people in the same space.  Lag ruins Strategy.  Strategy is what makes these games fun in the long-term.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ashmodai on October 24, 2008, 08:20:29 AM
Watch the movie, those 3 guys are actually doing it properly.  At the end, you get to watch 3 guys singlehandedly run in and take out about 50 people at a T4 keep siege, it's funny as hell.  If you don't think that's the "best line" for engineers, I have no idea what to tell you really, except that you're wrong, and your engineers are dumb.  I play an Engineer as my alt and there's nothing I have that can even remotely provide as much effect on the outcome of any battle as Electromagnet, heh what are you going to use instead, napalm grenade?  By 40 you can get both anyways I guess.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Vinadil on October 24, 2008, 08:24:38 AM
Well, quickly then, here is the thing.  My healing and damage spells outrange your Magnet.  So, if properly positioned I can heal the people you suck in, or stun/kill you before you get the chance.

Magnet looks powerful when you play against clueless people who are not working together.  It looks "handy" when you have a few groups fighting who know that it is there and what it can do.  On servers where people learn each others names, they also learn each others specs.  Then you see Magus' with Rift getting killed at range and people staying 65+ feet away from them.

Not saying it can't be powerful in certain situations... but game-breaking it is not.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ashmodai on October 24, 2008, 08:28:40 AM
Not saying it can't be powerful in certain situations... but game-breaking it is not.

The people getting sucked in are being mass killed in less than 8 seconds, the non-tanks caught in it vaporizing in less than 5.  I play a 40 archmage, I know what's healable, this is not.  I disagree that it's not game breaking, you play a ranged class (healer?), so do I, this is great, but this ability completely nullifies the idea of having a front line, tanks, medium-armor mdps (WL/mara), melee healers, etc.  It has effectively just clobbered any strategic positioning people might use and turned it into more of a RDPS fest than it already was, this game is already way, way too RDPS centric, this ability just completes the checkmate of melee oriented classes.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 24, 2008, 08:48:26 AM
T4 is terrible atm, it's a spam cc fest, and especially ruined by electromagnet/magnetic rift, which are possibly the two most ill-thought out abilities to ever be given to any classes in any MMO, ever.  I'd like to hear about contenders for that dubious honor if anyone disagrees with that statement, they might provide me with a few laughs.

Shadowbane had a class (Fury) that could fly and nuke from above without being in range of other classes. The range thing was allegedly a bug, but it lasted for a long time. It also had a class (Crusader) that could be trivially min-maxed to be practically unhittable and which could do a type of melee attack that ignored armor all the while self-healing the rare lucky critical hits. You could literally have a dozen people wail on you for 15 minutes while you killed them all. They did patch both to make them less overwhelmingly powerful - at a round the same time as they buffed another class (Channeler - a healer/mage hybrid that could both fly and stealth) into supremacy. If you enjoyed playing characters with ridiculous and broken abilities, Shadowbane was a great game.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 24, 2008, 08:52:50 AM
I'm not a fangurl by any means, but you have to give kudos to MJ (well, any frontman, really) for being willing to admit things are fucked up knowing that no matter what he does, people are going to bitch about it.    I'm a rather impatient and judgmental bitch at the best of times, but I'd rather see a change that doesn't work and know that it'll change again soon over seeing the ostrich method (read:"working as intended"), because at least you know they're paying attention.

See, if MJ (who, as Mythic's frontman / PR expert supremo gets the blame for everything) had been paying attention, WAR wouldn't have launched with a stack of obvious problems. A lot of good questions appear to have been asked in beta - what happens when the zones empty to the PQs and RvR? what is going to encourage RvR over scenarios? why is PvE so important in a PvP-oriented game? - to which the answer appeared to be "We'll wait and see what happens at launch".

The first month of WAR shouldn't have been a litany of "I'm so sorry! I'm so sorry!". The fact that the phrase "working as intended" hasn't appeared is because it sets everyone off in a bad mood - instead, we get "Wait for the next patch when stuff will change!". It sounds proactive, but when the thing you want to see doesn't change, you have to wonder if it is indeed working as intended...

Also, if MJ was paying attention, no-scenario servers wouldn't have made it off the whiteboard of wild ideas and into a poll that made it look like a serious option.

Finally: you won't be happy with a change that comes in and alters your game for the worse and then takes a while to get back to. If there is anything to know about MMO players, it is that they might dislike the current system, but they hate change even more (especially if it is made based on rushed design docs and a limited understanding of what is going on). Wait for the first set of changes to WAR's classes. The lambs, they will scream.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 24, 2008, 08:57:06 AM
Finally: you won't be happy with a change that comes in and alters your game for the worse and then takes a while to get back to. If there is anything to know about MMO players, it is that they might dislike the current system, but they hate change even more (especially if it is made based on rushed design docs and a limited understanding of what is going on). Wait for the first set of changes to WAR's classes. The lambs, they will scream.

No matter what you do, someone will scream.  That's the nature of MMO's.  I think that MJ needs to stop talking and just DO.  Implement changes as rapidly as it is feasible and employ a number of reliable testers to ensure that these releases pass muster before being shipped to the masses. 

The game was shipped too early and it's suffering for it.  Not much to do but look forward.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ashmodai on October 24, 2008, 09:01:12 AM
No matter what you do, someone will scream.  That's the nature of MMO's.  I think that MJ needs to stop talking and just DO.  Implement changes as rapidly as it is feasible and employ a number of reliable testers to ensure that these releases pass muster before being shipped to the masses. 

The game was shipped too early and it's suffering for it.  Not much to do but look forward.

This I agree with.  Especially the bolded part.  I know it's a live game, but there are a ton, really, a ton of game breaking problems with overall balance and playability.  Cherrypicking them off slowly a small patch at a time isn't the solution here, they need to be bold and implement fixes as fast as they possibly can, large patches that yes, might have the possibility of breaking things, but will have a far less detrimental effect on the player base who will realize they are actually trying to fix the game than doing nothing or more carefully implementing changes more slowly. 

There's just way too much to fix to do what most developers do, which is slowly hack away at the problems with weekly patches that address 1-2 major issues each, when the game has a laundry list of 20, 30+ or how many ever major problems that need addressing.  Doing that leads to subscribers trickling away, which leads to lower populations, which introduces a whole new set of issues, and the loss of players just snowballs into more loss of players.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 24, 2008, 09:06:15 AM
Finally: you won't be happy with a change that comes in and alters your game for the worse and then takes a while to get back to. If there is anything to know about MMO players, it is that they might dislike the current system, but they hate change even more (especially if it is made based on rushed design docs and a limited understanding of what is going on). Wait for the first set of changes to WAR's classes. The lambs, they will scream.

No matter what you do, someone will scream.  That's the nature of MMO's.  I think that MJ needs to stop talking and just DO.  Implement changes as rapidly as it is feasible and employ a number of reliable testers to ensure that these releases pass muster before being shipped to the masses. 

The game was shipped too early and it's suffering for it.  Not much to do but look forward.

I know. But I was talking about the "change it even if it is wrong, because then you can change it again" line of thinking of Maladee. Talk of paying for beta will come up a lot if that is Mythic's patching and class design strategy.

But what are the options?

 - Nerf Bright Wizards. Ouch. Order takes a big hit.

 - Nerf some of the more overpowered abilities out there (Witch Elves' moving damage one, the rifts, etc). More unhappy players.

 - Buff the ranged DPS (Shadow Warrior / Squig Herder) which are seen as underperformers.

I'm sure there are others. But the patch notes that list these changes are going to see the unofficial forums go into absolute meltdown (here included). If RvR / PvP doesn't come along as a big saviour at the same time as the classes get changed, players will wonder why they should keep the sub going.

I've got no idea who would be testing the changes, either. Or how to get them properly tested at each tier before they go live, given that was Mythic's big failing before when they had a lot more people and a lot more resources to devote just to testing.

EDIT for Ashmodai: Sorry, but I disagree. A large, rapidly tested patch launched onto live has the possibility of putting in game breaking bugs into WAR that will drive players off much quicker. It would be better for Mythic to target some problems with precision than throwing everything against the wall and hoping everything lands on target. Players trickling away is better than mass cancellations.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 24, 2008, 09:14:46 AM
EDIT for Ashmodai: Sorry, but I disagree. A large, rapidly tested patch launched onto live has the possibility of putting in game breaking bugs into WAR that will drive players off much quicker. It would be better for Mythic to target some problems with precision than throwing everything against the wall and hoping everything lands on target. Players trickling away is better than mass cancellations.

Excellent point here.  Strongest case would be class balance.  Rushing out some changes seems logical (xp/reknown incentives, new items, etc).  Rushing aspects requiring much deeper evaluation (i.e. class balance) would be foolish. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: khaine on October 24, 2008, 09:18:40 AM
Oh come on , surely we'd all like to see two patches a week a'la Funcom style ,

(dear god , did no one at that company think that might not be such a good idea )

Anyway , I'm all for testing and not putting in broken patches , but put LARGER bandaids in the meantime , make all open RvR xps x5 or x10 even , make all PVE kills x3 or x4 - maybe extra PVE xps for kills inside RvR areas



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ashmodai on October 24, 2008, 09:22:12 AM
I know. But I was talking about the "change it even if it is wrong, because then you can change it again" line of thinking of Maladee. Talk of paying for beta will come up a lot if that is Mythic's patching and class design strategy.

But what are the options?

 - Nerf Bright Wizards. Ouch. Order takes a big hit.

 - Nerf some of the more overpowered abilities out there (Witch Elves' moving damage one, the rifts, etc). More unhappy players.

 - Buff the ranged DPS (Shadow Warrior / Squig Herder) which are seen as underperformers.

I'm sure there are others. But the patch notes that list these changes are going to see the unofficial forums go into absolute meltdown (here included). If RvR / PvP doesn't come along as a big saviour at the same time as the classes get changed, players will wonder why they should keep the sub going.

EDIT for Ashmodai: Sorry, but I disagree. A large, rapidly tested patch launched onto live has the possibility of putting in game breaking bugs into WAR that will drive players off much quicker. It would be better for Mythic to target some problems with precision than throwing everything against the wall and hoping everything lands on target. Players trickling away is better than mass cancellations.

It's not just the BWs.  All damage in T4 is too high, overall, from the primary DPS classes (sorc, bw, wh, we).  Buffing the other classes to match this output would just mean more instagibbing than we already have, when the TTK is already absurdly low given the fact that Mythic clearly stated that they were aiming at a medium to high (I consider 10 seconds reasonable, 2 is not) TTK, this is pretty much what the game has until T4, where it takes a sudden turn towards instagibbing.  Everything in T4 is exaggerated, from CC (rift/magnet, embrace, fetch, every single ranged class getting the same 5sec silence at 35..) to damage.

Large scale RvR will never come so long as there are abilities like electromagnet.  Go watch that video, 3 people are able to wipe out 2 full warbands, granted the defenders could have acted more quickly to prevent it but it should never even be considered that 3 players approaching could mean the death of the entire invading force because of 2 abilities.  It makes no sense - the fun 'wars' that we seek to reenact are battles of attrition where the other side overpowers the other through superior military might and tactics, one could compare it to going to war with a nuclear capable country, noone is going to want to go to war with someone who can drop nukes, EM/Rift+AOE are the equivalent of nukes.  You can try to deflect them with ICBMs (stuns/silence/kb) but if one manages to land, lol gg.

Finally, I think that there are enough game breaking problems in the game that the possibility of introducing more for a brief period of time is a negligable concern compared to leaving the game broken too long.  Players trickling away is devastating, none of the games I've played that have failed recently have had mass cancellations (that I could see), it was a slow decline in population until one day you turn around and go wow.. where did everyone go?  And cancel yourself.  Adding incentives to open RvR is great, but when the endgame is nigh unplayable people aren't going to RvR no matter how many carrots you dangle in front of them (okay, so that's not true, a 1000% bonus would probably get everyone out there, but the point stands).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 24, 2008, 09:24:56 AM
Lowering dps isn't the solution.  You nerf dps by raising resistances and increasing hps.

Same effect with one being more acceptible than the other to the unwashed masses. 
 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ashmodai on October 24, 2008, 09:27:40 AM
Lowering dps isn't the solution.  You nerf dps by raising resistances and increasing hps.

Same effect with one being more acceptible than the other to the unwashed masses. 
 

Well, if resistances go up, incoming damage per second goes down, so yeah, I agree with you - same effect.  I was just trying to covey that buffing the weaker classes to the level of the stronger ones in a vacuum absent of any other changes would be a cure worse than the disease.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Maladee on October 24, 2008, 09:34:23 AM
No matter what you do, someone will scream.  That's the nature of MMO's.  I think that MJ needs to stop talking and just DO.  Implement changes as rapidly as it is feasible and employ a number of reliable testers to ensure that these releases pass muster before being shipped to the masses. 

The game was shipped too early and it's suffering for it.  Not much to do but look forward.

This I agree with.  Especially the bolded part.  I know it's a live game, but there are a ton, really, a ton of game breaking problems with overall balance and playability.  Cherrypicking them off slowly a small patch at a time isn't the solution here, they need to be bold and implement fixes as fast as they possibly can, large patches that yes, might have the possibility of breaking things, but will have a far less detrimental effect on the player base who will realize they are actually trying to fix the game than doing nothing or more carefully implementing changes more slowly. 

There's just way too much to fix to do what most developers do, which is slowly hack away at the problems with weekly patches that address 1-2 major issues each, when the game has a laundry list of 20, 30+ or how many ever major problems that need addressing.  Doing that leads to subscribers trickling away, which leads to lower populations, which introduces a whole new set of issues, and the loss of players just snowballs into more loss of players.


This.

 (I knew if I waited long enough, someone would say what I was thinking so it made more sense than the spastic muddle I was trying to verbalize!)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on October 24, 2008, 09:50:54 AM
T4 is terrible atm, it's a spam cc fest, and especially ruined by electromagnet/magnetic rift, which are possibly the two most ill-thought out abilities to ever be given to any classes in any MMO, ever.  I'd like to hear about contenders for that dubious honor if anyone disagrees with that statement, they might provide me with a few laughs.

Doc buffs and Debuffs in SWG. Oh Snap, we have WAR and SWG in one thread. Lets watch it hit 200 pages.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 24, 2008, 10:07:38 AM
Doc buffs and Debuffs in SWG. Oh Snap, we have WAR and SWG in one thread. Lets watch it hit 200 pages.

First person to mention NGE or collision detection "gets it".   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ashmodai on October 24, 2008, 10:10:12 AM
Doc buffs and Debuffs in SWG. Oh Snap, we have WAR and SWG in one thread. Lets watch it hit 200 pages.

A strong contender I concede you that, sir.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 24, 2008, 10:31:57 AM
It's only missing one thing...

Quote from: MarkJacobs
except thatEA wanted to shut down UO when they gave it to us

I bet that would have happened a long time ago if it weren't for wonderful glorious TRAMMEL!

 :drill:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ard on October 24, 2008, 10:33:13 AM
Doc buffs and Debuffs in SWG. Oh Snap, we have WAR and SWG in one thread. Lets watch it hit 200 pages.

First person to mention NGE or collision detection "gets it".   :why_so_serious:

NGE was rad
Collision detection... ugh
I tried, Burma Shave


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 24, 2008, 10:34:42 AM
It's only missing one thing...

Quote from: MarkJacobs
except thatEA wanted to shut down UO when they gave it to us

I bet that would have happened a long time ago if it weren't for wonderful glorious TRAMMEL!

 :drill:

:hello_thar: HAY GUYZ WHATS GOIN ON N HERE?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 24, 2008, 10:34:58 AM
State of the game? I think the other thread just sealed the deal:

It's in the shitter (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=15076.0).


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: lac on October 24, 2008, 10:38:49 AM
(http://media.bigoo.ws/content/smile/party/party_10.gif)Mark Jacobs(http://media.bigoo.ws/content/smile/party/party_10.gif)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Soln on October 24, 2008, 10:46:59 AM
can we at least add (http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/images/smilies/buttlick.gif) to the gallery for something good to have come out of this?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slayerik on October 24, 2008, 11:18:18 AM
don't be an asshat


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Seanzor on October 24, 2008, 11:20:09 AM
The Great American Novel

You should steal that and get it published, you'll never have to work another day in your life.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 24, 2008, 12:42:50 PM
First person to mention NGE or collision detection "gets it".   :why_so_serious:
So the second person is safe? :drillf:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Thorgald on October 24, 2008, 12:55:34 PM
Not making exceptions even if I agree. Sorry, read the stickies.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Goreschach on October 24, 2008, 04:26:33 PM
can we at least add (http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/images/smilies/buttlick.gif) to the gallery for something good to have come out of this?


This needs to happen. Something must come of all the golden thread/new religion shitola from the first couple pages.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Simond on October 24, 2008, 04:41:41 PM
It's only missing one thing...

Quote from: MarkJacobs
except thatEA wanted to shut down UO when they gave it to us

I bet that would have happened a long time ago if it weren't for wonderful glorious TRAMMEL!

 :drill:
Needs more crazy population graphs.
And SirBruce.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: fefner on October 25, 2008, 03:49:44 AM
Try a line break some time.

Also, starfucking.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: M194 on October 25, 2008, 08:32:02 AM
Don't post, don't read, but here's some info.

/boggle


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Slyfeind on October 25, 2008, 08:49:58 AM
Ah damn, after moving this to the Graveyard, it looked like it turned away the freaks.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: khaine on October 25, 2008, 09:13:58 AM
"Hey, guys.  I'm not a forum poster here, not even a forum reader here."


Has there been a better first line for a first post ? I mean if that doesn't snag you and make you realize how insightful and intelligent of a post is likely to follow after that statement I'm not sure what will



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 25, 2008, 09:22:44 AM
If you would like proof that Mark is wise about this, I offer my own preferences as testimony.

Que?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Maladee on October 25, 2008, 09:43:40 AM
Hey, guys.  I'm not a forum poster here, not even a forum reader here.  I am here because someone pointed this whole discussion out to me - but other than that, I'm just a player of Warhammer Online.

If you would like proof that Mark is wise about this, I offer my own preferences as testimony. I'm still going to prefer scenarios to open RVR due to time restraints in my life and how long I'm able to play WAR in each sitting.

I don't really have anything else to say because most of the posts above are from less than a handful of gamers and, to Mark, I don't know why you'd reply to these kinds of posts.

Glad to see you appreciate feedback and care for the community - but you, yourself, said "way off base" therefore - let it go.  Do your job and expect people to be unhappy.  These guys didn't Design Warhammer, don't let these guys Change Warhammer.


Huh?  After I was finished giggling to myself about the ego, I tried to figure out if I perhaps misread this post...then I gave up and giggled more.  So what I'm seeing is that nothing should change because the people who complain didn't design the game?  In the reality where I live, the players are also the payers!  Ipso facto, paying attention to what they think and *gasp* making changes keeps them playing and therefore pays those who design the game!

Even if I agreed with you wholeheartedly on this one, I'd still think you needed to go back and rethink your line of reasoning. 



By the way...how many gamers DOES it take to make a handful?   :tinfoil:






Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 25, 2008, 09:53:11 AM

By the way...how many gamers DOES it take to make a handful?   :tinfoil:


Male :drill: or female  :drillf: ?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 25, 2008, 10:03:41 AM
A retarded Warhammer noob being flamed by a seemingly not-retarded one. Hmm.

I'm really starting to think the boat was missed in just culling all the retarded ones. I think Schild & Co. should have made them all fight it out in some sort of gladiatorial pit. Maybe the field could have been winnowed down until only one remained, a sort of idiot-champion of the great "Mark Jacobs look at MEEEE!" invasion of '08. Then they could go up against Grunk, AW, and maybe that "heavy hitters" guy in a four-way cage match of doom.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Maladee on October 25, 2008, 10:08:24 AM

By the way...how many gamers DOES it take to make a handful?   :tinfoil:


Male :drill: or female  :drillf: ?


One should assume that all pixels are male until proven otherwise!  The pie is a lie!...or something.   :drillf:  (should I say "teehee" or something?) :hello_kitty_2:


@WUA:  As a perma-noob, I think hair-pulling is key to a successful fight.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nevermore on October 25, 2008, 10:15:36 AM
A retarded Warhammer noob being flamed by a seemingly not-retarded one. Hmm.

I'm really starting to think the boat was missed in just culling all the retarded ones. I think Schild & Co. should have made them all fight it out in some sort of gladiatorial pit. Maybe the field could have been winnowed down until only one remained, a sort of idiot-champion of the great "Mark Jacobs look at MEEEE!" invasion of '08. Then they could go up against Grunk, AW, and maybe that "heavy hitters" guy in a four-way cage match of doom.

Two noobs enter, one noob leaves!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: lac on October 25, 2008, 01:23:29 PM
This will be the biggest graveyard thread ever, won't it :ye_gods:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 25, 2008, 01:29:00 PM
This will be the biggest graveyard thread ever, won't it :ye_gods:

Please. This one has a looong (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=6860.0) way (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=6346.0) to go.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: mol on October 25, 2008, 02:20:18 PM
A retarded Warhammer noob being flamed by a seemingly not-retarded one. Hmm.

I'm really starting to think the boat was missed in just culling all the retarded ones. I think Schild & Co. should have made them all fight it out in some sort of gladiatorial pit. Maybe the field could have been winnowed down until only one remained, a sort of idiot-champion of the great "Mark Jacobs look at MEEEE!" invasion of '08. Then they could go up against Grunk, AW, and maybe that "heavy hitters" guy in a four-way cage match of doom.

Too homoerotic.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 25, 2008, 09:45:37 PM
A retarded Warhammer noob being flamed by a seemingly not-retarded one. Hmm.

I'm really starting to think the boat was missed in just culling all the retarded ones. I think Schild & Co. should have made them all fight it out in some sort of gladiatorial pit. Maybe the field could have been winnowed down until only one remained, a sort of idiot-champion of the great "Mark Jacobs look at MEEEE!" invasion of '08. Then they could go up against Grunk, AW, and maybe that "heavy hitters" guy in a four-way cage match of doom.

I'm happy how things have turned out - lots of amusement and some of the new blood might be interesting if they hang around. F13 is better off not being the cranky old men and women of the internet all the time.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Meldrath on October 26, 2008, 02:07:23 AM
What the hell was this? Some sort of semi-roleplaying?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: mol on October 26, 2008, 09:05:00 PM
What the hell was this? Some sort of semi-roleplaying?

As one of the new people I just want to disclose that I am both cranky, and old.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 26, 2008, 09:09:04 PM
Someone made an RP post on f13 and you DELETED it? You should have denned it so we could all see.  :cry:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fabricated on October 26, 2008, 09:18:33 PM
Someone made an RP post on f13 and you DELETED it? You should have denned it so we could all see.  :cry:
That's just how we roll.

*puts on sunglasses, rides motorcycle out of thread*


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 26, 2008, 10:30:21 PM
What the hell was this? Some sort of semi-roleplaying?

As one of the new people I just want to disclose that I am both cranky, and old.

... and not used to quoting the correct posts on this forum.  :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: postaler on October 27, 2008, 11:32:09 AM
no


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Gurney on October 27, 2008, 12:25:15 PM
What the hell was this? Some sort of semi-roleplaying?

As one of the new people I just want to disclose that I am both cranky, and old.

... and not used to quoting the correct posts on this forum.  :grin:

That is the senility setting in.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Zupa on October 27, 2008, 08:46:56 PM
So... the weekend has been and gone.

Monday morning meetings have surely happened.

Has anyone seen any more crazy posts from MJ?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Herring on October 27, 2008, 10:20:06 PM
So... the weekend has been and gone.

Monday morning meetings have surely happened.

Has anyone seen any more crazy posts from MJ?

I was wrong about the drunken midnight posts, and for that I am sorry.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Snok on October 27, 2008, 10:44:42 PM
I know on my server RvR has died because the zones are so goddamn impossible to flip, it turned into musical bases for a while and now people seem to have lost interest in even that.  If you want to restrict access to the cities more fine but allow the middle zones to be easier to flip back and forth and have the second level zones be the ones that take a major concerted effort from most of the server.  Then we get more than the base 2 keeps/4 BO's per zone and people would be more interested in RvR.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: BitWarrior on October 27, 2008, 10:50:57 PM
I know on my server RvR has died because the zones are so goddamn impossible to flip, it turned into musical bases for a while and now people seem to have lost interest in even that.  If you want to restrict access to the cities more fine but allow the middle zones to be easier to flip back and forth and have the second level zones be the ones that take a major concerted effort from most of the server.  Then we get more than the base 2 keeps/4 BO's per zone and people would be more interested in RvR.  :awesome_for_real:

From what I understand (and this is an outside-looking-in perspective as I've unfortunately canceled my account), the RvR zone control mechanic has been disabled in a response to bugs being revealed which allowed all too easy zone capture.

Of course, I could entirely be wrong, but browsing over 3 forums, this appears to be both a) commonplace and b) not entirely intended or intuitive.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Pringles on October 27, 2008, 11:01:28 PM
Its still enabled, its just that poorly implemented.

It works, but you gotta do a lot of PVE to push it or be on the more populated side.

Population = Winner in the VP system.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Snok on October 27, 2008, 11:24:19 PM
Its still enabled, its just that poorly implemented.

It works, but you gotta do a lot of PVE to push it or be on the more populated side.

Population = Winner in the VP system.
Well we had about 50-100 people in praag tonight rolling every PQ, qued up for the scenario and trolling for any destruciton to enter the zone for a couple hours and the bar actually moved backwards....   :uhrr:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 28, 2008, 12:45:45 AM
Its still enabled, its just that poorly implemented.

It works, but you gotta do a lot of PVE to push it or be on the more populated side.

Population = Winner in the VP system.
Well we had about 50-100 people in praag tonight rolling every PQ, qued up for the scenario and trolling for any destruciton to enter the zone for a couple hours and the bar actually moved backwards....   :uhrr:

The only way to win is not to play.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 28, 2008, 03:17:59 AM
I think they should pull the game from the shelves and shut down the servers for 3-6 months, at least until they fix the worst problems.  Force merge the populations, give everyone 30 days extra, then relaunch the game.  At the minute they are playing catch up, failing badly at it and the worst problems are snowballing so fast it's rapidly moving towards hilarious.

As a small example, I'm trying to think of a more badly designed class ability than encouraging the Magus/Engineer classes to suck everyone to a single point, end result, mass death in a few seconds.  Who thought that was a good idea?  The whole pvp game T1-T3 is based on positional combat.  It's like teaching people to play chess for a day, then redesigning the board to a single square in the afternoon, before breaking out the dice and combat tables.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Kail on October 28, 2008, 03:34:17 AM
I think they should pull the game from the shelves and shut down the servers for 3-6 months, at least until they fix the worst problems.  Force merge the populations, give everyone 30 days extra, then relaunch the game.  At the minute they are playing catch up, failing badly at it and the worst problems are snowballing so fast it's rapidly moving towards hilarious.

As a small example, I'm trying to think of a more badly designed class ability than encouraging the Magus/Engineer classes to suck everyone to a single point, end result, mass death in a few seconds.  Who thought that was a good idea?  The whole pvp game T1-T3 is based on positional combat.  It's like teaching people to play chess for a day, then redesigning the board to a single square in the afternoon, before breaking out the dice and combat tables.

I don't know that this would require 3-6 months to fix.  The technical issues, I could see taking that kind of time (though obviously I can't see them closing down for that), but most of the things people are bitching about don't seem like they should require a radical redesign of the game.  Grind in T3 is bad, so reduce T3 levelling XP.  ORvR XP is bad, so augment it.  Magnetism and Rift are annoying, so nerf them.  These are small issues, we're talking about changing a few numbers, not giving Witch Elves a third arm so they can Triple Wield or something.  They should be able to be fixed fast.

That's why this is so maddening.  It's not like the game is bad, I think it's a lot of fun.  But there's a handful of little things which nag at it, like a thorn in the foot, every step, nag nag nag, and you'd think it would be easy to fix it, but they haven't done it yet.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Pringles on October 28, 2008, 03:37:28 AM
Sadly, from what I understand, magnets were an 11th hour addition that was never really play tested for more than a couple days, if at all.  A way to perk up the classes.
One of the main reasons why I canceled my sub, as it was I was willing to put most minor things behind me.

I dunno that I would honestly even consider resubbing if they were simply "nerfed".  I really think they should just be /axed, and now that I've stopped playing for a bit I see that there are far more problems than I was truly noticing when in my "playing bliss".


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 28, 2008, 03:51:30 AM
I don't know that this would require 3-6 months to fix.  The technical issues, I could see taking that kind of time (though obviously I can't see them closing down for that), but most of the things people are bitching about don't seem like they should require a radical redesign of the game.  Grind in T3 is bad, so reduce T3 levelling XP.  ORvR XP is bad, so augment it.  Magnetism and Rift are annoying, so nerf them.  These are small issues, we're talking about changing a few numbers, not giving Witch Elves a third arm so they can Triple Wield or something.  They should be able to be fixed fast.

That's why this is so maddening.  It's not like the game is bad, I think it's a lot of fun.  But there's a handful of little things which nag at it, like a thorn in the foot, every step, nag nag nag, and you'd think it would be easy to fix it, but they haven't done it yet.

From Mark's earlier comments, he's very worried about annoying players with major changes, but at this point in time they need major changes fast.  They just aren't going to be able to fix T1-T3 ORVR now, it's going to take nothing short of a nuke to get players out of scenarios because Mythic have taught all the players to stay in scenarios.

Don't get me wrong, I think there's zero chance of them pulling the game from release for a few months, but I don't see the current problems, combined with their obvious fear of making any real changes, as "small issues".  How about, 3k exp for a keep lord?  That's not a minor design change, that's highlighting the fact that you don't play your own game post T2.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on October 28, 2008, 04:20:53 AM
I think they should pull the game from the shelves and shut down the servers for 3-6 months, at least until they fix the worst problems.  Force merge the populations, give everyone 30 days extra, then relaunch the game.  At the minute they are playing catch up, failing badly at it and the worst problems are snowballing so fast it's rapidly moving towards hilarious.
They aren't going to shut it down. Their best hope is to bring in somebody who really understands how to make zone RvR "fun" (it can be somebody already there at Mythic but is not a lead) and have them do an EQ II and rework that part of the game for the next year before Blizzard has a chance to perfect their zone RvR. Despite the fact that Mark constantly touts their RvR game design experience (with DAoC it was their MUD experience, with WAR it's their DAoC experience) that hasn't helped them with this game. They need some new thinking over there.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Pringles on October 28, 2008, 04:24:20 AM
How about, 3k exp for a keep lord?  That's not a minor design change, that's highlighting the fact that you don't play your own game post T2.

I really, at this point, don't think any of them play their game.

It will be interesting to see what the next press release/posts whatever that comes out of EA-Mythic says.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 28, 2008, 05:01:54 AM
It will be interesting to see what the next press release/posts whatever that comes out of EA-Mythic says.

This is why I'm still hanging around - I can't wait to see the next PR exercise from Mythic. My bet the next excitement will be the class changes attached to 1.1, but Jacobs might do a blog at any time that provides some entertainment.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: khaine on October 28, 2008, 06:06:38 AM
It will be interesting to see what the next press release/posts whatever that comes out of EA-Mythic says.

This is why I'm still hanging around - I can't wait to see the next PR exercise from Mythic. My bet the next excitement will be the class changes attached to 1.1, but Jacobs might do a blog at any time that provides some entertainment.


I'm beginning to think they are in full head-in-the-sand stage , and won't be admitting anything population/sales related in any negative way

At this point I expect outright lies from EA/Mythic/MJ about the health of the game , there are too many statements he's made in the past about how to judge success that trap him right now , going by his measurements of "are you still opening servers 6 weeks to 6 months after launch", it is turning into an abysmal failure

And I dont see them admitting even slightly they are losing subs/not selling well anymore even with all evidence pointing to it

The only statements I think he will make will be "look at 1.1 , look at 1.1 it's coming , it's on the way ," just to delay for another 6-8 weeks the reality of the situation , that 1.1 might be great , but good chance half the players wont be around by then

And how many who leave will bother coming back ?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 28, 2008, 06:34:07 AM
UK PC CD Games (Full Price) (http://www.elspa.com/?c=/charts/uk.jsp&ct=27)
Week ending Oct 25, 2008

Quote
10th place Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (6th place last week)

The last week for WAR in top ten?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 28, 2008, 06:59:20 AM
When Jacobs said WAR needed 500k subs to be successful, I said the following.

Quote
Regardless of the truth of the matter, you don't say shit like that out loud.  Now if it does 450k, instead of people saying "Well that's not a WoW killer, but it's solid" they'll say it's an official Jacobs-certified failure.  And that perception wouldn't help turn things around.

Followed by everyone telling me I was dumb, Schild saying 500k would be a cakewalk, Lum predicting it would break a million, yadda yadda yadda.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 28, 2008, 07:07:35 AM
To be fair WUA, they had the audience by the end of the first week. Now, the continuous string of idiotic post-launch announced stupidity drove them under it, and short of totally following the history of the genre, I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. That at some point, MMOG designers stop making dumb, dumb, dumb decisions. It turns out I was wrong and the genre is still full of back-pedaling stupid. In a rare moment of optimism, I assumed that Mark wouldn't go down the road he went down. Whoops. To be sure though, it's not that players turned their back on WAR, it's that Mark turned his back on the players. Mythic is fucked, for real, and probably has no sizable faith among the playerbase anymore, but me saying it was a cakewalk - well, I'll stand by that. In a remotely sane world, it SHOULD'VE been, he had to go out of his way to fuck that up.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: BitWarrior on October 28, 2008, 07:17:22 AM
Despite the fact that Mark constantly touts their RvR game design experience (with DAoC it was their MUD experience, with WAR it's their DAoC experience) that hasn't helped them with this game. They need some new thinking over there.

This was the first game I've played from Mythic, and if no one had ever mentioned DAoC before to me, I would have assumed this was their first game with any RvR.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: trias_e on October 28, 2008, 07:18:36 AM
Quote
To be fair WUA, they had the audience by the end of the first week. Now, the continuous string of idiotic post-launch announced stupidity drove them under it, and short of totally following the history of the genre, I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. That at some point, MMOG designers stop making dumb, dumb, dumb decisions. It turns out I was wrong and the genre is still full of back-pedaling stupid. In a rare moment of optimism, I assumed that Mark wouldn't go down the road he went down. Whoops. To be sure though, it's not that players turned their back on WAR, it's that Mark turned his back on the players. Mythic is fucked, for real, and probably has no sizable faith among the playerbase anymore, but me saying it was a cakewalk - well, I'll stand by that. In a remotely sane world, it SHOULD'VE been, he had to go out of his way to fuck that up.

It definitely started off as robot jesus.  For myself after the first month I had 3 and a half days of playtime...to compare, in AOC I had 18 hours.  That's how fun it was.  I was catassing for the first time in years.

I'm actually still playing it, just on the highest populated current server (skull throne).  The game is still pretty fun when people are around, at least in the first few tiers.  I'm just not thinking about the end game at this point.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: khaine on October 28, 2008, 07:21:21 AM
So what's worse , Mcquaid and his antics dooming the game well prior to launch , or MJ/Mythic taking a reasonable game at launch and making every possible decision that could kill it post launch ?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Modern Angel on October 28, 2008, 07:21:55 AM
Totally what schild said. Fuck, up until a week and a half ago or so I was still in love with it. I still maintain, and will likely always maintain, that 1-20 was the best MMO experience of my life. It was FUN. It should be in second place. But, fuck... man, that grind. And then the PvE cockblock for the sieges.

Write this in stone: YOU CANNOT BEAT WOW AT PVE. THEY HAVE BETTER SCRIPTERS THAN YOU. IF THOSE SCRIPTERS AND DESIGNERS LEAVE, THEY WILL BUY YOURS WITH THEIR BENEFITS PACKAGE ALONE. DO NOT FUCK UP AND TRY TO COMPETE WITH THEM ON THEIR TERMS. ALSO, THEY ARE LOWERING THEIR BARRIER TO ENTRY EVERY FEW MONTHS SO DO NOT RAISE YOURS HIGHER THAN THEIRS.

All they had to do was offer an alternate, PvP based progression. Keep it fast and furious. Instead they did exactly the opposite of what they should have. I mean the exact, polar opposite. Motherfuckers point to magnetic wrong with these decisions.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on October 28, 2008, 07:22:24 AM
To be fair WUA, they had the audience by the end of the first week. Now, the continuous string of idiotic post-launch announced stupidity drove them under it, and short of totally following the history of the genre, I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. That at some point, MMOG designers stop making dumb, dumb, dumb decisions. It turns out I was wrong and the genre is still full of back-pedaling stupid. In a rare moment of optimism, I assumed that Mark wouldn't go down the road he went down. Whoops. To be sure though, it's not that players turned their back on WAR, it's that Mark turned his back on the players. Mythic is fucked, for real, and probably has no sizable faith among the playerbase anymore, but me saying it was a cakewalk - well, I'll stand by that. In a remotely sane world, it SHOULD'VE been, he had to go out of his way to fuck that up.
There's no back-pedaling here. Mythic's been stumbling around with the design from the beginning. Simple example. We discussed the lack of incentives to do zone RvR and to capture and hold BOs back in April and I'm sure others that were in the Beta earlier than us brought it up as well. What did they do to try and fix that problem in the 5 months before launch? Diddly squat. They just don't get it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: trias_e on October 28, 2008, 07:24:40 AM
Quote
This was the first game I've played from Mythic, and if no one had ever mentioned DAoC before to me, I would have assumed this was their first game with any RvR.

The biggest problem in my opinion is that DAOC players just RvR because that's what DAOC players do.  First, they took that from DAOC and assumed players would just do it in WAR.  Of course, how they didn't see the whole leveling through PvP thing being totally imbalanced in favor of scenarios being a problem is baffling.  Then to back it up, they didn't have to incentivize (yay for made up words) RvR in beta because they had a bunch of ex-DAOC players who did it anyways, so everything was A-OK!  I wasn't in beta, but this is what I've heard.  

But it doesn't really matter.  If this game actually leveled up people fast enough to ignore the fact that open RvR is totally pointless in the first three tiers, and focused on fixing all tier 4 RvR issues to the exclusion of all else, it could still be doing quite well.  They didn't make any changes such as that, so welcome to 250k subs.  Moving slow and in the wrong direction: Obvious fail boat, time to jump off.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Venkman on October 28, 2008, 07:25:31 AM
There's no back-pedaling here. Mythic's been stumbling around with the design from the beginning. Simple example. We discussed the lack of incentives to do zone RvR and to capture and hold BOs back in April and I'm sure others that were in the Beta earlier than us brought it up as well. What did they do to try and fix that problem in the 5 months before launch? Diddly squat. They just don't get it.

This.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Gurney on October 28, 2008, 08:06:09 AM
There's no back-pedaling here. Mythic's been stumbling around with the design from the beginning. Simple example. We discussed the lack of incentives to do zone RvR and to capture and hold BOs back in April and I'm sure others that were in the Beta earlier than us brought it up as well. What did they do to try and fix that problem in the 5 months before launch? Diddly squat. They just don't get it.

This.

That is the conclusion I came to and when I did so I lost most desire to keep playing.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: BitWarrior on October 28, 2008, 08:16:14 AM
There's no back-pedaling here. Mythic's been stumbling around with the design from the beginning. Simple example. We discussed the lack of incentives to do zone RvR and to capture and hold BOs back in April and I'm sure others that were in the Beta earlier than us brought it up as well. What did they do to try and fix that problem in the 5 months before launch? Diddly squat. They just don't get it.

Out of curiosity, in the beta forums when players mentioned this (assuming you were in the beta), did Mythic say they'd make changes (and then did not)? Or did they say they had wonderful plans to incentivize the RvR just before launch? Or perhaps did they just ignore the comment altogether?

Just looking for some insight into their mindset.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on October 28, 2008, 08:39:47 AM
There's no back-pedaling here. Mythic's been stumbling around with the design from the beginning. Simple example. We discussed the lack of incentives to do zone RvR and to capture and hold BOs back in April and I'm sure others that were in the Beta earlier than us brought it up as well. What did they do to try and fix that problem in the 5 months before launch? Diddly squat. They just don't get it.

This.

What really gets me is how a number of very basic design issues were either ignored, or glossed over, or overlooked. Such as:

 - how do players do PQs when the population in the area is low?

 - what happens if there is a realm population imbalance? How do we address this if it happens?

 - what encourages players to try out RvR?

 - have we matched the size of our world with the number of players our servers can support? Player numbers will be split by a minimum of 2 (Order / Destro) on the same server for the majority of time played.

And so on. It seems that a "wait and see" policy was taken for a number of these issues, which just strikes me as weak design.

Ironically, if WAR had launched with less content (such as, say, no playable HE vs DE area) the game would be more successful because players would have fewer places to go.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 28, 2008, 09:05:10 AM
Ironically, if WAR had launched with less content (such as, say, no playable HE vs DE area) the game would be more successful because players would have fewer places to go.

I'm not sure that this is a logical conclusion.  Players want to feel as though they have many options.  The goal of the developers is to channel players with incentives.  If players don't care about incentives, they can do other things and feel like a maverick doing it (everyone else is doing the thing the devs pointed them toward for efficiency or some carrot).  I will agree that Mythic spent a lot of time creating content rather than making content based on sound foundational decision making.  It's like putting chocolate sprinkles on an omlette.  It's extra stuff, but not the extra stuff people want.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on October 28, 2008, 09:07:23 AM
While I agree with the idea that less space would've been better, I don't agree that the area number should have decreased. There simply should've been less RvR zones and scenarios per tier to funnel people in. Maybe 1 major RvR zone at each tier, on one of the lands and then a final showdown in the praag/chaos wastes sections. As it stands, it's like fighting a 12 front war with 200 people and that's a goddamn joke.

tl;dr areas too big, too many rvr zones, bad design for zones in general


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Snok on October 28, 2008, 09:08:45 AM
Quote
Ironically, if WAR had launched with less content (such as, say, no playable HE vs DE area) the game would be more successful because players would have fewer places to go.
I'd be fine with taking the Elf areas out.  They are so fragmented and pieced together, they're terrible to quest in and even worse to RvR in, T3 being the exception.  Actually there's a friggin brilliant idea in there somewhere.  

What if they locked all then RvR zones & scenarios except for the one, sort of the battle front idea.  Maybe each day they cycle to a new pairing.  That way everyone is focued in one area and you can lower the number of points required to flip a zone since people would only be able to flip one zone per night, and the opposite side would have a chance to fight back the next night. That plus take all the gear only available in PvE and put it in the keep lords of the second zones and the fortresses and presto people are sufficiently concentrated & motivated to RvR all day long!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on October 28, 2008, 09:11:35 AM
What really gets me is how a number of very basic design issues were either ignored, or glossed over, or overlooked. Such as:
Part of their problem was that the basic game play/game mechanics were in shocking bad state 6 months before launch. This despite having a significant delay in the scheduled release of the game. E.g. they were making fundamental changes to the game mechanics like how skill cooldowns were handled very late in the process. I think they simply didn't have enough time/resources to deal with the basic but higher level issues you listed. Ideally at the 6 month point it would of been us helping them test class balance issues between the two realms and helping them make RvR actually fun and balanced. Instead it was a lot of testing of much more basic stuff and these other issues simply got pushed down on the list of things they could test/work on before the release.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Geki on October 28, 2008, 09:12:48 AM
As it stands, it's like fighting a 12 front war with 200 people



That is the most accurate description of the current state of the game and all of it's problems that I've seen.  I don't think you could break it down to anything more simple than that.  It's one hell of a nut to crack as well.  I don't know that the servers could handle enough population on one server to fill "all 12 fronts" which is really a problem.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 28, 2008, 09:15:18 AM
I get the feeling that mythic servers hold less than average concurrent users. Where other games support about 2500, its seems like mythic hold about 500 (split by 2).

I have no facts, other than when the cues were prevalent, i would wait, get in, and well...really sparse population, compared to others.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hawkbit on October 28, 2008, 09:35:14 AM
I get the feeling that mythic servers hold less than average concurrent users. Where other games support about 2500, its seems like mythic hold about 500 (split by 2).

I have no facts, other than when the cues were prevalent, i would wait, get in, and well...really sparse population, compared to others.

That wouldn't surprise me.  When I was playing, the worlds were dead empty when I'd be questing/leveling.  If I decided to run a few scenarios, quite often I'd be running into the same people in matches, over and over.  It got to a point where in the rare times in orvr that actually occured, I'd instantly recognize the person I was fighting. 

They created a world large enough for thousands of players to connect, but only allow hundreds.  Hell, they could shut down the dwarf and elf campaigns and leave only Empire open, and then it finally might feel balanced.... maybe.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Vinadil on October 28, 2008, 09:42:43 AM
Not sure really... in beta our server hit 1800 a few times.  1800 people all with level 31 templates in T4.  Man, that was constant action.  PQs were full, scenarios insta-popping, huge PvP fights across all major pairings.  Maybe you can see why people said it was "fun".  Even now remembering it that sounds like fun to me, I just don't know when/if it will happen on my server.  Maybe if they just had some event that came into the world and some people were magically levelled to 31.  I know those of us sitting in T4 waiting for people to show up would love it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on October 28, 2008, 09:45:56 AM
If they allowed people to reach level 40 in a reasonable span, you could see action at the endgame like that.  Unfortunately, levels 21-38 are such a barrel of suck that people are giving up before they have a chance to reach that potential.  Yes, I know that the endgame is broken at the moment.  Just having a critical mass of people at the same level could buy this game enough time to correct itself slightly... well... assuming some good decisions were made.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Maladee on October 28, 2008, 09:51:23 AM
I have been following this discussion and while I agree with an awful lot of the complaints, I have a question to put to you folks:  How many of you are level 40?  Have any of us experienced the endgame yet?

I'm not asking to be argumentative, but from an original (pre-SI) DAoC player's POV, we all know that Mythic's version of PvE sucks.  It was a pretty good storyline, but c'mon guys!  Before insta-fins or redcaps, the grind was hellish.  Anyone who was "serious" about the game (especially after ToA) had a buffbot account with a druid or a bard, so you could always get a PL for your nubcake if you had FoP or a chanter or even an OOG rezzer, so the "legit" method of leveling was sort of pushed under the rug and forgotten.  I leveled a bard mostly solo/duo before SI was released and THAT was a sunuvabitch.

Anyhow, my point is that people seem to be shocked and appalled about how hard and mind-numbing grind-y it is to level.  Sure, it sucks ass compared to WoW's ultra-fast leveling...but Mythic has NEVER been any good at PvE.  Mythic's claim to fame is the PvP/RvR.  I'm not saying it's right, but more that I can't bring myself to be shocked that the PvE sucks, ya know?

So of all of us hanging around bitching about how terrible the game is (notice how I have included myself here.), how many have actually seen the endgame?  The grind sucks, but the open RvR has been pretty amusing.  The bigger problem that I see is that there isn't really a place to gather to look for groups.  How many zones are there for T4?  Even if you assume that the central zone is where to start, that still leaves 3 entire zones to wander around looking for people and you know that an embarrassingly large amount of gamers won't check the war map to see where the zones that need defending are (or the zones with the flames and swords)...and those people will just queue for a scenario and then tab out to bitch about how much the game sucks blah blah blah.


I figure MJ ought to go whole hog "fixing" T4 and making sure that the endgame has enough draw to keep us motivated.  I'd forgive an awful lot if the endgame comes close to comparing to old emain.  Or maybe I'm just an optimist. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Righ on October 28, 2008, 09:54:30 AM
Ideally at the 6 month point it would of been us helping them test class balance issues between the two realms and helping them make RvR actually fun and balanced.

Ideally that would have been sorted 18 months before the game launched. At the 6 month point we should have been completely drooling at all small details they were adding and giving them suggestions for things to add into the first expansion pack. It wasn't ever going to have the 'polish' of WoW, nor was it even going to be close to finished given how much attention rather critical client issues required late in the day. However, I agree with schild - the game was in a passable state up until they started making exceptionally bad post-launch decisions. They know where their flaws are - they don't need the angry mob at f13 to tell them that they have issues with large populations in PvP and small populations in the hugely unfinished PvE zones. The problem appears to be that they are attached to a model of the game that they envisioned before they started stumbling over technical issues, and rather than realign the game around the reality of today, they seem to be trying to nurse it and buy time to patch in some of the content that they've designed but haven't had a chance to complete.

There's a good game in there. They just need to swallow some pride and pare back some of the grand ideas so that we can play it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Modern Angel on October 28, 2008, 10:19:15 AM

The grind sucks,

See, this is where your post should've stopped. I do not grind anymore. I do not fight non-social mobs over and over and over, where each one is the same as the next one. It could be raining ice cream and strippers at 40. I will never know.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waffel on October 28, 2008, 10:58:52 AM
One of the more humorous changes Mythic ever did was back in March-ish of beta.

Their idea was to do their chaos/empire phase, where you could level up 1-22. That is the phase I started in. It was actually a lot of fun. I remember doing the PQs with people to level up originally (there was no scenarios yet) You could do most PQs with about a group and it was THE WAY people leveled up. There was always people at them, and if you were not near them and needed to know which ones people were doing you could ask in the CHAOS WIDE/ORDER WIDE CHAT that everyone joined. Finding groups for stuff was awesome.

Then, once you got bored of PQs you would ask if there was any RvR going on (usually was) and you'd run to the RvR pool and find all kinds of people duking it out and fighting over the BOs. It was awesome. Granted, a lot of the time it turned into one side outnumbering the other and camping the RvR town exit (if you ever played DAoC, it was just like people camping a PK waiting for people to run out) but still you had your open-field skirmishes. Unfortunately, BO rewards sucked balls back then, and despite the constant feedback, were never fixed. Oh, and BWs back then were pretty damn powerful too.

Anyway, at the end of that phase Mythic decided they were sick of players leveling up in the PQs with a group (trust me, it wasn't that fast, it was just nice being in a group of people getting constant EXP while chatting and such, reminded me of DAoC. I loved it.) SO! They decided to nerf PQs right in the asshole and  make it so you could solo phase 1, needed about a group for phase 2, and needed 2 groups for phase 3. Also, if you didn't kill the last PQ guy in time (a few minutes) he would rage out and hit people got 5k.

Yeah, that was the first time me and a lot of other players realized Mythic had no fucking clue what they were doing and learned jack shit from DAoC. Obviously they changed PQs back to the way they were, but once they made the change which required 2 groups to finish it, they were pretty hell-bent that they had made the right decision and that players would have to deal with it.

Also, Mythic removing the tier-wide chat was at release was fucking stupid too. So much for finding groups, seeing if any open RvR is going on, inquiring about PQs and so on, ect.

I'm sure Mythic did a lot of other stupid shit in beta, most of which I can't remember, but most I probably wasn't around for. Beta-testing the game was boring as fuck. Having your character wiped every 2 weeks and watching none of the changes you and other people suggested put into place really puts a damper on wanting to test for them.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Jherad on October 28, 2008, 11:15:36 AM
There's a good game in there. They just need to swallow some pride and pare back some of the grand ideas so that we can play it.

I remember in beta people were screaming for a fix to global cooldown and lag problems, and ultimately wanted a simple single ability, short duration queue. Mythic said time and time again that no, there would be no queue, you'd just have to get used to it.

In the end, we got a 'slop timer'.

*cough*queue*cough*

They can do the right thing, but seem to feel the need to save face.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waffel on October 28, 2008, 02:15:17 PM
Mythic also claimed the global cooldown was hard-coded that there was no way to fix it or change it when people asked for chosen's auras to not be on a GCD.

I never played a chosen after that, but I think a few months later they FINALLY figured out to make the aura's not subject to GCD.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on October 28, 2008, 02:57:15 PM
As it stands, it's like fighting a 12 front war with 200 people and that's a goddamn joke.


This is exactly the problem. Unfortunately for Mythic, it's also very very difficult to resolve. Small things will help, but really each Tier should only have ONE oRVR area that all racial pairings feed into.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ashmodai on October 28, 2008, 07:51:03 PM
I have been following this discussion and while I agree with an awful lot of the complaints, I have a question to put to you folks:  How many of you are level 40?  Have any of us experienced the endgame yet?

The endgame, T4, is horrible, and that's part of the problem.  If we had to wtf grind our asses off to get to 40, but the PvP was awesome and fun there (like it is from 1-20), there might not be as many complaints as we see now.  As it is, you work your ass off, get to 40, and it's so shitty that you just want to reroll alts.  Case in point, my main is level 39, has been for 2 weeks now.  I just couldn't be arsed to get to 40 even just to say I did it, and my alts have seen a ton of playtime since, I have about 4 characters in T2 now and one in T3, and those are actually fun to PLAY.  My "main" is not.

For me, I actually enjoy 1-20.  It's fun as hell, I really like the PvP, I even enjoy the scenarios there.  T3 is a bit less fun, mainly because it's so long - I have no problem with Tor Anroc, but that doesn't mean I want to run it 750 times or whatever it will take to get out of the tier, and there's no better alternative (lol pve).  And, well, T4, nah, I plan on rerolling another alt well before I'll play there again with the current mechanics.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: runagate on October 29, 2008, 12:07:26 AM
As it stands, it's like fighting a 12 front war with 200 people and that's a goddamn joke.


This is exactly the problem. Unfortunately for Mythic, it's also very very difficult to resolve. Small things will help, but really each Tier should only have ONE oRVR area that all racial pairings feed into.

I like the idea of one oRvR area, but only if that one oRvR area isn't split down the fucking middle by a zone line that causes massive HD crunch, punishing you for crossing the terminus fucking est of invisible lines.

My 6 man guild group actually found ourselves getting into skirmish combat between a Destro warcamp and a keep that was under siege, it would've been really fun but unfortunately every single one of these strategic passes so carefully placed in the game also seems to contain a non-visible cockblock of a zone line.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on October 29, 2008, 01:36:40 AM
Mythic also claimed the global cooldown was hard-coded that there was no way to fix it or change it when people asked for chosen's auras to not be on a GCD.

I never played a chosen after that, but I think a few months later they FINALLY figured out to make the aura's not subject to GCD.  :uhrr:

Mythic LOVES the "it's hard coded, waaaaah" excuse. LOVES IT.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on October 29, 2008, 01:47:56 AM
I have been following this discussion and while I agree with an awful lot of the complaints, I have a question to put to you folks:  How many of you are level 40?  Have any of us experienced the endgame yet?

Level 36, I spent a while in Bastion stair, we cleared a couple of wings, then some guy with two floating skull pets wiped both our groups.  The skulls didn't despawn so we wiped again in about 3 seconds on the next attempt. 

I'm sure I'd have seen more of the end game PVE content if there wasn't a general feeling in the guild, stated by our level 40's, that most, if not all, of the high end dungeons have some sort of issue that needs fixing.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nevermore on October 29, 2008, 06:01:28 AM
Mythic also claimed the global cooldown was hard-coded that there was no way to fix it or change it when people asked for chosen's auras to not be on a GCD.

I never played a chosen after that, but I think a few months later they FINALLY figured out to make the aura's not subject to GCD.  :uhrr:

Mythic LOVES the "it's hard coded, waaaaah" excuse. LOVES IT.

Apparently Mythic codes on stone tablets, given the difficulty of changing the code.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on October 30, 2008, 08:24:38 AM
Do most game studios hire two programmers and all the rest just make scripts?  At times I think we had more people coding our MUD than are devoted to coding these things.  Maybe some things never change.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Azazel on November 01, 2008, 07:30:20 PM
I really, at this point, don't think any of them play their game.

I imagine that Mythic has quite a few employees who essentially agree with what we've been saying here at f13, as well as in the Vault, WHA, etc. Unfortunately, these people who may be programmers, designers, etc, clearly have no say in the matter as Jacobs and possibly Barnett and whoever else is actually in charge tell them what to do, and these employees who can see what's happened do what the fuck they're told because they probably want to hold onto their jobs through Christmas.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: rk47 on November 01, 2008, 08:25:20 PM
State of the game at 40:
Scenario: 6 BW = Cannot be dealt with
Open RvR: 10 BW = Cannot be dealt with.
Keep Siege: Magnet pull through door. If undefended, Free RP. If defended, don't bother.
Bastion Stairs: Two instance wings bosses done. Last instance bosses got stuck multiple times, range dps had free shots for full minute, one time he didn't even move while everyone just ranged dps him down to 20%. Why bother meleeing if he just get stuck at a stairs? After 20 runs of doing the same shit and getting no set pieces, I asked if there's any other instance to do? Oh, you need the set pc from here if you want to. *cry*

I think this is it.  :heartbreak:



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 04, 2008, 01:36:35 AM
Paul Barnett 4th November (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EL3wWgQY1HQ)

Mostly just talking about the Russian release, Paul does jokingly mention pushing for a skink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizardmen_(Warhammer)#The_Skinks) career in the new expansion.  Which might mean Lizardmen are in, or maybe not.

Quote
Skinks are the artisans of the Lizardmen. Gregarious and talkative, they do jobs like metalworking and temple organization in addition to being the personal adjutants of the Slann. Some Skinks can use magic, though not so effectively as their ancient masters. In times of war, the skinks take up weapons such as blowpipes and javelins and march to battle with their warrior cousins, lead by stronger Skink War Chiefs.
There is also a sub-species of skinks, the chameleon skinks. They are slightly more aggressive creatures, and resemble Chameleons in the way they have bulging eyes that can look independently. They can also change skin color to blend in with their surroundings, and are patient hunters, sitting unmoving for hours waiting for an opportunity to strike.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: JWIV on November 04, 2008, 02:13:14 AM
I fucking hate skinks and their poison attacks. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: rk47 on November 04, 2008, 02:16:24 AM
well at the current state i the capital city siege is not an 'endgame' is not engaging enough, people will quit. I already have some guildies burned out from the gear farming. And frankly, so do I. I farmed like 5-10k RP a night in mix of scen and keep taking, but overall zone control is not really a realistic goal at the moment. Faction unity is a problem and population dwindles. Nothing gets done.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waffel on November 04, 2008, 05:59:48 AM
I just did some Praag open RvR on my new server which I transfered too. It was a good 60+ people vs 100+ people and the servers flat out couldn't handle it. Casting any spell with a casting bar took 4x the listed cast time to cast, instant spells were pretty much all you could do.

There was so many people the clip plane automatically dropped to about 10 feet for players regardless of your settings in options, so there was tons of times you had no idea what was hitting you.
Setting spell effects to party showed everyone in the zerg's spells, only fix is to set effects to self.
Taking keeps was simply everyone range the door for 5-10 minutes because using a ram or meleeing = insta-death from magnet.
Keep lord died in about 10 seconds with the loot being 2 blue bags and a few green bags. For 100+ people. WTF?

Overall, huge waste of time. Could have just done scenarios and actually been able to play my character, cast spells, get decent renown and experience, and probably a decent item off a player.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Bismallah on November 04, 2008, 07:10:42 AM
Yuck waffel.

Sounds like my experience as well on Ostermark over the weekend. I could barely play, heals were so lagged out I just spammed my AE.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 04, 2008, 07:14:04 AM
I am on Pragg, and i too, encountered such battles, but i had none of the performance/lag issues. I do think some people confuses Performance with Lag. As for the rest, yeah, they need to tweak some things, such as adding more bags of loot depending on how many people are in the SOI of the keep/PQ ETC..


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: rk47 on November 04, 2008, 09:32:09 AM
I am on Pragg, and i too, encountered such battles, but i had none of the performance/lag issues. I do think some people confuses Performance with Lag. As for the rest, yeah, they need to tweak some things, such as adding more bags of loot depending on how many people are in the SOI of the keep/PQ ETC..

dude there was 100 v 50 order.

i ran in front and saw 5-10 orders. I thought 'huh, they're not that many'. Suddenly I got lag spiked and 30-40 of them appeared like a ghost. And disappeared again.
I'm not imagining it, even my warband said the same thing, they couldn't see beyond 50 ft.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Bismallah on November 04, 2008, 09:52:55 AM
So was it performance based off player's computers or server side?

I know my box is middle of the road and could use some upgrades but if even the top notch systems are having lagdar type issues then it's not just me.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 04, 2008, 10:02:30 AM
I'm not saying that people are not having performance issues, but I bet it’s a per machine basis, because I had none, and my view distance stayed the same. The engine and server can handle it, individual computers, maybe not.

This is not me saying i have the "l33t rigz". It’s an observation, and I still stand by the fact that MANY people confuse performance with lag and vice versa, some of the more middle of the road machines perhaps cant take it, and considering the engine scales by its self, always, it may have been trying to compensate. The engine does have some sort of automatic LOD and seems to cut things to achieve a steady frame rate at all times, there is nothing the end user can set to affect this.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hoth on November 24, 2008, 06:36:32 PM
I'm not saying that people are not having performance issues, but I bet it's a per machine basis, because I had none, and my view distance stayed the same. The engine and server can handle it, individual computers, maybe not.
[...]

Sorry for exhuming, but this statement seems to be wrong. The Servers clearly can't handle large siegebattles. Yesterday the Chaos marched towards Altdorf and it seemed like nothing could stop them. They were around 150 and order had ~90 defenders. We already saw our capital in the hands of chaos. then an unexpected ally turned up. Starting with a bit of lag, 2 second casts took around 10 seconds and every once in a while an instantheal found it's target. 5 Minutes later the zone crashed and sent us back to Altdorf, unable to enter Reikswald for the next few minutes. After the zone was back again the siegetimer was reset to 1 hour and the doors that were already destroyed had been restored. The second try to take the zone was ended by a complete servercrash and some kind of rollback that only affected T4, Praag was contested again and all the progress Chaos made in the last hours was gone.

I don't shed a tear for chaos, but I think for a feature that was advertised as "teh buyingargument - It's got capitalsieges man!". It all felt rather unfinished to a point were it is entire impossible to use the mainfeature that made the majority of the players I know buy this game. If they fix that WAR could be fun, this whole "omg our capital is under siege, come all and defend it" was really nice. Players of all levelranges entered the Zone just to contribute their little bit to stop or just slow down the hordes of chaos.

Damn, it's like they say....I really want to love this game but it's so damn frustrating some times..

 :drill: - Smiley unrelated, just added for plain awesomeness.

p.s.: So much text...my english clearly sucks when I can't say what I want to say in a few clear words. Please forgive me my europeanness.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Shatter on November 25, 2008, 05:09:53 AM
Red Eye Mountain last night had a major battle in Praag as well and the server was struggling.  There were easily 70+ people on both sides going at it for quite some time. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Megrim on November 25, 2008, 06:40:11 AM
It must be something to do with the Tier 4 zones. I've had about 150 vs near-100 in Tier 2 (during the Witching Night), and it ran fine despite my pc not being top of the line.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: khaine on November 25, 2008, 06:59:45 AM
It's more likely due to the fact they weren't even considering keeps/fortresses until basically Jan of this year

I remember when the beta shut down (late Oct wasnt it ?) that keeps/fortresses weren't even in and was up in the air if they even were going to have them

So throwing those in without being ready to handle 100vs100 packed into the small area of a fortress server side wasn't going to have a good outcome

On that note , I cannot fathom the game without keeps/fortresses , and the fact it took closed beta players screaming for them to get them even considered should have been a big warning flag for me



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 25, 2008, 07:06:37 AM
With hindsight the fact that Mythic wanted to release this (http://www.imperatoronline.com/faq/) after DAoC should have been a warning sign to everyone.

Quote
Unlike Dark Age of Camelot, Imperator is a Player versus Environment (PvE) game. However, given that much of the game is set in the Roman Republic, there will be plenty of opportunities to players to test themselves against other players within the game. If you have seen our E3 demo movie, there is a reason that the Flavian Amphitheater (known as the Coliseum in our world) occupies a central part.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on November 25, 2008, 07:12:50 AM
Shortly after they bought Warhammer, I'm fairly sure I or someone as cynical as me said something to the tune of "Oh, they're going to reskin Imperator."

>_> That's quite the quote you've dug up.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on November 25, 2008, 07:16:34 AM
I wanted Romans in space so bad.


For no logical reason mind you, I just love The Roman empire. Especially the romanticized made up version of it!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: khaine on November 25, 2008, 07:32:31 AM
With hindsight the fact that Mythic wanted to release this (http://www.imperatoronline.com/faq/) after DAoC should have been a warning sign to everyone.

Quote
Unlike Dark Age of Camelot, Imperator is a Player versus Environment (PvE) game. However, given that much of the game is set in the Roman Republic, there will be plenty of opportunities to players to test themselves against other players within the game. If you have seen our E3 demo movie, there is a reason that the Flavian Amphitheater (known as the Coliseum in our world) occupies a central part.


I never knew that , I'd always assumed that Imperator was going to have some sort of RvR/PvP component, just because it would seem to be necessary

So it was going to be a Romans in space, PVE only mmorpg ?

THAT , is a design/initial concept meeting that I would like to see/hear the notes from



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ghost on November 25, 2008, 07:45:22 AM
Imperator actually looked pretty cool.  Definitely cooler than Tabula Rasa.  Too bad it didn't go forward.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on November 25, 2008, 07:46:50 AM
Imperator actually looked pretty cool.  Definitely cooler than Tabula Rasa.  Too bad it didn't go forward.

NOTHING looked cooler than the first video for Tabula Rasa.

Fucking thing had unicorns, rainbows, AND bards. Imagine what Stargate would look like if that game had come out.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on November 25, 2008, 07:47:58 AM
Imperator was supposed to be some kind of pretend SWG/EQ experience, or something?  :headscratch:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on November 25, 2008, 07:48:06 AM
I still remember when Auto Assault was getting massive amounts of love around here pre release. Then it released.  We all know the rest of the story.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on November 25, 2008, 08:05:43 AM
I still remember when Auto Assault was getting massive amounts of love around here pre release.
Not from those of us in the Beta.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ghost on November 25, 2008, 08:07:11 AM
I still remember when Auto Assault was getting massive amounts of love around here pre release. Then it released.  We all know the rest of the story.

This seems to be the case with most games.  Very few live up to expectations.  I don't know why that is.  Maybe it is because computer games are no longer being designed by the "computer geek" types from days of old.  When you start mixing money with anything it causes issues.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: khaine on November 25, 2008, 08:11:16 AM
Sorry to continue along the derail , but with the mention of Tabula Rasa and in another thread Auto Assault ,

NCSoft obviously thinks if a game is crap to just kill it is better than to let it languish a'la Matrix Online and the other ones on life support on the SOE all access pass

I wonder what thought process/business decision makes one company go route A and the other B - obviously with the Lineage line and other games NCSoft has the facilities/ability to be able to keep games running if they wanted , and I would imagine SOE isn't in the business of losing money so there must be enough $$ coming in to justify keeping their floundering games alive

So again , from a business perspective , what process decides its better to kill a game or just keep it alive and get what $$ you can out of it ?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on November 25, 2008, 08:14:14 AM
If SOE still finds it financially viable to leave Matrix Online plugged in, then NC could have derived some benefit from the continued existence of Tabula Rasa, given the correct business model.
I'm not an accountant so somebody can correct me but given the way NCsoft took a writeoff when they announced the closure of AA I'm assuming there are tax/accounting/financial advantages for taking an up front hit by closing the game sooner rather than later instead of carrying a lot of crap associated with a money losing game on your books for years and years. SOE can operate games like MxO and Vanguard because they acquired them for a relative pittance, so they don't have all the "costs" sitting in their books like NCsoft does.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: khaine on November 25, 2008, 08:19:21 AM
Damn I had forgotten that very important part

SOE got VG , MxO, and others for very little cost so in a different situation -

Thanks for the reminder , guess that puts them in a different boat financial wise -

Along those same lines , I wonder if a 24.99 DOAC/UO/WAR access pass would entice a few more to stay around


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on November 25, 2008, 08:22:08 AM
Along those same lines , I wonder if a 24.99 DOAC/UO/WAR access pass would entice a few more to stay around

No. 

DAoC used to be 9.99 a month (or was it 12.99?) and people balked at the price hike to 14.99.  UO can be played on freeshards.  WAR... well, take a look at the long list of threads and pages. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ghost on November 25, 2008, 08:24:15 AM
Sorry to continue along the derail , but with the mention of Tabula Rasa and in another thread Auto Assault ,

NCSoft obviously thinks if a game is crap to just kill it is better than to let it languish a'la Matrix Online and the other ones on life support on the SOE all access pass

I wonder what thought process/business decision makes one company go route A and the other B - obviously with the Lineage line and other games NCSoft has the facilities/ability to be able to keep games running if they wanted , and I would imagine SOE isn't in the business of losing money so there must be enough $$ coming in to justify keeping their floundering games alive

So again , from a business perspective , what process decides its better to kill a game or just keep it alive and get what $$ you can out of it ?

Dollars in >>> Dollars out.

I have a suspicion that companies like EA aren't into games like WAR to make small change.  There is too much upkeep and behind the scenes support for this.  EA had a revenue of something crazy like 3.1 billion last year.  The 1-200 million they put out on WAR is small beans to them, and if they aren't making a significant profit off of it it doesn't seem to reason that they would want to continue supporting a very expensive support staff.  Now it might be monetarily worth it to go ahead and keep something running once they get it "stable" even if the content isn't that great because it takes less support staff. It seems the MO of most of these companies these days is to try and get people hooked into the initial levels with the upper levels being somewhat unfinished.  I wonder if they aren't significantly underestimating how fast people will level......

Anyhoo, I am sure that these companies have some form of pro forma type spreadsheets that show where their monthly income from a venture will begin to break even and then income will start to trickle in.  These estimates take into account initial expenses and monthly overhead costs.  Without getting to far into "business mode", suffice it to say that I'm sure EA has a cutoff of monthly income that they want to get to.  What that is, only they know.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Lantyssa on November 25, 2008, 09:45:37 AM
Jacobs has also publically said (here maybe?), that EA wanted to shut UO down but he convinced them to keep it running.  Say what we will about him, that does show EA is mostly in this for the big bucks and someone needs leverage to make them behave otherwise.  After this, Mythic may not have that pull to save UO the next time an EA exec questions why they're keeping it around...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Shatter on November 25, 2008, 10:40:42 AM
Folks,

 

   Over the last few months I’ve spoken about our continued focus on improving our open RvR systems.  While we have taken some major steps in the last month, we believe that there is much more we can do to encourage people to take part in oRvR throughout the entire evolution of their character(s).  Over the next few months we have some very exciting changes and additions taking place.  Please note that as always, this does not represent everything that either we are doing or thinking about doing, just what we, as of now, plan on adding to WAR.

   We have a number of major initiatives planned for oRvR in WAR.  Please keep in mind that these changes/systems apply to oRvR only and not to scenarios.  This is not all we are working on but these do reflect the majority of oRvR additions that we are currently working on/planning for the next few months.

   First, we have created an RvR Influence system.  This system is designed to reward our oRvR players with lots of new stuff that you can only get through oRvR.  This will be a complimentary system to our PQ Influence system.  This system is already implemented in 1.1 and is scheduled to go LIVE along with that version in December.   

   Second, we want to improve the visibility that players have into oRvR and make it easier for players to get involved in the action quickly and easily.   We have a number of wide-ranging changes going into our map and travel systems to allow players to better understand the state of oRvR in our game and also allow them to get to the action faster.  We have already taken one step with putting a Rally Master in each Warcamp but we will also add the ability for people to have a second bind point to make it even easier for players to move around the maps.  We will also make it easily for players to see where players from their Realm are engaging in oRvR, a Campaign HUD for all tiers and other improvements We will also improve Tier-wide messaging about what is going on in Battlefield Objectives and Keeps.  Other additions include changes to the UI, in-game manual improvements, map enhancements, and a few other changes.

   Third, we want to provide greater incentives to players to participate in oRvR.  In order to accomplish this we will be adding additional layers to the questing system of oRvR including the addition of Keep Quests, “Daily Event Quests”, Chained RvR Missions, improve the initial Tome Unlocks and other oRvR-oriented Events.  We will also improve our BO itemization.  Our goal is to provide players with even more incentive for participating in oRvR than we have already.

   Fourth, we want to encourage guilds to take and control keeps, and we will continue our work on adding better rewards for Guilds who own Keeps as well as the addition of a system of Keep upgrades. This system will be added to the game in several stages beginning in the late winter.

   Finally, we will begin work on a global oRvR “Fame” system that will be tied directly to the Tome of Knowledge which will provide more rewards, titles, experience, etc. for participating and being successful in oRvR.    This system will provide even more incentives for people to participate in oRvR than the current systems and one that fits nicely both with the ToK’s concept as “This is your life” as well as an additional advancement and reward system.

   Please keep in mind that these additions are subject to change and given the nature of these changes/improvements, they will not go LIVE until we have thoroughly tested them.  However, these are crucial improvements to WAR and are being treated as such by the team.

    Finally, I want to close this out with a brief explanation about the role that we believe that oRvR should play in WAR.  It’s really as simple as this, oRvR should be a major focus for leveling, item gain, etc. in WAR.  Some of the systems are already in place and in Tier 4, oRvR is alive and well.  On other Tiers, however, oRvR is not being engaged in as often as we had hoped when we launched WAR.  Our goal is to ensure that oRvR is the place where players can level the fastest, get the best items and overall, have a great time while doing it.  It is supposed to be riskier, more challenging but ultimately, more rewarding than any other place within WAR.  What is outlined in this letter are some of the ways we plan on making this happen over the next few months and beyond.

    As always, we thank you for your patronage and support.  We won’t let you down.

Mark Jacobs
VP/GM Mythic Entertainment


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on November 25, 2008, 10:42:58 AM
http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=15042.msg554476#msg554476


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on November 25, 2008, 12:52:46 PM
I think the new kiddies need to calm down a little bit.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on November 25, 2008, 08:11:11 PM
I still remember when Auto Assault was getting massive amounts of love around here pre release. Then it released.  We all know the rest of the story.

This seems to be the case with most games.  Very few live up to expectations.  I don't know why that is.  Maybe it is because computer games are no longer being designed by the "computer geek" types from days of old.  When you start mixing money with anything it causes issues.

It's got nothing to do with "days of old" computer geeks, but rather what the audience expects of them.

Previously, a gamer would accept a couple of differently coloured sprites and 5 hours worth of repetitive gameplay that consisted of most RPGs. This kind of game could be programmed by one person.

Today, you need DirectX 9 graphics and a huge world and at least 50 hours of content to even start to cut it in RPG land. No one sane person can program / develop that kind of game (Minions and Mirth and Love are exceptions here, but they are the rare exceptions and are definitely niche) by themselves. You need a team of 20 - 40 people plus other support.

The big issue is that MMOs (and game in general) get more complex and require more input from people. Everyone throws in their slightly different contribution and you end up with a title that can look like a mishmash of different features that don't quite work well together.

For example: WAR.

Also: let's not forget that a lot of old-school games sucked hard too. Nostalgia can be another form of blindness.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Riggswolfe on November 26, 2008, 08:15:28 AM
I think a case can be made that you need to love your game (or the IP it's based on) and be competent for success.

LOTRO is IMO, a good example of this. They clearly love the IP and are pretty competent. I think if it had launched in the state it's in now it'd have a larger playerbase, and even still, it is in pretty good shape.

DDO, ironically, is not. I think it was reasonable competently made. But you can tell that the designers had no love for the IP, or at least the world they were forced to use. This one I blame more on HASBRO/WOTC than Turbine though. Forcing an Eberron MMO was stupid, and Turbine should have said Forgotten Realms or Grey Hawk or we don't make this game.

WOW is a shining example of both, whether or not people want to admit it. In fact, if the endgame wasn't the grind of pure evil I might never have left WOW.

SWG at launch is an example of neither IMO. Current SWG has both but I think it's probably too little too late, especially with Old Republic on the horizon.

WAR? I don't know. I get the feeling the game was shoved out the door by EA and if they'd had 6 more months it would have released as a much better product. The love is there, but it also feels like the devs resent how constrained they are by the IP at the same time.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on November 26, 2008, 08:43:37 AM
DDO, ironically, is not. I think it was reasonable competently made. But you can tell that the designers had no love for the IP, or at least the world they were forced to use. This one I blame more on HASBRO/WOTC than Turbine though. Forcing an Eberron MMO was stupid, and Turbine should have said Forgotten Realms or Grey Hawk or we don't make this game.

Having just come off the abject failure that was Asheron's Call 2 when they secured the license, I'm pretty sure Turbine had ZERO negotiating room on this IP. Eberron was the edict from on high, and yes, it was uber super retarded. But I don't think even a Forgotten Realms setting would have helped DDO when its core mechanics were just so anti-solo.

There have been a lot of lessons from WoW and not allowing every class to solo through most of the content is one of those lessons every MMO developer should have branded on their forehead.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on November 26, 2008, 10:18:57 AM
Eberron is awesome!  :drill:


DDO had about as much relation to Eberron as I do to the Pope. But yes, at the time they were slapping Eberron's name onto everything remotely DnD related that wasn't an actual PnP product. All it succeeded at was giving Eberron a bad and unwarranted first impression.  :|


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: gamerjock on November 26, 2008, 12:13:25 PM
Eberron is awesome!  :drill:


DDO had about as much relation to Eberron as I do to the Pope. But yes, at the time they were slapping Eberron's name onto everything remotely DnD related that wasn't an actual PnP product. All it succeeded at was giving Eberron a bad and unwarranted first impression.  :|

No, it was the correct impression.  Eberron is crap, was crap and will always be crap.  Robots, steam punk and other nonsense dont belong in Dungeons and Dragons.  Warhammer's IP was always garbage to me for the reasons I just stated.  Dwarves with steam punk, and orcs called "smashas" is just lame. 

Grayhawk or FR would have been a much more solid hit. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: eldaec on November 26, 2008, 12:16:16 PM
I still remember when Auto Assault was getting massive amounts of love around here pre release.
Not from those of us in the Beta.
I really don't remember the love outside beta. SWG, AoC, LotRO, and a million others absolutely, but Auto Assault?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on November 26, 2008, 03:28:01 PM
I really don't remember the love outside beta. SWG, AoC, LotRO, and a million others absolutely, but Auto Assault?

If I remember correctly, it was pre-beta when a bunch of people here had viewed an intro of Auto Assault at a trade show.  I remember reading the show reactions here and being excited about the potential the game had as a result.   Maybe I took it a bit far calling that "love".


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Tannhauser on November 26, 2008, 03:36:12 PM
Eberron is crap.  Stupid, goofy-ass setting.  The new FR is pretty much shit too.  Some of the new Pathfinder stuff is great.

WAR is a great IP, the game just sucks thanks to bone-headed design.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on November 26, 2008, 05:16:36 PM
The reality of DDO was that they should have started building other universes (haven't kept up with the latest releases, but...) - Ravenloft, Dark Sun et al. Make it so your character can cross over between worlds.

I didn't mind DDO as a game play experience, but the inability to solo was pretty painful and made it very easy during the trial period to decide it wasn't worth paying for.

As for WAR: I like the Warhammer setting. But WAR isn't using it "right". I'm currently playing The Witcher and that is closer to the feel of the Warhammer IP than WAR.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sophismata on November 26, 2008, 09:40:21 PM
As for WAR: I like the Warhammer setting. But WAR isn't using it "right". I'm currently playing The Witcher and that is closer to the feel of the Warhammer IP than WAR.
Very true. The Witcher has an excellent sense of moral ambiguity in its setting, that is decidedly lacking from WAR's.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Modern Angel on November 26, 2008, 10:26:06 PM
You know, I hadn't thought of that but I think it's true. They got the surface stuff right, the look, the cockney orcs. But there wasn't the love and affection for it past that. One of the big draws of LotRO is that love affair with the IP. WAR it was like, "Yeah, we think this would be cool for a game." and it sort of stops there.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on November 27, 2008, 06:25:07 AM
There is no steam in Eberron dammit!

Also aren't any Robots, unless you consider Golems and Homunculus' (How the FUCK do you pluralize Homunculus? Homunculuses? Homunculi? ) robots too.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: schild on November 27, 2008, 06:32:17 AM
Homunculi.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Driakos on November 27, 2008, 10:19:48 AM
I like Eberron...

I've been running our D&D game there for awhile now.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on November 27, 2008, 04:25:40 PM
There is no steam in Eberron dammit!

Kettles haven't been invented then?  :grin:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Fordel on November 27, 2008, 06:56:01 PM
There is no steam in Eberron dammit!

Kettles haven't been invented then?  :grin:


 :angryfist:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 29, 2008, 07:44:51 AM
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning for $10.95  (http://www.amazon.com/Warhammer-Online-Age-Reckoning-Pc/dp/B000TD3IA2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1227963828&sr=8-1)

Warhammer Online 60 Day Prepaid Game Time Card for $12.95 (http://www.amazon.com/Warhammer-Online-Prepaid-Game-Time-Pc/dp/B001E8LN2G/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1227963828&sr=8-5)



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: JWIV on November 29, 2008, 07:49:18 AM
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning for $10.95  (http://www.amazon.com/Warhammer-Online-Age-Reckoning-Pc/dp/B000TD3IA2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1227963828&sr=8-1)

Warhammer Online 60 Day Prepaid Game Time Card for $12.95 (http://www.amazon.com/Warhammer-Online-Prepaid-Game-Time-Pc/dp/B001E8LN2G/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1227963828&sr=8-5)



If this was the Collector's Edition, I'd buy it for the mini.   


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waylander on November 29, 2008, 08:11:07 AM
I'm not sure even Age of Conan got that cheap that fast. More signs that this game is tanking IMHO.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Bismallah on November 29, 2008, 09:01:19 AM
Oh wow yeah... not even Tabula Rasa went that cheap that fast. Hm...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Votan on November 29, 2008, 10:18:45 AM
I have never seen a new MMO go that low that fast....Ultima Onlines Samurai expansion is $12.99 on Amazon and that was going to be canceled according to MJ...maybe they will cancel both of them at the same time now.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Bismallah on November 29, 2008, 10:28:53 AM
Most of the fanbois are screaming it was just a Black Friday sale, so any other games sell for that low on Friday? I didnt see WotLK or even Burning Crusades for that low...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Modern Angel on November 29, 2008, 06:04:13 PM
WoW Warchest was 15 or 20. L4D was 20. So, yeah, it may have just been Black Friday. Amazon was running a ton of really good specials on games.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on November 29, 2008, 06:17:19 PM
The game card is now $27.99, so that probably was a Black Friday sale. The game is $25, which is still pretty cheap so soon after release.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 30, 2008, 04:58:47 AM
Is it true that in the US, some servers no longer display in the server list unless you press a "more" button.  Also these same servers cannot be selected for creating a character?  If all that's true someone do me a favour and grab the number of servers involved, doubt we are going to see an official statement on it.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Bismallah on November 30, 2008, 05:19:22 AM
That's what I have heard as well, the old source servers can be played if you had a character there but you cannot select them to roll anything new. I dont have an active account or I'd go through and check. I'd love to see verification of this and if it does encompass all the old source servers...


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ashrik on November 30, 2008, 07:49:23 AM
Quote
Is it true that in the US, some servers no longer display in the server list unless you press a "more" button.  Also these same servers cannot be selected for creating a character
Confirmed

55 servers total, 27 servers normally displayed, 28 only shown when you click 'more'. I cannot create a character on any of the hidden servers (http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k15/mprose/WAR/screenshot_006.jpg)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Hindenburg on November 30, 2008, 07:57:24 AM
Not even a question of not being able to create a character. You can't even SELECT those servers.



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on November 30, 2008, 07:57:57 AM
If you already have a character on a "hidden" server can you create additional characters on that same server?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: khaine on November 30, 2008, 08:07:54 AM
Odds MJ or Mythic officially remark on this at all ?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Goreschach on November 30, 2008, 08:15:11 AM
Odds MJ or Mythic officially remark on this at all ?

Probably about the same that Funcom will comment on all their servers being at medium pop.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Bismallah on November 30, 2008, 08:37:09 AM
Thanks for the confirmation, that's brutal. So 50% of their servers are going to effectively be shut down within Mark's time line, or shortly after.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ashrik on November 30, 2008, 09:04:19 AM
If you already have a character on a "hidden" server can you create additional characters on that same server?
No clue on that one, my guys are all on Praag and Volkmar.

Edited for my favorite bug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbm0kN7mFyE


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 30, 2008, 11:53:59 AM
I have never seen a new MMO go that low that fast....Ultima Onlines Samurai expansion is $12.99 on Amazon and that was going to be canceled according to MJ...maybe they will cancel both of them at the same time now.

That's not the upcoming UO expansion, it's one from 4 years ago, which just makes it all the more hilarious.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Cheddar on November 30, 2008, 04:21:17 PM
I have never seen a new MMO go that low that fast....Ultima Onlines Samurai expansion is $12.99 on Amazon and that was going to be canceled according to MJ...maybe they will cancel both of them at the same time now.

That's not the upcoming UO expansion, it's one from 4 years ago, which just makes it all the more hilarious.

Beat me to it.  Pretty damn funny lol. 
(http://www.4colorrebellion.com/media/pics/08/08/techno-viking.jpg)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ashrik on November 30, 2008, 07:40:13 PM
You are in love with that Techno Viking, aren't you?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sjofn on December 01, 2008, 12:39:12 AM
People who don't love Eberron clearly don't get Eberron. I fuckin' love that setting.

Also, WAR makes me sad. :(


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Zzulo on December 01, 2008, 06:23:44 AM
I'm actually enjoying WAR a lot now, compared to before

now that the server transfers went through, T4 PvP actually is all over. Just this weekend we made a push to take a capital (and got crushed) but it was great fun. I hear lower tiers are still pretty empty, but I never understood how, after several months post-release how anyone could expect anything else


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on December 01, 2008, 07:17:45 AM
I hear lower tiers are still pretty empty, but I never understood how, after several months post-release how anyone could expect anything else

Maybe because anyone with an ounce of foresight would see this as terrible implementation?  If the lower tiers are empty this requires either a) a change in implementation to get the lower level players involved or b) a MUCH faster leveling curve such that players can get to TEH FUN faster.  See 875367489 other pages of complaints on this very issue.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tazelbain on December 01, 2008, 07:25:45 AM
Lower teir suffers the same problems as the T4 but T4 has level 40 players who have nothing else to do.  Where as T1-3 have scenario and quest grinding to do instead.  Really like the idea T1 RvR, but Mythic never thought things through.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on December 01, 2008, 11:36:53 AM
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning for $10.95  (http://www.amazon.com/Warhammer-Online-Age-Reckoning-Pc/dp/B000TD3IA2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1227963828&sr=8-1)

Warhammer Online 60 Day Prepaid Game Time Card for $12.95 (http://www.amazon.com/Warhammer-Online-Prepaid-Game-Time-Pc/dp/B001E8LN2G/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1227963828&sr=8-5)



Uh, i think that means for the "used copy's".

Amazon under "New" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000TD3IA2/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new)

Best buy (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8759337&st=warhammer+online&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1202650464600)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on December 01, 2008, 11:59:25 AM
Uh, i think that means for the "used copy's".

The game card is now $27.99, so that probably was a Black Friday sale. The game is $25, which is still pretty cheap so soon after release.




Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: gamerjock on December 03, 2008, 07:48:02 AM
There is no steam in Eberron dammit!

Kettles haven't been invented then?  :grin:

Oh I'm sorry, magical f-in trains and robot men that actually have feelings...Warforged I believe they were called...I'm sure they were made by magic aka golems but still the concept is robots with free will yada yada and hey take a ride on the magical Reading Railroad! 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Bismallah on December 04, 2008, 01:46:44 PM
Has anyone figured out yet where Mark pulled 800 players out of his ass and said they were all doing T4 RvR and didn't crash the server? They keep dodging the question on the VN and elsewhere. I am seeing that they are crashing Forts repeatedly with as little as 200 total.

I just can't seem to get a straight answer... 800 is probably more players then most (even the most populated) servers have in T4 all together right now.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on December 04, 2008, 01:57:32 PM
Has anyone figured out yet where Mark pulled 800 players out of his ass and said they were all doing T4 RvR and didn't crash the server? They keep dodging the question on the VN and elsewhere. I am seeing that they are crashing Forts repeatedly with as little as 200 total.

I just can't seem to get a straight answer... 800 is probably more players then most (even the most populated) servers have in T4 all together right now.

what?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Bismallah on December 04, 2008, 03:45:36 PM
http://war.tumeroks.com/blog/warhammer-800-man-epic-rvr-battle-fix-from-mark-jacobs/

Per Mark's quote...

"...Last night for example we had about 800 people descend on one fortress at the same time."

I can't pin down where this was.

The VN link as well: http://vnboards.ign.com/warhammer_online_age_of_reckoning_general_board/b22997/109556050/p1/?75


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: eldaec on December 04, 2008, 04:42:02 PM
Quote from: Mark Jacobs
Last night for example we had about 800 people descend on one fortress at the same time

You know, in the current marketplace I find it utterly impossible to be excited by shit like this from WAR given what EVE (a 5 year old game!) offers me. (see link in sig)


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on December 09, 2008, 01:30:35 AM
Linky1 (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=203438)  Linky2 (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21415)

Quote
Lazard Capital Markets analyst Colin Sebastian has predicted that jobs and franchises could be cut at EA as a number of the publisher's games are failing to meet sales targets.
....
"In addition, we are lowering our expectations for the Need for Speed franchise, follow-on sales of Spore and Warhammer Online, and assuming more modest growth for the EA Sports segment," he added.

Quote
Electronic Arts is likely to cut franchise titles -- and possibly even further staff -- as part of ongoing cost-cutting measures, says Lazard Capital Markets analyst Colin Sebastian, who believes the publisher's titles are not meeting estimates.

"Specifically, we believe several EA titles are tracking below plan at retail this holiday, including Need for Speed Undercover (with disappointing reviews), new franchise Mirror's Edge, and Rock Band 2," said Sebastian, as he lowered his estimates for the company's third fiscal quarter revenue slightly from $2.14 billion to $2.07 billion.
....
"We believe further cost and franchise reductions are likely," said Sebastian. "Importantly, we believe EA is continuing to review its cost structure and franchise base, and it is possible that management will announce further cuts in headcount and the development pipeline (including existing franchises) over the coming quarters."

Sebastian's prediction is consistent not only with EA's own admitted cost management plans, but with CEO John Riccitiello's assertion that killing underperforming projects in development is essential to overall portfolio quality. He recently told Gamasutra (http://gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20655) that "EA will kill a game or two a year. Forever," as he discussed the recent cancellation of Tiberium.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ghost on December 09, 2008, 04:35:57 AM
Interesting.  Sounds like EA is having trouble across the board which means issues on the management end in addition to poor sales. 

I would predict they would cut MMOs earlier than other titles due to the maintenance and ongoing support (i.e. overhead) that are needed, but if poor management is an issue then I suppose they could do anything.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sophismata on December 12, 2008, 10:19:49 PM
It's a shame, in many ways, since EA is no longer producing the derivitive slop that it used to.

There are exceptions, of course. Still, I find the whole thing sadly ironic.


Title: Eventually Someone Has to Learn From This
Post by: chargerrich on December 16, 2008, 12:52:42 PM
As someone who seriously wanted to love Warhammer but has now cancelled and gone back for seconds of Warcraft (and having a blast with the expansion after a 3 month hiatus) it seems so clear to me that Warhammer was simply not ready.

I think on this, most of us can agree.

I went into WAR with rose colored glasses and overlooked many "polish" items because I "wanted" WAR to do well. However now that I have left, I see all the warts in addition to all the simply bad design choices like scenarios yielding better xp than open RvR and the mindnumbing "Brad McQuaid" style Tier 3-4 grinding.

To be honest, now they could make it the easiest leveling MMO on the planet and make RvR yield 10x more xp and I would not go back...BUT THEY HAD ME and problably thousands more but let us go.

That makes me ponder the two fatal deciscions that many developers have made in the past:

1. releasing a game before it is ready
2. not listening to the beta testers

Now perhaps EA and Mythic wanted to release in advance of WotLK, but either way the revenue potential that this game has forever lost must dwarf (no pun intended) the early revenue gained by launching the product in September.

I understand there are corporate/financial forces at play but at some point, developers need to learn from past failures or be doomed to repeat them.

You do not hear blizzard announcing dates until very late in the process and surprisingly their products are finished, polished and successful.

Edit by schild: Merged into an existing thread, there was NO REASON for this to be it's own thread.


Title: Re: Eventually Someone Has to Learn From This
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 16, 2008, 10:29:28 PM
That makes me ponder the two fatal deciscions that many developers have made in the past:

1. releasing a game before it is ready
2. not listening to the beta testers

Both complaints made against WoW at it's launch.

I'd like to think we can dig a little deeper than that.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Redgiant on December 17, 2008, 12:17:17 AM
Maybe not deeper but the cause of those symptoms (not ready, not listening):

1. Mythic didn't have the right vision for the game. They weren't going to out-WoW WoW.
2. Beta told them they didn't and it should have been more like a DAoC II to cater to their strengths (and not WoW's).
3. Mythic half-heartedly tried to add stuff like keeps and ORvR-tinged features, but waaaay too late to do it right
4. The normal "release too early" that most games today seem to do was doubly bad for Mythic due to the above sequence
5. They didn't seem to be listening because by the time they recognized they were up a creek and didn't design the fundamentals of the game right, the only thing they felt they could do was stick their head in the sand, so as not to hear the cries and lamentations...
6. It is not that they don't listen, they can't afford to be seen as listening. They know they cannot make WAR what it should be, so not listening seems like the lesser evil compared to admitting they listen but can't do shit about it

Basic board game design should have reminded them why a 3-way realm war in DAoC was a better choice to favor better gameplay balancing. Same reason games like Diplomacy are fun. And the reason games like Monopoly suck with 2 people.

In fact, they did a lot of the hard work of 3-way content dev with the pariings, but didn't carry the 3-way tension into ORvR. NOrmally the defense against N-way is "oh, that's N times the content" at least for PvE leveling.

Two people in an elevator and one farts, nothing interesting. But three people gives it a chance.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: chargerrich on December 17, 2008, 06:10:49 AM
I disagree in that I believe if Mythic had clearly stated that x,y and z were wrong, broke or not in place that many like myself would have stayed and waited. It is funny looking back, I really was a fanboi and loved to slam WoW at every opportunity. Gamers tend to be rabid like that and run with blinders on.

Of course everyone has a different tolerance level for "bad" "broke" and "not in game" but we tend to latch onto what is said or promised by the developers. For me personally it was when Mark bascially decided to ignore the reality that his game is very (read mind numbingly) boring and grindy starting at Tier 3.

I actually loved the game in T1-2 and had 6 different characters hit the T3 wall. Had I been told that Mythic agreed and was addressing it "soon" I would not have gone out and bought the WoW expansion that I am currently enjoying. Hell I still ended up waiting until 9.27 to buy WoLK, I wanted WAR to succeed that bad.

But like any relationship, the line between love and hate is blurred and I was jilted  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Redgiant on December 17, 2008, 03:34:37 PM
I actually loved the game in T1-2 and had 6 different characters hit the T3 wall.

I wanted it to succeed too. Mainly since I wanted a good ORvR-style fantasy-setting game around again, so I wanted it to carry the flag as DAoC's worthy successor. It didn't particularly matter that it was Mythic making it, other than the extra "confidence" that they would pull it off given what they had done before. In retrospect ...

I still say that a major reason for what has happened is (1) they tried to bolt on DAoC-style elements too late, and (2) they released a game too early that had bugs due to both basic game mechanics and late-ORvR additions.

Just like players, I think devs come in different flavors: some love WoW play, and some love DAoC play more. I may catch flak for this next comment, but I notice this pattern in friends and co-workers who play games:

1. People who love WoW PvP (BGs, Arenas)
    a. never played DAoC in its first 2 years (i.e. don't know what they are missing).
    b. think WAR scenarios == RvR (technically yes you do fight other players; in true realm spirit hell no).
    c. on average are younger, more solo-oriented due to WoW and modern emphasis, and loot-oriented over MMO realm-oriented (i.e. are more in it for self rather than relam simulation reasons) - I don't say 'casual' because play duration doesn'd dictate either style; that is more a fact of RL conditions.
    d. actually think WAR needs to add MORE scenario or PQ flavor to ORvR areas because "zergs are hard to fight"

2. People who love DAOC ORvR
    a. played DAoC in its first 2 years
    b. recognized early WoW is a poor ORvR substitute (good EQ fix, poor DAoC fix), but TM/SS, outdoor dragon/Kazak raid vs. raid fights and city raids were the closest they had
    c. think WoW PvP (BGs, arena) may be creative, but are not even close to being labelled RvR; in fact WoW has consciously moved away from non-instanced ORvR
    c. bought WAR expecting DAoC II
    d. are boggled that WAR's ORvR sucks so bad given that Mythic made DAoC (imo OF and some elements of NF - boats, destructible walls, seige - were the golden age of DAoC)
    e. realize WAR in anything like its current form is lost for their kind of play, and if anything Mythic is purposely avoiding DAoC-isms even when it is the obvious solution
    f. have put up with WAR this far only because there is nothing else on the immediate horizon, not because they like it




Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: rps99 on December 17, 2008, 04:07:49 PM
(2f): why would someone play a game he doesn't like?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Gurney on December 17, 2008, 07:33:35 PM
(2f): why would someone play a game he doesn't like?

Addiction to carrots.  They seem innocuous .... until you smoke them!


A lot of DIKU MMO become work not games.  Games are about learning and exploration and improving your abilities at things through repetition.  That is why you are "playing" them they are play bahvior.  Taht is why Super Mario Brothers is fun.  Its just repetitive running and jumping, but we as mammals create a game out of that to learn to get better at a skill.  Its fun.


You can make a lot of money by creating fun games.  People will pay a lot of money to have fun.  People will only pay money to do a job if they trick them into thinking they are playing a game.  Otherwise they expect to paid to do a job.

As people move to endgame all the hallmarks of play behavior tend to get less and less unitl you can barely call it a game.  All that is left is the addictive rewards and progression mechanics.  But once you are addicted you will do what all addicts do to get the their fix; rationalize.

Many DIKU MMO players are simply addicts fooling themselves into thinking the job they are doing is a game.  Afterall games themselves are kind of pretend.  You are really doing training when you play, just like any athelete does repetitous things to get better.  But its not a job; play beahvior is merely preparatory and once you feel prepared you move on.  You do it for its own sake.  In DIKU MMO most stuff is done because you get "paid" in loot or xp.  You do repetition you hate and that has no real purpose because you want your carrot.  The carrot makes you feel good.  Its progress.  Progress makes you feel like you accomplished something.  Not that DIKU MMOs have to be played this way there are all sorts of real gaming parts to them and they can be played as a game.  However many people wind up not doing so.


So why do they then turn around and say they hate the games etc.  Well that is another aspect of the addict.  Self-loathing.  Thus the viscous cycle continues.  You hate it and yourself for doing it, then you need to feel better so you indulge yourself.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: raydeen on December 17, 2008, 07:37:34 PM
(2f): why would someone play a game he doesn't like?

I think it's because there are those of us who are desperately looking for a game that may never be. I remember reading an article in Dragon magazine back in the 80's about a bunch of college kids who were playing a computer version of D&D and came across a group of russian kids also playing in the game. It was probably a MUD of some sort on the early interweb but that story fascinated me. When EQ came out, that was my holy grail. EQ was nothing like what I had built up in my mind as to what the game should be, but it was close enough. I put up with all the fucktardedness and grind and had a blast. When WoW came out I didn't want to play it as I thought it was too dumbed down and not serious business like EQ was. Well, I got into it and now have a very hard time going back to EQ though I still keep my sub active as I like to visit the old country now and then. Now someone could keep playing WAR (I'm giving it a few months before I write it off completely) and hate it but keep hoping that it or another game like it will eventually come along and sweep them off their feet and sex happily ever after with them. We're creatures of hope. Or at least dobermans with tennis balls. We don't give up and we don't let go.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Triforcer on December 17, 2008, 07:56:59 PM
The next rock of crack will recapture that original high.  I'm sure of it!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: squirrel on December 17, 2008, 07:58:17 PM
The next rock of crack will recapture that original high.  I'm sure of it!

Bad comparison. Crack sucks, but at least it's fun.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: raydeen on December 17, 2008, 09:53:27 PM
The next rock of crack will recapture that original high.  I'm sure of it!

Bad comparison. Crack sucks, but at least it's fun.

I'd like to think of it more like that first lover. Neither of us quite knew what we were doing but we had a great time almost doing it and have fond memories of all the fumbling and crying.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Zzulo on December 18, 2008, 02:20:54 PM
Quote
Folks,

As we head into the holiday season here’s a quick update on where we stand plus a little bit of holiday cheer.

As the community knows, our engineering team has been focusing on a number of key issues that have been affecting WAR over the last few weeks. These issues include crashes-to-desktop (CTDs), fortress crashes and lockup issues when exiting scenarios and at certain loading screens. I’ve got some great news to report on all of these fronts. Over the last few weeks we’ve gone a bit overboard in the number of patches that we have been making to both the client and servers in order to resolve these issues quickly, especially before the end of the year. Sometimes we have announced these patches but sometimes these patches were done quietly while we tested out some of them on individual servers. The results of these efforts by the team and these patches have been quite wonderful and I’m happy to be able to talk about them now.

Our client crashes (CTDs), are now at their lowest point at any time during development or since we’ve gone LIVE. Over the last couple of weeks we cut the number of CTDs down by 75% across all players in North America. In terms of fortress takes and their affect on server stability, we have had only one server that has crashed due to a fortress take in North America since Monday (and that was on a server that had the older code). While this is not a guarantee that we have solved all the issues, the fact is that the fixes we have made have resulted in numerous fortress assaults and lots of exciting open RvR action. Finally, in terms of client lockups, we have fixed the problems that came about after the 1.1 patch and we will continue to work on this issue with additional patches today and tomorrow. While I know that this has resulted in a bit more patching during the week than is usual for us, the results have been well worth it. All of these improvements have and/or are being sent to our partner GOA for rapid deployment for our European players.

And now for some more holiday cheer! Starting today we are going to be speeding up the leveling curve in WAR for a few weeks. We’re going to increase the rest experience multiplier bonus in a hotfix today as well as reducing the time that it takes you to earn rested xp while logged out of the game, especially in Tiers 3 and 4. This will result in players’ time to level being approximately 10% faster in Tier 2 and 20% faster in Tiers 3 and 4. We hope you enjoy the changes and have a great holiday season as you speed through the tiers faster than ever before!

As always, we thank you for your patronage and support.

Happy Holidays from all of us at Mythic Entertainment. Please have a safe and fun holiday season whether your travels are in our Warhammer world or in the real world.

Mark

Man, they need to keep these XP changes for good.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Tmon on December 18, 2008, 03:20:41 PM
Quote
his will result in players’ time to level being approximately 10% faster in Tier 2 and 20% faster in Tiers 3 and 4

Too little and far too late for me I'm afraid. 


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on December 18, 2008, 03:33:21 PM
Quote
his will result in players’ time to level being approximately 10% faster in Tier 2 and 20% faster in Tiers 3 and 4

When it gets to 100-200% faster in tiers 3 and 4, I may start caring again.  Until then... MEH!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: JWIV on December 18, 2008, 03:39:11 PM
And it's only temporary.   




Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on December 18, 2008, 03:40:35 PM
Jesus /facepalm.  Well played.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: eldaec on December 18, 2008, 03:48:45 PM
That is hilarious, 10% extra xp weekend!

This has to be the single most ridiculous mmog promotion in the history of the genre.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Tannhauser on December 18, 2008, 03:51:25 PM
Make xp boost permanent and I might come back.  Well in a couple of months, just got Mines of Moria.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Arthur_Parker on December 18, 2008, 04:06:56 PM
EA quarter ends this month.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Threash on December 18, 2008, 04:19:05 PM
Is the exp boost in yet? i got 5% of a level at 33 in one 120-60 serpents passage win earlier, it seemed quite a bit more than usual.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Numtini on December 18, 2008, 04:25:17 PM
10% xp boost? That's funny. It's like the exit questionaire, it's meant to make you feel better, but actually does the opposite.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Sophismata on December 18, 2008, 05:22:21 PM
Is the exp boost in yet? i got 5% of a level at 33 in one 120-60 serpents passage win earlier, it seemed quite a bit more than usual.
It's a boost to rested exp.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on December 18, 2008, 05:23:45 PM
It's a boost to rested exp.

Which proves my original point: the best way to enjoy WAR is not to play.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: UnSub on December 18, 2008, 06:17:25 PM
Quote
Folks,

Sometimes we have announced these patches but sometimes these patches were done quietly while we tested out some of them on individual servers.

Am I reading this right - that Mythic is stealth testing patches on live servers?

If so, my reaction in picture form: :uhrr: :mob: :cthulu: :uhrr:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Ingmar on December 18, 2008, 06:33:40 PM
Quote
Folks,

Sometimes we have announced these patches but sometimes these patches were done quietly while we tested out some of them on individual servers.

Am I reading this right - that Mythic is stealth testing patches on live servers?

If so, my reaction in picture form: :uhrr: :mob: :cthulu: :uhrr:

Man that is maybe the worst idea ever. Just when you thought it couldn't get any stupider.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ghost on December 18, 2008, 07:45:35 PM
Quote
Folks,

Sometimes we have announced these patches but sometimes these patches were done quietly while we tested out some of them on individual servers.

Am I reading this right - that Mythic is stealth testing patches on live servers?

If so, my reaction in picture form: :uhrr: :mob: :cthulu: :uhrr:

Man that is maybe the worst idea ever. Just when you thought it couldn't get any stupider.

A crappy patch can't be any worse than what they've already put out there.....


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waffel on December 18, 2008, 08:35:40 PM
I don't fucking understand their thinking.

So they know t3 and t4 leveling sucks ass, and their idea after months and months of bitching about it is to make rested experience give 10-20% more experience for a few weeks? What the fuck? Why not just increase experience gained from monsters/quests/players by 30% PERMANENTLY?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Nebu on December 18, 2008, 08:47:01 PM
Why not just increase experience gained from monsters/quests/players by 30% PERMANENTLY?

30%?  Hell... just slap me in the face.  If they don't at least double xp gains in those tiers soon, they're going to start losing hardcore players as well.  With the endgame still messed up, the only play value is in rerolls... and that value is pretty limited.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: angry.bob on December 18, 2008, 09:23:29 PM
They managed to really fuck up the design of the current live event too. They changed the way they award INF and it's just a fucking godawful grind. It's like they designed it so that in addition to completing different tasks you'll have to grind through several hundred of the special holiday mobs too. I've spent the better part of the day working on it with a low level alt and have 7 of the 13 tasks completed - and I just hit the basic reward. There is no fucking way I'm going to grind out the amount of kills I'd need at the 5 inf per kill they give now in order to get a fucking recall scroll with 15 charges that happens to look like a beer cask.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it's like they have a great idea, but then at the last minute they get all fucking retarded and manage to make the exact wrong decisions in order to totally ruin things. Seriously, everyone on the fucking planet knows that the T3+ grind is still driving people away and the lack of players concentrating in the same areas is killing the end game, but they keep insisting on dancing around it like there's nothing wrong.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: waffel on December 18, 2008, 10:58:26 PM
but then at the last minute they get all fucking retarded and manage to make the exact wrong decisions in order to totally ruin things.nothing wrong.

They did the exact same thing with DAoC. I don't understand the company at all. Its like they want to fail.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ashrik on December 19, 2008, 01:21:09 AM
They really are bizarre in their mindset. I'm getting 600 xp for mobs a level above me at 37, but I need the absurd amount of 852,000 to level. Let me get it over with already!


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Setanta on December 19, 2008, 01:49:02 AM
Bloody hell, they are pulling their servers down for another patch. Guess I'll go play WotLK instead because at least it's downtime is minimal.

Do Mythic really not want people to play? One big patch guys - once a week - not multiple downtimes per week. Subscription canned - I'm not paying for downtime on a beta project.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Bismallah on December 19, 2008, 06:40:19 AM
Shoulda canned your sub months ago, saved the heartache. Stealth patching live servers = big no no. Hell it appears one of those stealth patches was forcing graphics down when they had more then the server could handle in one location. Walls looked like graphics from 2001, other textures were completely gutted. You think people don't notice that shit?

Then again, if people are still paying, they deserve what they get. It's obvious this company doesn't give a fuck anymore. Sure, shame on the company for pulling this crap, but even more so shame on the active subs that put up with this shit and complain non stop but don't cancel. Those people are just as responsible for allowing this to go on as the company at this point.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Beltaine on December 19, 2008, 07:02:21 AM
I think my server was one of the stealth patched ones.

I run two GeForce GTX 260's in SLI at the highest settings possible and the last few days my textures have been popping in and out of focus at random in empty zones when I'm not even moving.

 I thought my vid cards were mucking up. GG Mythic.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on December 19, 2008, 07:20:01 AM
Wow, what a bunch of outright wrong things. Temporary rested xp. bonuses? That's no fucking help at all. But yeah, stealth patches on select client servers - that is so ultra-mega retarded. It's the exact opposite of good customer service. There is not a big enough DO NOT WANT for that sort of thing.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Trippy on December 19, 2008, 08:16:48 AM
Quote
And now for some more holiday cheer! Starting today we are going to be speeding up the leveling curve in WAR for a few weeks. We’re going to increase the rest experience multiplier bonus in a hotfix today as well as reducing the time that it takes you to earn rested xp while logged out of the game, especially in Tiers 3 and 4. This will result in players’ time to level being approximately 10% faster in Tier 2 and 20% faster in Tiers 3 and 4. We hope you enjoy the changes and have a great holiday season as you speed through the tiers faster than ever before!
I like how he's so proud of a 20% increase. In CoH/CoV when they want to speed up levelling temporarily they *DOUBLE* the exp (aka "Double Experience Weekends"). Doubling the exp gain is the type of thing that gets people back into the game, as demonstrated by the huge spike in players playing CoH/CoV during these weekends (so many that a couple servers actually get full). 20%? Not so much.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Bismallah on December 19, 2008, 08:38:58 AM
Beltaine, that's exactly what I was referencing. One of my friends who still plays said that his graphics kept popping in and out of his high/low settings randomly (specifically ground and wall textures). I said your video card was going out. Come to find out it was the dumbfucks at Mythic mucking with the settings client side to try to improve stability, via ghost patching his server (Red Eye Mountain in his situation, or one of the ones that received magical patching because it kept crashing like whoa at Fort sieges).

And that XP bonus is laughable. They should have put the killing spree/bonus back in the game from beta, but whatever. Most games give the double XP on certain weekends. Hell didnt DAOC start giving double RP weekends for RvR incentives?


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on December 19, 2008, 08:39:24 AM
They may be testing the waters before committing to the XP speed increase.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: HaemishM on December 19, 2008, 09:25:40 AM
They may be testing the waters before committing to the XP speed increase.

I'm confident those waters are quite warm and comfortable.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Morfiend on December 19, 2008, 09:31:06 AM
They may be testing the waters before committing to the XP speed increase.

I'm confident those waters are quite warm and comfortable.

Like the rest of the game, what they didn't tell you was at the last minute they switched water for urine. Hence the warmth.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Bismallah on December 19, 2008, 10:15:44 AM

Well, let's say they do increase the XP for good. Then what? Level umpteen alts till they fix the end game?



Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Mrbloodworth on December 19, 2008, 10:22:45 AM
They may be testing the waters before committing to the XP speed increase.

I'm confident those waters are quite warm and comfortable.

lol, i was referring to game system impact, not necessarily players reactions.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: tazelbain on December 19, 2008, 11:21:07 AM
I don't remember rest xp being that useful at all.  And how can the say that characters would level 10-20% faster if it depended how much rest you have.  People are bound to play at different rates and earn various amounts of rest.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: ghost on December 19, 2008, 11:24:07 AM
I don't remember rest xp being that useful at all.  And how can the say that characters would level 10-20% faster if it depended how much rest you have.  People are bound to play at different rates and earn various amounts of rest.

Well, at the rate I'm playing I an assure you that I would be able to take full advantage of the rest experience addition.

If I was still paying.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: eldaec on December 19, 2008, 01:55:36 PM
They may be testing the waters before committing to the XP speed increase.

What could they possibly expect to learn from a couple of weeks about supposed long term retention risks of a negligable increase in xp rates.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: fuser on December 19, 2008, 02:09:13 PM
Quote
Recruit a friend
Here’s how it works:

When you become a paying subscriber to Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning, you’ll receive 3 recruitment notices to share with friends or family. For each month you continue to subscribe, you’ll receive another recruitment notice (for a maximum of 6 at any time).

2. Send a recruitment email to a friend or family member from the Account Center. This will allow your recruit to create a trial account for seven days of free play. Unused referrals expire after 30 days and will revert back to your pool of available referrals.

3. When your recruit becomes a paying subscriber to WAR, you will receive a credit for 30 days of free game time. Stay tuned for more exciting recruitment rewards in the future!

A good thing, but would you really recruit a friend at this stage? I feel bad that my friends bought copies  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Montague on December 19, 2008, 02:56:40 PM
Quote
Recruit a friend
Here’s how it works:

When you become a paying subscriber to Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning, you’ll receive 3 recruitment notices to share with friends or family. For each month you continue to subscribe, you’ll receive another recruitment notice (for a maximum of 6 at any time).

2. Send a recruitment email to a friend or family member from the Account Center. This will allow your recruit to create a trial account for seven days of free play. Unused referrals expire after 30 days and will revert back to your pool of available referrals.

3. When your recruit becomes a paying subscriber to WAR, you will receive a credit for 30 days of free game time. Stay tuned for more exciting recruitment rewards in the future!

A good thing, but would you really recruit a friend at this stage? I feel bad that my friends bought copies  :ye_gods:

Pales in comparison to Blizzard's triple xp and free levels.


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: rk47 on December 19, 2008, 03:18:40 PM
Quote
Recruit a friend
Here’s how it works:

When you become a paying subscriber to Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning, you’ll receive 3 recruitment notices to share with friends or family. For each month you continue to subscribe, you’ll receive another recruitment notice (for a maximum of 6 at any time).

2. Send a recruitment email to a friend or family member from the Account Center. This will allow your recruit to create a trial account for seven days of free play. Unused referrals expire after 30 days and will revert back to your pool of available referrals.

3. When your recruit becomes a paying subscriber to WAR, you will receive a credit for 30 days of free game time. Stay tuned for more exciting recruitment rewards in the future!

A good thing, but would you really recruit a friend at this stage? I feel bad that my friends bought copies  :ye_gods:
yay free cross realm spy account  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: State of The Game - Mark Jacobs
Post by: Setanta on December 19, 2008, 03:55:18 PM
Quote
Recruit a friend

A good thing, but would you really recruit a friend at this stage? I feel bad that my friends bought copies  :ye_gods:

Where's my zebra mount??? :oh_i_see:

If I tried to sell my friends on a half-assed, unpolished game with egotistical devs with their heads up their asses telling players that they aren't playing a game right, how long would they remain my friends?

I just re-looked at the rested XP boost - why boost T2? It's the best part of the whole game. In fact, they could have capped levelling at 20 so that we could understand game mechanics and get our skills, then possibly have reknown tactics kick in for another 10 levels based on SC/RvR. AKA have a learning curve, not a cockblock.

But I guess that would just be common sense and radical thinking and wouldn't hide the fact that the endgame... well, it's not shit, because shit exists, endgame doesn't.