Well that's that then (Mark Jacobs leaves EA)

[Senses]

I'm embarassed to say, that when I played in beta, I honestly believed that WAR was so much fun that it was actually going to beat out WoW in subscribers over the first year.  I never left t2 though.  It's interesting to me that the biggest thing that changed between beta and actual open play was really just how the players played the game.  It was like the second it was "real," everyone shifted into screw fun now, we're supposed to have fun later mode.  Never mind the fact that there was actually no "fun" scheduled for later. 

 Which brings me to a question, how can a pvp game every get properly tested if just the mindset of the players can determine whether or not the product is viable.

[Rendakor]

I had plenty of fun in WAR...then I hit tier 3, leveling slowed to a crawl, and Tor Anroc was the only thing to do.  I actually ground it out, finally when to t4, and then realized the end game was terrible.   Tier 1 and 2 were great fun, it just had no staying power for me.

I know that was a long time ago, and I've missed plenty of changes...but I just haven't been able to bring myself to go back to the game. 

This, except I didn't grind it out. I leveled 3 characters up to Tier 3, trying to give them time to put some fun in, or even imply that fun might be coming Soon(tm). Instead I saw the clownshoes ward gear shit they were putting in, and left for greener pastures. I honestly blame TA as the biggest reason why I left. I liked grinding BGs, and would happily have done so until max level. However, being knocked into lava over and over again is not my idea of fun.

[Lantyssa]

Which brings me to a question, how can a pvp game every get properly tested if just the mindset of the players can determine whether or not the product is viable.

It is important for devs to understand basic and game-related psychology.

Put levels and items with stats in a game and an achiever mentality takes over.  It doesn't matter whether because it's what players are used to, or they want to be the best, or they need some protection against the people who do those things, it becomes the point.  And yes, most players will do so to the detriment of fun.  Those who don't, in such a system are then at the mercy of those who do.  So they either join in or quit.  Probably both since they want to give it a shot but soon realize it's not actually fun.

[Fordel]

You know what is almost universally 'fun' ? Winning.


People love to fucking win and will do almost anything to guarantee that they will. Doesn't matter what game your playing, be it a MMO, FPS, RTS, Monopoly or Hide'n'Seek, if there is sure fire way to ensure victory, someone will do it.

Doesn't matter how shitty, cheap, unfun, lame, tedious, boring it is, if it means they win and the other guy losses, then it gets done.



You have to build around the desire to win. Instead they offered the choice of "Well we could have 'fun' doing this, but we'll WIN doing that".

[DLRiley]

DAoC 

[Arthur_Parker]

Which brings me to a question, how can a pvp game every get properly tested if just the mindset of the players can determine whether or not the product is viable.

It is important for devs to understand basic and game-related psychology.

Put levels and items with stats in a game and an achiever mentality takes over.  It doesn't matter whether because it's what players are used to, or they want to be the best, or they need some protection against the people who do those things, it becomes the point.  And yes, most players will do so to the detriment of fun.  Those who don't, in such a system are then at the mercy of those who do.  So they either join in or quit.  Probably both since they want to give it a shot but soon realize it's not actually fun.

I said this last year.

Why is the end game flawed?

Why restrict your focus to just the end game?  At this point in time it should be fairly obvious that the start, middle and end games are all seriously flawed.  As a small example, the PQ's (one of the unique selling points of the game) are empty at all tiers.

I can't think of a game that would have benefited more from having a Psychologist on staff during the design process.  Maybe considering the sums involved in making the games nowadays, there should be a subset of Psychology just for on-line games.  Griefologists/Grindologists should be able to point out the major flaws early on.

Going back to the initial hype for the game, Mark Jacobs made a lot of quotes about the importance of being able to see the RVR zones from the PVE zones and their hope to "attract" people to try PVP.  Given that Imperator was going to be PVE only, plus their desperate attempts to ensure a Warhammer city wouldn't be captured for at least 6 months, I really think Mark just didn't get it.  He wanted WAR to be a PVE game, that's why there are 1,237,000 quests, it's drowning with bland content, pvp was only intended as a sideshow.  Even the scenario thing, how hard is it to force rotate them instead of boring everyone to death doing the most efficient ones?

First week or so T2 was great, I remember one keep attack that lasted over 24 hours.  People used siege weapons, attacked, defended and then they figured out the game doesn't reward you for any of that, in fact having fun actually slowed your progression down.  They front loaded an endgame on players who were used to the exact opposite, we levelled straight past it.

[Numtini]

I was involved in a couple of T2 sieges and I really enjoyed them.

There really was a lot to like about the game. The grind was just too awful and mythic gave no indication they understood what people's dissatisfactions were or had any plans to change them.

[chargerrich]

Because Tier 1 was fun as hell. If they ever fix all the other stuff I'd resub.

Exactly. The Tier 1, and even Tier 2 game were just about perfect. I've yet to hear anyone have bad stuff to say about the game at that stage. Honestly, I consider the game at that point to be much better than WoW. It's not until you get to the grind, oRvR zergs looking for anything to fight, etc. that it gets bad.

The biggest roadblock to resubbing for me is actually the loss of my character names. I had some really great names that I've used all the way back to UO, but because of mergers and whatnot they've been renamed randomly and then had the letter "x" added to the end in a subsequent server merge. I know it's technically the same toon, but the attachment I have to "Foxglove" the Shadow Warrior is considerably greater than to "AenthylX" the Shadow Warrior. Give people free renames for  god's sake.

As someone who really has an attachment to names I can completely agree. I rolled on Chaos Wastes and made sure I got all my names including the Ares and Omen which freaking rock, only to merged and lose them... I still have them in WoW so I am done with WHO.

[chargerrich]

OK so I have a serious, if somewhat rhetorical question. I just wish someone with some knowledge would answer because surely I am missing something.

By and large the VAST majority of current and former WHO players agree that Tier 1 and Tier 2 were pretty kick ass. The feeling and pace of accomplishment was brisk and things were pretty fun... then BAM you get beat over the head with the mind numbing grind stick in Tier 3 and basically hit a brick wall in Tier 4.

In my 3-4 months there I leveled 6 characters between 20-25 with only one making it to 30.

I know I am not alone. I also know that I am not a casual player. I have grinded out 5 level 80s in WoW, two of them now with Ulduar Gear and 2 additional in at least Nax 10/25 gear.

But WHO fell off a cliff in Tier 3 so my question is, why is it so tough for the devs to see this and address it? And by address I mean something more than the "spit in the face" 10% increase.

Why is the 20-40 grind meant to be so arduous? I can see the realm ranks 40-80 taking a while, but 1-40 should be  breeze so people can see if they like the class, enjoy the accomplishment of leveling and growing attached to your now level 40 players makes it a little harder to quit playing.

I submit my theory that if XP from 20-40 would have been increased 300-400% that this alone would have saved 200k subs and they would be sitting at 500k subs complaining about RvR, end game and performance issues but NOT wanting to leave the game.

[Nija]

I know absolutely nothing about the situation, but it surely seems as if Mark Jacobs might have been very good to work for in the beginning, but then lost control of what he created. 

If only someone with first-hand knowledge of the situation had said that explicitly!

Stop linking your fucking blog you douchebag.

[Lantyssa]

OK so I have a serious, if somewhat rhetorical question. I just wish someone with some knowledge would answer because surely I am missing something.

Pride?  Hubris?  Ego?  Cluelessness?

Take your pick from those and a dozen other one-word condescending retorts.

[chargerrich]

OK so I have a serious, if somewhat rhetorical question. I just wish someone with some knowledge would answer because surely I am missing something.

Pride?  Hubris?  Ego?  Cluelessness?

Take your pick from those and a dozen other one-word condescending retorts.

But is that really the case? Just seems like it happens too often with too many developers to be this simple.

[tazelbain]

I know absolutely nothing about the situation, but it surely seems as if Mark Jacobs might have been very good to work for in the beginning, but then lost control of what he created.

If only someone with first-hand knowledge of the situation had said that explicitly!

Stop linking your fucking blog you douchebag.

Maybe one day you'll post something 1/3rd as interesting as Lum and you'll have room to talk.

[Nija]

Maybe one day you'll post something 1/3rd as Lum and you'll have room to talk.

http://pastie.org/528161

[UnSub]

OK so I have a serious, if somewhat rhetorical question. I just wish someone with some knowledge would answer because surely I am missing something.

Pride?  Hubris?  Ego?  Cluelessness?

Take your pick from those and a dozen other one-word condescending retorts.

But is that really the case? Just seems like it happens too often with too many developers to be this simple.

A developer gets it into their head that getting to level X should take people a certain amount of time, or else they'll find it too easy / hard and quit. With WAR, the people in charge obviously didn't trust PvP to hold players at endgame, since they put it on the back of a large XP grind to get there (and slowed down progression just before launch). Holding players through the mid-game - and perhaps stopping a large number from crashing the endgame at launch, which is still probably untested and buggy, if it even exists - is seen as important to keep players playing.

It also happens because devs quickly learn that players can't be trusted to self-report on XP issues, even if the players are correct.

[DLRiley]

OK so I have a serious, if somewhat rhetorical question. I just wish someone with some knowledge would answer because surely I am missing something.

By and large the VAST majority of current and former WHO players agree that Tier 1 and Tier 2 were pretty kick ass. The feeling and pace of accomplishment was brisk and things were pretty fun... then BAM you get beat over the head with the mind numbing grind stick in Tier 3 and basically hit a brick wall in Tier 4.

In my 3-4 months there I leveled 6 characters between 20-25 with only one making it to 30.

I know I am not alone. I also know that I am not a casual player. I have grinded out 5 level 80s in WoW, two of them now with Ulduar Gear and 2 additional in at least Nax 10/25 gear.

But WHO fell off a cliff in Tier 3 so my question is, why is it so tough for the devs to see this and address it? And by address I mean something more than the "spit in the face" 10% increase.

Why is the 20-40 grind meant to be so arduous? I can see the realm ranks 40-80 taking a while, but 1-40 should be  breeze so people can see if they like the class, enjoy the accomplishment of leveling and growing attached to your now level 40 players makes it a little harder to quit playing.

I submit my theory that if XP from 20-40 would have been increased 300-400% that this alone would have saved 200k subs and they would be sitting at 500k subs complaining about RvR, end game and performance issues but NOT wanting to leave the game.

Arguable mythic never needed tier 3-4.

[NiX]

But is that really the case? Just seems like it happens too often with too many developers to be this simple.

We can only speculate. I'd imagine it has to do with players willingness to play everything in the hope that it'll be the Next Big Thing and developers tend to take that as the wrong cue for what they're doing right.

[Arrrgh]

OK so I have a serious, if somewhat rhetorical question. I just wish someone with some knowledge would answer because surely I am missing something.

Pride?  Hubris?  Ego?  Cluelessness?

Take your pick from those and a dozen other one-word condescending retorts.

But is that really the case? Just seems like it happens too often with too many developers to be this simple.

It would require them to admit they were wrong. That's why none of these things ever get fixed until some new person takes over and makes changes.

[Sky]

That's another reason Scott Hartsman rocks.

[March]

My overwhelming 20/20 hindsight perception from early beta is that there was always a current of abject horror that the game engine could not do what the game designers hoped it would.

I don't know a thing about game engines and/or coding, but a lot of initial game design features (and I mean hard-coded ban-your-ass-from-beta coded) all had to do with keeping people compartmentalized in little zones... spreading out the player-base, and hoping for lots of skirmishes, but no big battles.

Just a few examples:
1. RvR was originally *all* instances; not some, but all.  There were originally PvP waiting rooms, but they were just that... a place to go to get ganked while you waited for the scenario to pop (before there was queue anywhere).
2. the re-designed RvR lakes had a zone-line running down the middle for *every* pairing... effectively splitting each into two zones.
3. The overall geography was like playing the the Swiss alps... small areas surrounded by impenetrable valleys or insurmountable mountains.
4. End-Game City-Sieges were (by-definition and plan) instanced.
5. Fortresses, the only non-instanced end-game were eventually instanced.

If I may be absurdly reductionist, WaR doesn't work because their map is broken... and their map is broken becuase they knew their engine could not handle more than 25/side in a confined space.  Thus they had to make it seem as though "WAR IS EVERYWHERE," but not just in any one particular place.  There were lots of observations about Map/Geography/Critical Mass in the beta forums... I can only wonder if they hoped they could code around the limitations of their Engine/TechDesign (whichever).

As such, I really don't think it _can_ be fixed; and I don't think they give $65M do-overs.

[Lum]

Maybe day you'll post 1/3rd as Lum you'll have to talk.

http://pastie.org/528161

[Threash]

My overwhelming 20/20 hindsight perception from early beta is that there was always a current of abject horror that the game engine could not do what the game designers hoped it would.

I don't know a thing about game engines and/or coding, but a lot of initial game design features (and I mean hard-coded ban-your-ass-from-beta coded) all had to do with keeping people compartmentalized in little zones... spreading out the player-base, and hoping for lots of skirmishes, but no big battles.

Just a few examples:
1. RvR was originally *all* instances; not some, but all.  There were originally PvP waiting rooms, but they were just that... a place to go to get ganked while you waited for the scenario to pop (before there was queue anywhere).
2. the re-designed RvR lakes had a zone-line running down the middle for *every* pairing... effectively splitting each into two zones.
3. The overall geography was like playing the the Swiss alps... small areas surrounded by impenetrable valleys or insurmountable mountains.
4. End-Game City-Sieges were (by-definition and plan) instanced.
5. Fortresses, the only non-instanced end-game were eventually instanced.

If I may be absurdly reductionist, WaR doesn't work because their map is broken... and their map is broken becuase they knew their engine could not handle more than 25/side in a confined space.  Thus they had to make it seem as though "WAR IS EVERYWHERE," but not just in any one particular place.  There were lots of observations about Map/Geography/Critical Mass in the beta forums... I can only wonder if they hoped they could code around the limitations of their Engine/TechDesign (whichever).

As such, I really don't think it _can_ be fixed; and I don't think they give $65M do-overs.

I've been saying this for a while.  WARs engine cannot handle the game they built around it, this explains their initial focus on scenario based pvp. 

[Sky]

[Nija]

I'm just tired of watching people - you're not the only one - copy posts off of forums - not F13 specific, either - and paste them to their blog.

Then they proceed to SirBruce the fuck out of the post(s) in an environment where their legion of ass kissers can tell them how fucking clever, correct and smart they are.

Like this. http://www.brokentoys.org/2009/05/01/worst-presentation-ever/

The people who do this kind of stuff need to collectively get over themselves. It's pathetic.

[Xanthippe]

I don't mind clicking a link here to get to another place that might have different content along a similar vein over here or over there or even way over there.  I prefer it to having the entire thing copied here when there's already something going on there that I can read.

Would you like a Pamprin, Nija?  Because really, dear, you don't have to go clicking on links if you're so grumpy.

[LC]

I'm just tired of watching people - you're not the only one - copy posts off of forums - not F13 specific, either - and paste them to their blog.

Perhaps it's a slow news day. Pretty sad though. I'm sure some groupies will rush in to defend his honor since he's a red name and well known.

It still irks me that Curt Schilling can come here, do his shitty imitation of McQuaid, and still have dozens of people firmly attached to his "ball sack".

[Rasix]

I don't mind clicking a link here to get to another place that might have different content along a similar vein over here or over there or even way over there.  I prefer it to having the entire thing copied here when there's already something going on there that I can read.

Would you like a Pamprin, Nija?  Because really, dear, you don't have to go clicking on links if you're so grumpy.

With his last post, he's got a valid point.  Not sure it's a point worth being made here.

Mark Jacobs is the punching bag in this thread, not Lum and his blogging/posting etiquette.  If I see another screenshot of a text editing program...

[HaemishM]

The Tier 1 game was so good because the PVP was solid... and it was actually PVP. It has taught me that castle/town/city sieges should be the exception in medieval fantasy MMORPG PVP, not the rule. See, slamming your dick against a door over and over again so that you can break through to slam your dick into ANOTHER door before finally being allowed to climb up a set of stairs to pound on a mostly static bag of hit points is BORING. What's the difference between doing that or just flipping a switch in the castle if there are no players present to defend? The keep lord shit in DAoC was tired, but it was DAoC and no one else was doing that kind of thing. But you take the T1 PVP which was all about pitched battles between asymmetrical sides across a town and the keeps just fall flat. The Empire/Chaos T1 RVR lake was brilliant.

Plus, all the keep sieges really really really need to be instanced. Maybe you can have a zone that is all about great big pitched field battles but to get into the keep take, you have to queue up outside the keep instance (meaning you have to fight through the pitched battle zone to get there). Each side only gets a certain amount of "tickets" (yes, like the tickets in Battlefield 2) which are respawns for the keep zone. As one person dies, they get booted and the next person in the queue gets dropped in (defenders appear in a safe room in the keep). Certain points in the keep when taken quicken the rate of ticket loss. When your side is out of tickets, you lose. Set a timer on when the castle can get retaken. But really, for WAR, most of the game should be the pitched battle zones, with maybe 6 keeps total (1 for each race).

[Lum]

I'm just tired of watching people - you're not the only one - copy posts off of forums - not F13 specific, either - and paste them to their blog.

The people who do this kind of stuff need to collectively get over themselves. It's pathetic.

[sam, an eggplant]

[schild]

Trendwhore.

[Hutch]

Speaking of trends.

I'm just tired of watching people - you're not the only one - copy posts off of forums - not F13 specific, either - and paste them to their blog.

The people who do this kind of stuff need to collectively get over themselves. It's pathetic.

I'm fairly certain you linked to the only time I responded directly to a post on F13 on my blog in that fashion.

The only time in the past week, maybe.

Are you all finished? Well, allow me to retort.

[DLRiley]

The Tier 1 game was so good because the PVP was solid... and it was actually PVP. It has taught me that castle/town/city sieges should be the exception in medieval fantasy MMORPG PVP, not the rule. See, slamming your dick against a door over and over again so that you can break through to slam your dick into ANOTHER door before finally being allowed to climb up a set of stairs to pound on a mostly static bag of hit points is BORING. What's the difference between doing that or just flipping a switch in the castle if there are no players present to defend? The keep lord shit in DAoC was tired, but it was DAoC and no one else was doing that kind of thing. But you take the T1 PVP which was all about pitched battles between asymmetrical sides across a town and the keeps just fall flat. The Empire/Chaos T1 RVR lake was brilliant.

Plus, all the keep sieges really really really need to be instanced. Maybe you can have a zone that is all about great big pitched field battles but to get into the keep take, you have to queue up outside the keep instance (meaning you have to fight through the pitched battle zone to get there). Each side only gets a certain amount of "tickets" (yes, like the tickets in Battlefield 2) which are respawns for the keep zone. As one person dies, they get booted and the next person in the queue gets dropped in (defenders appear in a safe room in the keep). Certain points in the keep when taken quicken the rate of ticket loss. When your side is out of tickets, you lose. Set a timer on when the castle can get retaken. But really, for WAR, most of the game should be the pitched battle zones, with maybe 6 keeps total (1 for each race).

Really HaemishM nails where WAR went fundamentally wrong with this. WAR expected to attract 500k+ players who are only interested in the keep seiges and nothing else. And they failed to realize that market for that game is several times smaller. How do you mess up the WarHammer IP? By not accounting for the large number of people who wanted to play a WarHammer game, not DAoC redone with EA money. I've been saying the bolded about WAR and pvp in general for months when we still had "what if someone did pvp right" discussions.

[Nebu]

How do you mess up the WarHammer IP? By not accounting for the large number of people who wanted to play a WarHammer game, not DAoC redone with EA money.

If WAR were this, it would have more active subs than it does now.  WAR failed in every way possible.  Not only did it turn off Warhammer fans, but it also turned off DAoC fans.  Fans which otherwise would have been money in the bank.  WAR is almost nothing like DAoC in implementation.  Yes, both games have keep doors to beat on and too much cc.  That's where the similarities end. 

[DLRiley]

Stun. Root. Aoe. Dead. Rinse Repeat. Yep your right considering that Root and Aoe is all you need in WAR   

I think WAR did attract the DAoC fans and most of them are still playing, well except the ones who went back to DAoC