RIP: Shadowbane

[Triforcer]

Reset everything every two weeks or a month.  Give the winners the ability to wear cool sunglasses or dye their armor or get a title or something.  Give the losers a wintergrasp type damage buff if they lose more than once or twice in a row.  Scramble maps to put the winning faction in a bad strategic position, give the losers more land and more resources, etc.  And three factions   

[Falconeer]

Shadowbane has conquerable mines that once taken mine gold for you, and can be attacked (so change owner) once a day for 1 hour. The catch is all your mines become vulnerable at the same time so you can change that vulnerability window but it'll still happen once a day, and the more mines you have the harder it is for you to defend them all. Brilliant.

I think the common ground would be more stuff like this, or EVE (where at least you can farm AFK-ish), than boring and endless building resources grind as in Age of Conan or the former Shadowbane.

And three factions   

I hope that's green. Can you think of EVE with three factions?

[Lightstalker]

So what's the middle (hopefully, successful) ground?

Planetside failed on the MMO side (based on forum discussions here) much in part due lack of persistence, and lack of "meaningful-ness".

Many feel that SB farming for gold to invest in cities was it's downfall, since it was made to require so much (time) investment.

If both ends of the spectrum are failure, is there a middle ground, or is it simply a no win scenario?

It wasn't that a lot of farming was required (and it certainly got much less over time), but that the balance was out of whack. What could take a few months to build could be razed in 1-2 hours.  First contact / the skirmish-line with the enemy was often at the heart of your empire, with no way to enforce boundaries and the perimeter of this territory you 'control.'  All your assets were at risk all the time, the game actually favored building empty cities, so that you'd have nothing to lose (ye olde "one cannot be betrayed if one has no people").  The cost was significant only in the (lack of)security it provided, building a city made you a target instead of a power.

Massed Blaster Fire was a big problem both with the PvP and with the Siege mechanic.  On the small scale in a maneuver oriented fight it was really fun (so long as you were ranged melee and immune to typical sync exploiting).  On the large scale characters could be dead on the server before their client registered the first attack.  The large scale favored tricks like hiding casters within the character models of meat shields, or stacking attackers and defenders to mitigate the ability to select a target, to game one another with the font style of the game "Hello Mr. II1111IIII111I1, I'm looking at you." 

There was no mechanism to make subsequent victories more difficult, to focus a defender's power and boost their defense the closer they got to their capital, or to tax the winner with defense of his newly expanded lands.  The strong naturally got stronger and the weak were exterminated - by design.  Unless you are willing to regularly reset, this game design isn't a lot of fun late adopters over the long term.  You don't beat the early adopters under this game design, you outlast them and take your turn at the top after they've grown bored.

That plan (one can crush all their enemies and win) with regular resets would have been servicable.  Many browser based games successfully go this route.  Even if the player lost this time, there is always hope that the next reset will be different.  Everyone has a gamblers chance of winning big.  The rush of the new map was quite successful, scoring after 3 months reset on 4 months and you've got 3 challenges per year - a fine pattern of play that will provide a chance to recover and prevent player burnout.  Easy and obvious points for late adopters to get in on an even footing.  Of course, under such a plan cities need to be cheap/free since their expected lifetime will be short.

As a persistant world players need something to do that isn't obliterating their opposition.  They need skirmishes and regular light risk encounters to prevent burnout from incessant high risk encounters.  They need some reward for building their city because it goes a lot further towards making them a target than it does towards protecting them.  Cities could be expensive if they'd be expected to survive for a while.  Much was untested at release and players damaging buildings was one unfortunate slip, spec groups of siege weapon wielding barbarians could raze an upgraded wall section in 90 seconds.  If the build time on a wall was several days (and weeks of resources) you can't have it fall down in a couple minutes.

So really, the balance was off, horribly, at release.  It got better over time, but the game design did not favor building large cities rather minimal cities with minimal risk due to the cost of construction and ease of destruction.

[UnSub]

So what's the middle (hopefully, successful) ground?

EVE. 

Slightly more seriously: PvP is all about fighting other players and making you feel like you achieved something. PS didn't give that sense of achievement over the long-term. SB required a ton of PvE to get to a point that you could PvP and it was possible for a guild to permanently 'win' the map, thus making the act of fighting other players redundant at best, a death sentence at worst.

Resetting the map doesn't work (POTBS).

My key things for a successful PvP title are:

1) Everyone plays on one server;
2) Combat is quick to get to, quick to get into  and provides both winner and loser with rewards; and
3) The devs are interventionist gods. No point trying to have systems auto-balance - the devs have to get out their and shake things up from time to time. Break the stranglehold of the dominant, support the underdog. Give players hope that they can be victorious. And yes, dev avatars should be killable.

[Tannhauser]

SB had great classes and a nice easy levelling curve.  Everything else was pretty bad.  Don't make a pvp game if your engine can't handle it.  I'm looking at you WAR.

And I would say that AoC is the spiritual descendant of SB. 

[Falconeer]

And I would say that AoC is the spiritual descendant of SB. 

Eek!
Yes, maybe reading pre-launch features.

[Fordel]

The Middle ground was DaoC with more RvR/WorldBuilding depth.


My Guild in DaoC held onto a keep for months on end, but all we could ever do with that keep was put a few extra guards and another vendor.

[Zhiroc]

So what's the middle (hopefully, successful) ground?

One of the problems that I have with MMOG PvP is that the scale of combat in these PvP-oriented games is strategic, but all the gameplay is tactical. You are trying to play a wargame where the pieces are small, independently controlled, and not even guaranteed to exist when you need them (the latter is a reference to needing to protect assets 24/7).

I never got into Eve combat because I don't really have fun being a cog in the machine, and I certainly also didn't feel like spending all the time in between girding up doing the mining, hauling, and/or bashing to get there.

[Righ]

It wasn't that a lot of farming was required (and it certainly got much less over time), but that the balance was out of whack. What could take a few months to build could be razed in 1-2 hours.

I don't know about you, but for me and a bunch of other people, it was that a lot of farming was required, not the 'balance'. If it had taken two months to knock down a town that took two months to build, we'd probably all have left before we had to do any repairs. We were there for PvP, not for extended collaborative PvE mechanics.

As I stated above, the beta was awesome. The 'middle ground' that Steven asks about was already developed. PvE mobs dropped around an order of magnitude more loot and it took around an order of magnitude less time to build up town buildings. A full town could be build in around five days. It could be destroyed in one, but destroying it was tough, requiring several people who were awake enough to sync up trebuchets on the tree after everything else was destroyed. There were no stupid 'siege windows', so people could sneak raid your town if you were all absent overnight. It was a harsh world, but if you did log in to a hoard of enemies having destroyed the easy bits and who were working on several hours of killing the tree, you could rout them and build the town back up over a few days. If you somehow allowed people to destroy the tree entirely, a new seed and a new town was a small gather/build mini-game away. It was hard to eradicate anybody to the point where their will wasn't there to rebuild. There were two gigantic bugs that they needed to fix from beta - crashes to desktop and an "end of the world" bug where there client would stop loading terrain if you took a long enough trip. They fixed the latter, they changed everything and added dozens of new bugs, broken game mechanics and a horrendous grind. Clearly that wasn't their finest hour.

Of course, the people who play betas also tend to have more investment in MMOGs, so retention of those accounts is probably easier in any case. But beta was a better game. Not a perfect game, but a lot of fun and more of a game than the miserable launched product was.

[Lietgardis]

I don't care what anyone else says.  Once some of the more serious technical issues were worked out SB was and still stands as some of the most fun I've had in a MMOG.  The class design and lore were fanfuckingtastic.  I absolutely loved creating different characters/builds and exploring all the interesting options offered.  As waylander pointed out there were some early design issues that caused problems, but I still had fun despite them and many of those issues were worked out and/or mitigated as development continued.  A big salute to Lietgardis and any other old school SB devs that still hang out here.  Shadowbane was a great game for many people despite its flaws; don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

Thanks.  We appreciate it.

[Ingmar]

Resetting the map doesn't work (POTBS).

I wouldn't necessarily say resetting the map is a failure based on POTBS; POTBS had so many other flaws gumming up the model that I don't think you can draw any clear conclusions about that one little part.

[UnSub]

Resetting the map doesn't work (POTBS).

I wouldn't necessarily say resetting the map is a failure based on POTBS; POTBS had so many other flaws gumming up the model that I don't think you can draw any clear conclusions about that one little part.

Actually, this is a big problem with any MMO - they are such a function of complex interlocking systems that often when we point out one system that worked / didn't work we ignore every other issue that built up to that success / failure.

POBTS' map reset showed that particular solution can end up with one side constantly dominating, constantly resetting the map and actually creating a permanent stranglehold on what is meant to be an impermanent world.

The lesson I take from EVE is that you need every player in a PvP-orientated world on one server so as not to fragment your player base and also need to give them enough room so that if a group want to get away to carve their own niche, they can give it a shot.

[Threash]

Why cant there be more games with SBs level of character customisation? im sick of my only decisions coming down to spending talent points.  I want to assign stats and skills and pick sub classes.

[FatuousTwat]

I think that people are forgetting that the Chinese EVE server is pretty much in endgame ShadowBane mode.

[Mrbloodworth]

[Nebu]

Fabricated's thought in comic form.  Nice.

[tazelbain]

I don't understand the bugzapper in that picture.

[Brogarn]

I don't understand the bugzapper in that picture.

Long running joke in that comic. Its where dead MMOs go to get zapped when they're officially closed. Woody isn't all that funny, but I've liked that series.

[amiable]

I think that people are forgetting that the Chinese EVE server is pretty much in endgame ShadowBane mode.

That's because unlike in the Western server CCP added all of their advances simultatneously instead of staggering them...   As a result one could put up a POS with relativley few skills/resources but it took many many months to train a character to operate the Dreadnaughts necessary to take the POS's down.  The result was a massive landgrab which resulted in a completely static world where one side just horded enough resources to gain complete control of the entire universe.

EvE does have a decent model with POS's though (even though the gameplay is boring as hell).  You put material into the POS that makes it invulnerable for X hours after shields have been taken down to a 25%.  When shields get to 50% you cannot alter the amount of material in the POS.  As a result you can chose the time that the POS comes out of re-inforced, but a dedicated enemy can try to swing it to a time that is advantageous for them.

[Hoax]

So what's the middle (hopefully, successful) ground?

Planetside failed on the MMO side (based on forum discussions here) much in part due lack of persistence, and lack of "meaningful-ness".

Many feel that SB farming for gold to invest in cities was it's downfall, since it was made to require so much (time) investment.

If both ends of the spectrum are failure, is there a middle ground, or is it simply a no win scenario?

Hard to say, possibly doesn't exist, surely never been done.

I think you have to make a game where within 20 minutes people can get into a fight, that is fun, preferably where you've somehow artificially given them some kind of a chance while still allowing the players to drive.  Combine that with somehow making the fights impact the gameworld in a variety of ways but instead of allowing winners salt the earth it should be more like the losers are driven back to their safehaven where they always log in and things look and feel desperate and fucked up but they can still get a fight in 20 minutes and all forms of gameplay are available to them.

So basically, I have no idea.  I can make something up and I can list the problems to avoid but solving this one might just be too difficult.

[Mrbloodworth]

I don't understand the bugzapper in that picture.

For as long as there has been a Zapper, Shadowbane (and his trusty companion Horizons) has sat at its edge narrowly avoiding the blue flash of being zapped itself. Now the time has come for the Shadowbane fly to sail nobly to his death.

[Slayerik]

Had to end it by calling people carebears.

A swift and deadly stroke, I agree. Bravo Falc!

[sidereal]

Shadowbane in 3 acts

Act 1:
  Designer 1: "The more territory you take and resources you have, the more powerful you are, right?"
  Designer 2: "Yeah"
Act 2:
  Designer 1: "Let's make it so the more powerful you are, the easier it is to take territory and resources!"
Act 3:
  FIN


I remember in exquisite detail the response a dev posted many years ago as server-lock was burgeoning.  He said 'human nature' would naturally cause the breakup of the dominant faction.  I'm not sure where Wolfpack hired their VP of Human Nature from.

[DLRiley]

Shadowbane in 3 acts

Act 1:
  Designer 1: "The more territory you take and resources you have, the more powerful you are, right?"
  Designer 2: "Yeah"
Act 2:
  Designer 1: "Let's make it so the more powerful you are, the easier it is to take territory and resources!"
Act 3:
  FIN


I remember in exquisite detail the response a dev posted many years ago as server-lock was burgeoning.  He said 'human nature' would naturally cause the breakup of the dominant faction.  I'm not sure where Wolfpack hired their VP of Human Nature from.

The logic, which is used idiotically in most arguments for ffa games or rvr games with 3 or more sides in conflict, is that the smaller fish will gang up on the big fish and it will be a dog eat dog world where the strongest will get mobbed by a horde of weaker factions banded together. Works sometimes, but when it no longer works, as in your player base takes the most optimal path to victory, that logic falls apart faster then a house of cards.

[naum]

The logic, which is used idiotically in most arguments for ffa games or rvr games with 3 or more sides in conflict, is that the smaller fish will gang up on the big fish and it will be a dog eat dog world where the strongest will get mobbed by a horde of weaker factions banded together. Works sometimes, but when it no longer works, as in your player base takes the most optimal path to victory, that logic falls apart faster then a house of cards.

A greater dynamic with a MMOG — "teams" changing alignment (to gang up on the leader) is one aspect, but in a MMOG the individuals that comprise those teams also hop on and off the teams.

In TBS games, FFA really do have a "gang up on the leader" vibe, and diplomacy and politics flow until there are 2-3 challengers left.

[stray]

In all truth, i think this was the best mmo. sure it had problems, but there isn't another game of it's type where i really wish many of it's core features were implemented elsewhere (read: everywhere).

[UnSub]

On this topic: when can we start producing content for Broken Dreams schild?

[schild]

Whenever you'd like.

[stray]

Shadowbane in 3 acts

Act 1:
  Designer 1: "The more territory you take and resources you have, the more powerful you are, right?"
  Designer 2: "Yeah"
Act 2:
  Designer 1: "Let's make it so the more powerful you are, the easier it is to take territory and resources!"
Act 3:
  FIN

I only played "Act 1", but my guild controlled the server without even having much land. Just the general Commander Rune/Elf area and some lizardmen lvling spots and such. Yet there was a lot of bitching. Not sure how or why Wolfpack got involved, but I guess they thought it'd be funny to help all of the assholes (read: carebears  ) on that server out. They equipped rival guilds with top rank mercs and gear, joined them on the field with uber characters and pounded everyone I played with until we simply stopped logging in.

Act 2: Going to SWG afterwards (thanks Wolfpack  ).

[palmer_eldritch]

Isn't this a problem inherent with meaningful PvP though - to be meaningful we players tend to think it has to reward the victor and perhaps punish the loser, and the best reward in an MMO, or perhaps any game, is to make you more powerful, whether that means getting xp, items, land you can harvest resources from or whatever.

Eve does actually deal with this through human nature to an extent, but it's not the weak ganging up on the strong, it's the strong become corrupt and cocky and self-imploding. But Eve is odd.

I don't know what the answer is - you either reset, or the victor keeps the spoils which can only help them in the next fight if the spoils are worth having at all.

[sidereal]

to be meaningful we players tend to think it has to reward the victor and perhaps punish the loser

Victory is its own reward.  People enjoy winning.  Giving them even more of a bonus on top of that joy isn't strictly necessary.

[DLRiley]

to be meaningful we players tend to think it has to reward the victor and perhaps punish the loser

Victory is its own reward.  People enjoy winning.  Giving them even more of a bonus on top of that joy isn't strictly necessary.

But people will complain your pvp has no depth or meaning if in game assets that are fought over, have no virtual gain other than the joy of taking it.

[Falconeer]

A good mechanic that could help games like these: ruling empires/guilds get a debuff called DECADENCE which affects everyone in those guilds/alliances. The longer you rule without a break, the bigger the debuff grows. Slowly, of course, and barely significant at first. But over (a long) time you won't eventually be able to keep off opponents anymore. As soon as you lose your throne the debuff goes away and starts affecting the new rulers.


EDIT: The idea isn't that different from the thing I LOVE the most of US sports: the draft concept. That way, theoretically, the waekest teams are always supposed to have a chance at getting better while the best team is penalised for being the best.
And while it's true that drafting only exists in the US (Canada maybe?) whereas everywhere else the winning team is basically decided by how rich family or firm backing the team is (MMORPG-wise: biggest guild, biggest catasses, biggest farmers), it woudn't be a bad start if at least a half of your global market -in this case the NA half- couldn't help being ok with such a rotational winning system which is ingrained in your competitive nature.

[sidereal]

Unfortunately it's gamed the same way as most easy solutions to knocking off the king of the hill.  You just have two dominant factions setup an out-of-band alliance and they agree to swap leadership.  It's a little bit better, because one could decide to dick the other, but probably not.  I like solutions that involve exponential or geometric increases in resource costs to gain more territory, preventing any faction from getting too big.  But this is still gameable with alliances. 

Some combination, where a single faction can't get too big (say no more than 10% of the total area realistically) plus a rustiness debuff that causes all of your combat skills to degrade if they haven't been used (discouraging peace) would probably go a long way.

[Falconeer]

As I mentioned elsewhere Shadowbane had a system like the one you mentioned: the larger your empire, the hardest it was to defend all the mines cause they all went up for defense at the same time. What was lacking was the right balance between needed resources and mine productions, so in a way larger empires could easily afford losing extra mines at some point.

That shouldn't happen: when you are ruling the map the upkeep should be very high, ruling shouldn't be something you can sit on just because you have the numbers. If, as someone else pointed out, Shadowbane proved human nature won't unite people enough against the tyrants, then you can make a game where being the tyrant is cool and great, but requires great effort to keep your throne to a point where, eventually, you can't keep it anymore (the draft and rotation system). Better than resetting a map I guess.

Once the systems are in place (decadence debuff, harder to defend a larger territory), tinkering with values to make the upkeep hard to keep up with or to prevent friendly guilds ping-ponging their kingdoms shouldn't be that hard.