WAR RvR Video from E3.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I call bullshit on daoc variety, I tried all three realm and all that changed was the scenery changing from green to pastel to grey/brown. I mean you can call 40 different models of spriggans content, I called it bullshit.

[Nebu]

I call bullshit on daoc variety, I tried all three realm and all that changed was the scenery changing from green to pastel to grey/brown. I mean you can call 40 different models of spriggans content, I called it bullshit.

Fair enough.  Just keep in mind that most people didn't play DAoC for the pve.  We all admit that was the weak point.

[WindupAtheist]

DAoC kept me subscribed for over 5 years.  WoW for about 6 months.

So were we debating what you should do with a game if you want it to be successful, or what you should do with a game if you want Nebu to play it?

You see everything in WoW on the first trip through and switching sides only gives you different paths around the same area.  In DAoC you see three different pve areas, different class builds, different group dynamics, and different social circles.

Except WoW is about a billion times more content-rich than DAoC, no matter how many separate level grinds DAoC attaches chunks of it's total content to.

[eldaec]

DAoC kept me subscribed for over 5 years.  WoW for about 6 months.

So were we debating what you should do with a game if you want it to be successful, or what you should do with a game if you want Nebu to play it?

Actually we were debating whether it is possible to make an acceptable mmog with multiple distinct realms, and whether, given the benefit to pvp, it is worth the cost to pve.

Daoc's pve content was on par with its contemporaries despite the split between realms, and as Nebu demonstrates, people didn't quit daoc because of insufficient content. (in fact, they mostly quit because of an additional lump of pve content that was added and available to players of all three realms)

different group dynamics,

In content terms, this is the really important difference which works in all games with large numbers of classes, CoH, EQ2 and DAoC in particular. One reason I tired of WoW more quickly than any of those three games was that groups felt too samey.

I think this will become more important for WoW people on their second MMOG, as I've always felt that the longer people play mmogs, the less they see them as a world, and the clearer they see the mechanics. Which means making battles play out differently is an enormous help.



Comparing daoc with wow seems odd, since they aim at a different part of the market, but Mythic rather bring it on themselves ofc.

[Ingmar]

(in fact, they mostly quit because of an additional lump of pve content that was added and available to players of all three realms)

This makes it sound like 'new pve content' was the whole reason TOA was a bomb. That isn't the case. TOA had 2 major problems; the most important of the two is simply that it was, from trials to artifacts and everything in between, done poorly. The other is that it was PVE content that was required to maximize your PVP capabilities. (I could also mention the crippling technical problems of the first couple weeks of TOA, but generally the 'shitty launch is unrecoverable' rule doesn't apply as much to expansions.) If it had been completely awesome in implementation, then the PVE-to-PVP thing would have caused grumbling and probably even some cancellations but not the mass horror that it did end up being.

Compare to the epic instanced quest thingies in Darkness Rising, which were totally awesome. If TOA had been like DR, DAOC wouldn't have stumbled like it did.

[cevik]

Daoc's pve content was on par with its contemporaries despite the split between realms, and as Nebu demonstrates, people didn't quit daoc because of insufficient content.

*cough*Hibernia*cough*

[Triforcer]

I played DAoC the month it came out.  I spawned on some sort of brown hill.  I ran over some more brown hills into a brown plain.  There, I killed some dark green frogs with my character (dressed in brown).  I never talked to anyone and after killing 20 or so frogs I logged out and cancelled my account.

And then I was off, to my next adventure!

[Ingmar]

Daoc's pve content was on par with its contemporaries despite the split between realms, and as Nebu demonstrates, people didn't quit daoc because of insufficient content.

*cough*Hibernia*cough*

The only real difference in Hibernia's content was lack of art assets. They still had camps of monsters to kill for XP, which for much of DAOC's existence was all there was to PVE content anyway. Yeah their dungeons sucked. So did Midgard's for the most part, especially early on. In the 'end game' of leveling from 40 to 50 in the early pre-expansion days, they had, frankly, an easier time with their PBAE fin groups anyway. Midgard didn't even get PBAE until what, a year in? And Albs were too dumb to figure out how to use it for a long time. 

[Drugstore Space Cowboy]

You see everything in WoW on the first trip through and switching sides only gives you different paths around the same area.  In DAoC you see three different pve areas, different class builds, different group dynamics, and different social circles.

Except WoW is about a billion times more content-rich than DAoC, no matter how many separate level grinds DAoC attaches chunks of it's total content to.

WoW's progression to level cap is significantly shorter than DAoC's, but you're right: the latter's grind exceeded the available content, whereas WoW's has room to spare.

[Lakov_Sanite]

If only part of your game is fun and the other part is a grind designed to get you "to the fun" then you're doing it wrong.

If you make a primarily PVP game yet shoehorn players into a PVE grind then you're doing it wrong.

Let's see how WAR does on that.

[eldaec]

I played DAoC the month it came out.  I spawned on some sort of brown hill.  I ran over some more brown hills into a brown plain.  There, I killed some dark green frogs with my character (dressed in brown).  I never talked to anyone and after killing 20 or so frogs I logged out and cancelled my account.

And then I was off, to my next adventure!

Most people moved to DAoC from EQ or UO, and stood about for the first few weeks telling each other how awesome for reals the spell effects were.

WoW is prettier, there, I said it. The game that came out several years later is prettier.

WAR will be prettier than DAoC too.


The grind point is valid, but again, daoc had a short grind for the era, and mythic people have since said publically that later games have proven that the grind should be shorter still. They've also openly recognised that the ToA grind was a bad idea.

Every mmog generation has had a shorter grind than the previous one - there is no reason to expect that this will change - and equally no reason to expect developers to ever work out that grinding to the fun is a shitty design concept.

[cevik]

The only real difference in Hibernia's content was lack of art assets. They still had camps of monsters to kill for XP, which for much of DAOC's existence was all there was to PVE content anyway. Yeah their dungeons sucked. So did Midgard's for the most part, especially early on.

Hibernia wasn't itemized until the game was out for a few weeks at least. 

But the argument above was "ZOMG DAoC had plenty of content when compared to the other games out at the time!!!1!", which certainly wasn't true for Hibernia.  In the past when I made that argument I was told "Well the other realms had content and Hibernia was a pansy elf realm anyways, so the joke's on you newb".  If the real answer is that the rest of the game lacked content like Hibernia did (no items, 1 type of thing to kill repeated for all 40 levels) then I can't imagine how anyone could make the argument that DAoC had even remotely close to the same pve content level that, lets say, EQ did at the time.

[Ingmar]

The only real difference in Hibernia's content was lack of art assets. They still had camps of monsters to kill for XP, which for much of DAOC's existence was all there was to PVE content anyway. Yeah their dungeons sucked. So did Midgard's for the most part, especially early on.

Hibernia wasn't itemized until the game was out for a few weeks at least. 

But the argument above was "ZOMG DAoC had plenty of content when compared to the other games out at the time!!!1!", which certainly wasn't true for Hibernia.  In the past when I made that argument I was told "Well the other realms had content and Hibernia was a pansy elf realm anyways, so the joke's on you newb".  If the real answer is that the rest of the game lacked content like Hibernia did (no items, 1 type of thing to kill repeated for all 40 levels) then I can't imagine how anyone could make the argument that DAoC had even remotely close to the same pve content level that, lets say, EQ did at the time.

I can't imagine why someone would argue that either. DAOC had crap for PVE content for *months*, in all realms. I did forget about the itemization issue - Midgard had some of that too but not to the extent of Hibernia. I think Alb dungeons were all itemized at or shortly after release.

[Nebu]

I can't imagine why someone would argue that either. DAOC had crap for PVE content for *months*, in all realms. I did forget about the itemization issue - Midgard had some of that too but not to the extent of Hibernia. I think Alb dungeons were all itemized at or shortly after release.

DAoC did have crap for pve content.  Itemization was poor, the grind was long, and there wasn't much to do after level 30 early on.  I think the game survived primarily due to the endgame.  The itemization didn't matter back then because its effect on the end game was small.  Hell, it was their primary attempts to add content (particularly pve content) that drove the core subscribers, including myself, away. 

[cevik]

I can't imagine why someone would argue that either. DAOC had crap for PVE content for *months*, in all realms. I did forget about the itemization issue - Midgard had some of that too but not to the extent of Hibernia. I think Alb dungeons were all itemized at or shortly after release.

DAoC did have crap for pve content.  Itemization was poor, the grind was long, and there wasn't much to do after level 30 early on.  I think the game survived primarily due to the endgame.  The itemization didn't matter back then because its effect on the end game was small.  Hell, it was their primary attempts to add content (particularly pve content) that drove the core subscribers, including myself, away. 

Just for the record, fully half of this thread has been "DAoC pve content was like totally just fine and stuff".  In fact, even your name was thrown into the mix, Nebu:

...
Daoc's pve content was on par with its contemporaries despite the split between realms, and as Nebu demonstrates, people didn't quit daoc because of insufficient content. (in fact, they mostly quit because of an additional lump of pve content that was added and available to players of all three realms)
...

[Lakov_Sanite]

I'll say it again, DAOC PVE was utter drek but you HAD to do it to get to the 'fun' PVP endgame.

If WAR follows suit it is going to die a horrible lingering death of obscurity.

[Ingmar]

I can't imagine why someone would argue that either. DAOC had crap for PVE content for *months*, in all realms. I did forget about the itemization issue - Midgard had some of that too but not to the extent of Hibernia. I think Alb dungeons were all itemized at or shortly after release.

DAoC did have crap for pve content.  Itemization was poor, the grind was long, and there wasn't much to do after level 30 early on.  I think the game survived primarily due to the endgame.  The itemization didn't matter back then because its effect on the end game was small.  Hell, it was their primary attempts to add content (particularly pve content) that drove the core subscribers, including myself, away. 

Was it just adding PVE content at all, or the implementation of that content that did it?

[eldaec]

I can't imagine why someone would argue that either. DAOC had crap for PVE content for *months*, in all realms. I did forget about the itemization issue - Midgard had some of that too but not to the extent of Hibernia. I think Alb dungeons were all itemized at or shortly after release.

DAoC did have crap for pve content.  Itemization was poor, the grind was long, and there wasn't much to do after level 30 early on.  I think the game survived primarily due to the endgame.  The itemization didn't matter back then because its effect on the end game was small.  Hell, it was their primary attempts to add content (particularly pve content) that drove the core subscribers, including myself, away. 

Just for the record, fully half of this thread has been "DAoC pve content was like totally just fine and stuff".  In fact, even your name was thrown into the mix, Nebu:

...
Daoc's pve content was on par with its contemporaries despite the split between realms, and as Nebu demonstrates, people didn't quit daoc because of insufficient content. (in fact, they mostly quit because of an additional lump of pve content that was added and available to players of all three realms)
...

Maybe everyone else here remembers EQ and AC PvE more fondly then I do.

I don't mean to say I ever chose daoc for its pve, or that it is fine in a modern context, but just that getting knickers in a twist because daoc pve isn't as good as EQ2 or CoH doesn't make much sense. I'd be disappointed if Mythic haven't learnt from the likes of EQ2/CoH and refined the pve experience, just as they learnt from EQ/AC with DAoC.

[Simond]

Verant-era EQ always had better PvE than same-era DAoC, and EQ only improved (barring one incredibly retarded expansion) while DAoC got worse.
EQ pvp on the team war Zeks was more fun than DAoC too.

[eldaec]

I can't imagine why someone would argue that either. DAOC had crap for PVE content for *months*, in all realms. I did forget about the itemization issue - Midgard had some of that too but not to the extent of Hibernia. I think Alb dungeons were all itemized at or shortly after release.

DAoC did have crap for pve content.  Itemization was poor, the grind was long, and there wasn't much to do after level 30 early on.  I think the game survived primarily due to the endgame.  The itemization didn't matter back then because its effect on the end game was small.  Hell, it was their primary attempts to add content (particularly pve content) that drove the core subscribers, including myself, away. 

Was it just adding PVE content at all, or the implementation of that content that did it?

More than anything it was

1) that the new content felt mandatory
2) there were literally dozens of horrible spawn timer based quests that had to be completed almost sequentially to reach the new effective level cap.
3) equipment was given xp, you had to level up your sword, and in some cases your sword would only gain xp from specific mobs.

I really can't believe how stupid number 3 sounds when I write it down.

[Ingmar]

I can't imagine why someone would argue that either. DAOC had crap for PVE content for *months*, in all realms. I did forget about the itemization issue - Midgard had some of that too but not to the extent of Hibernia. I think Alb dungeons were all itemized at or shortly after release.

DAoC did have crap for pve content.  Itemization was poor, the grind was long, and there wasn't much to do after level 30 early on.  I think the game survived primarily due to the endgame.  The itemization didn't matter back then because its effect on the end game was small.  Hell, it was their primary attempts to add content (particularly pve content) that drove the core subscribers, including myself, away. 

Was it just adding PVE content at all, or the implementation of that content that did it?

More than anything it was

1) that the new content felt mandatory
2) there were literally dozens of horrible spawn timer based quests that had to be completed almost sequentially to reach the new effective level cap.
3) equipment was given xp, you had to level up your sword, and in some cases your sword would only gain xp from specific mobs.

I really can't believe how stupid number 3 sounds when I write it down.

Would #1 have bothered you if the new content was actually fun to do?

[Fordel]

It would bother me. 

[Count Nerfedalot]

As several of the above posts point out, EQ had far more and far better PvE at the time of DAoC's launch than DAoC had.  Or even at it's own launch for that matter.  DAoC survived launching with a lame and limited PvE experience for a couple of reasons. 
 
   1) What they did deploy (mostly) worked.  To a much higher percentage and degree than EQ at the time.

   2) The lure of meaningful PvP.  EQ's PvP experience had proven to be too much of an afterthought.  DAoC promised and delivered much better.

   3) Unlike Sony/Verant, Mythic didn't make a habit of kicking their customers in the teeth then bragging about it (as long as you weren't an archer).

The flip side was, due to the lacking PvE experience, DAoC was just merely successful, rather than outrageously successful as it might have been had they been able to invest as much effort (and yes, money) into the PvE experience as they did RvR.  They deliberately chose or were forced to limit their scope, so they built their business model and business accordingly rather than biting off far more than they could chew, and released a successful game rather than an incomplete mess.

[Cylus]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/successful-mmo-design-corrupts-new-ideas-says-warhammer-dev

Hopefully taken a bit out of context?

[Triforcer]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/successful-mmo-design-corrupts-new-ideas-says-warhammer-dev

Hopefully taken a bit out of context?

How did Paul Barnett have time to give this interview when he's moving to Texas?

[UnSub]

... of course, the Monkees were incredibly successful in their own right. It's not like they failed horribly (until the end of the Monkees, when they tried to not be the Monkees anymore).

To further torture the analogy, it seems like Paul wants his band to make pop music but without listening to current pop music because that would influence them. While that's a great artistic goal, will the buyers of pop music head out and buy Paul and Co.'s new album if its too far from what they expect from the genre?

... this may be the most abstract post I've ever made while still trying to be serious...

[trias_e]

Hopefully taken a bit out of context?

Meh, hopefully not.  I know that's the only way I'll be interested in the game.  He's definitely right that imitating WoW will not lead to anything but mediocrity, both in sales and in product.  A little bit of focused creativity with people that can actually develop a non-buggy PoS is certainly needed in the genre...

[Lakov_Sanite]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/successful-mmo-design-corrupts-new-ideas-says-warhammer-dev

Hopefully taken a bit out of context?

I don't think it's wow's fault that designers at mythic are unoriginal, I mean they did make EQ2.0 afterall.....I mean DAOC

[Cylus]

Meh, hopefully not.  I know that's the only way I'll be interested in the game.  He's definitely right that imitating WoW will not lead to anything but mediocrity, both in sales and in product.  A little bit of focused creativity with people that can actually develop a non-buggy PoS is certainly needed in the genre...

There's a very big difference between imitating WoW and iterating on what works well in WoW, or any other game for that matter. 

[murdoc]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/successful-mmo-design-corrupts-new-ideas-says-warhammer-dev

Hopefully taken a bit out of context?

I don't think it's wow's fault that designers at mythic are unoriginal, I mean they did make EQ2.0 afterall.....I mean DAOC

DAoC was many things, but EQ2.0 was not one of them.

[eldaec]

I can't imagine why someone would argue that either. DAOC had crap for PVE content for *months*, in all realms. I did forget about the itemization issue - Midgard had some of that too but not to the extent of Hibernia. I think Alb dungeons were all itemized at or shortly after release.

DAoC did have crap for pve content.  Itemization was poor, the grind was long, and there wasn't much to do after level 30 early on.  I think the game survived primarily due to the endgame.  The itemization didn't matter back then because its effect on the end game was small.  Hell, it was their primary attempts to add content (particularly pve content) that drove the core subscribers, including myself, away. 

Was it just adding PVE content at all, or the implementation of that content that did it?

More than anything it was

1) that the new content felt mandatory
2) there were literally dozens of horrible spawn timer based quests that had to be completed almost sequentially to reach the new effective level cap.
3) equipment was given xp, you had to level up your sword, and in some cases your sword would only gain xp from specific mobs.

I really can't believe how stupid number 3 sounds when I write it down.

Would #1 have bothered you if the new content was actually fun to do?

I would have put up with it, but wouldn't have liked it.

PvE was an occaisional social activity - and could be fun when it came in short sharp interesting encounters like the Dragon raid; 30 minutes to setup, 30 minutes to run an encounter based mostly on player skill (omg), then all back to cornwall station for tea, medals, and respec stones before heading off for an evening in RvR.

But I certainly didn't want to be pveing for weeks at a time because of arbitary additional master/champion/whatever levels Mythic insisted on adding every year.

[Simond]

DAoC was many things, but EQ2.0 was not one of them.

Yeah, it was closer to EQ0.9...but_with_PvP! 

[Nebu]

Judging DAoC for its pve would be like judging EQ for its pvp.   

[Rasix]

Judging DAoC for its pve would be like judging EQ for its pvp.   

Except for the fact that you pretty much had to PVE in Dark Age.

[Nebu]

Except for the fact that you pretty much had to PVE in Dark Age.

I never claimed to be good at analogies.