Warhammer 40,000: Dark Millennium Online

[eldaec]

Drescher was game design on WAR.

I assume his point was either that 'the vision' couldn't be delivered because of shitty tools, or something unrelated to WAR.

Personally I blame Lum.

[UnSub]

I think there has been innovation on the design side since 2006, but the players generally don't follow. Or expect new systems to work flawlessly.

The other issue with innovation is that devs don't really know what to expect - PQs are a great example. Great idea, implementation was a bit ordinary at times, but the devs failed to account for players not hanging around each PQ (especially as people outlevelled them) meaning that PQs got emptier and emptier unless they were quick to do.

If you want to see a full re-write of all traditional MMO systems, that's another thing, but devs have been trying some new things. Ultimately players return to the safety of WoW. It's also hard to believe the cries of "We want innovation!" while seeing all the excitement for sequels and IP-based titles.

[Malakili]

Yeah, I think PQs are a great example, and their potential really hasn't been tapped yet.  I think in order to be done frequently they should be 1) close to wear players idle (towns, quest hubs, whatever), rewards should be given out after each step, and should not be tied to performance aside from maybe some sort of minimal amount of "the person was actually there doing stuff and no AFK in a given area."  Giving people quick consistent rewards, with perhaps a chance at that reward being especially good, having little cooldown between run throughs of it, having it be VERY easy to access for players, etc.   Basically, players don't want to be jolted out of their solo questing rhythm for these things, so I think you need to capitalize on players coming back from being AFK, wanting to a few quick "runs" before logging off, etc. 

In WAR the PQs went like this: Everyone did the very first one they came across like 10 times in a row.....and then they maybe did some other ones a few time as they leveled, with a few of them being particularly easy to farm so sometimes people would camp them, and 90% of them were totally neglected.  Still, the IDEA is clearly one players like, and definitely a step forward in the DIKU model at least.  Of course, its fairly small in the big picture.

[Nebu]

A tale in the desert?  Puzzle Pirates?  You could also have included every half-assed Facebook game and still fit in "MMO".  Hell, you could have included Online Hearts.  Throw me a bone and apply a little context.  Please.

I don't know about you, but I happen to think that both of those games are outstanding pvp MMO's.  Granted, their pvp is a bit unconventional. 

[Typhon]

Haven't played them and I wasn't rolling my eyes at them.  I was rolling my eyes at saying that a non-combat game not having a tank meant anything.  My understanding is that a tale in desert is a crafting game and puzzle pirates is a puzzle game - i.e. non-combat.  DMO is a combat-based MMO, that is the context that I was assuming.

I understand that there is PvP competition in puzzle pirates and ATITD, can we please just agree to not call it combat?

[Stabs]

No one said anything about combat. They were mentioned in rebuttal of

I can't think offhand of another MMO that doesn't have a character class who's function is to draw enemy fire

[Typhon]

No one said anything about combat. They were mentioned in rebuttal of

I can't think offhand of another MMO that doesn't have a character class who's function is to draw enemy fire

Sure, if you read only that one fucking sentence, I could see how you'd be confused.

[Ingmar]

Let that be a lesson to you for leaving off the RPG part I guess? Mmmmmm semantics.

[Arthur_Parker]

David Adams interview, from E3, hadn't seen it before, mostly about the engine.

One big seemless world, big giant battlefields, a lot of pvp plans, pvp definitely a big part of the game.  Guns instead of swords means the combat has to change, not mmo standard combat, interviewer actually uses the twitch word and gets a semi positive response.

[eldaec]

I doubt they even know at this point how they will make it different from WoW and everquest, or how they will deal with the revolutionary new ground they are breaking by having guns in a computer game.

Not sure that is a big problem or surprise this far from launch. But it seems bizarre that the team would talk as if Everquest/WoW is the only model ever, and as if other devs haven't previously addressed exactly the same problem (with mixed results).

I guess this is the new version of the 'never learn from previous games' problem developers used to suffer from.

[Arthur_Parker]

Italian Website

Warhammer 40,000: Dark Millennium Online, divided into two opposing sides, order and disorder, the first with the head of the Space Marine and Eldar allies, the latter led by chaos and its legions of Marine corrupt and belligerent and endless brood of Ork.

The choice of so few factions and their separation seems to follow what we saw in Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning - despite the difference in publisher and developer - and in fact this time the focus will be the pvp in the game, leaving a PvE component part rather marginal, especially good to round the experience points earned in battles with other players. In any case, the developers promise a thorough study of the sketches and make choices so as to give the player many opportunities to customize their own can alter ego, so as to forget, at least in part, the possible disappointment by having so few factions represented.
...
Fortunately, Vigil Games seems to think this way, as to promise to have something in Serbian for PvP again, that goes far beyond that which is currently used to seeing when it comes to battlegrounds and above will include, in addition to maps and a huge highest number of players of the current standard (32 to 64), the chance to drive the most famous vehicles of the 41st millennium.

Likewise also the management of the character blend skill-based growth and to the equipment in perfect style MMORPG, a fighter more hectic, with lots of direct control and direction of sight on the weapon, like a shooter person, with lots of shelters from which to exploit and lean.

...
Of course, the PvP is what is our developers and our partners at Games Workshop are devoting more attention. However I do not intend to enter into a discussion about the games of someone else, Mythic's colleagues are very good and have a great deal of experience in the MMO genre, I can say is that we are developing an approach to PvP in a way that is commensurate with the ' whole game world to create an experience that can be satisfactory for any player. We understand that it is not easy to create a PvP thick. In any case, we are confident that thanks to the talent and experience of our team of developers and partners in the Games Workshop, has taken the road to bring a great experience PvP in Dark Millennium Online.
...
The vehicles will be an integral part of our game. We are working to have several heavily armed vehicles and we are putting much effort to make sure that they are important in the product. Our goal is to develop experience in a vehicle combat MMO game to equal the most recent action. As you can imagine, there are significant problems in achieving a goal like that when you have to balance a client-server system with thousands of players. However, the vehicles were a focal point of development from the beginning, and here at Vigil Games we have good talent in technology that make us hope to develop a vehicle that keeps these promises.

There's more on the link but that's the main points I picked out of it.

[Tearofsoul]

I have a bad feeling for this game ..... in fact, pretty bad.

[Typhon]

My ItalianBabbleFishEnglish to English is weak.  I'm reading that as:

- 2-faction-PvP-centric
- large but not massive (32 to 64 player skirmishes) - which implies instanced battles versus open world
- aimed versus targeted with cover(!)
- tanks and mechs and bikes oh my!
- "skill based growth" - can't figure out if they are talking about a Planetside based system or not.  "skill-based growth and to the equipment in perfect style MMORPG" seems to say not Planetside, but a more typical MMORPG levels-from-skills and grinding for gear.

did I get it right?

[Ghambit]

Y'know what I cant really understand is why many developers, 'specially Vigil's bunch, seem just totally oblivious to the h8terade their press generates.  Is there some kind of legal obligation for them to just go ahead with whatever capitalized design they originally came up with?  'Cause really it just seems like they're flipping off the informed-masses and just going ahead with their PoS design, rather than recognizing they need to tweak their vision quite a bit.  Is it egos?  Is it a non-flexible engine?  I just dont understand it.  I shall chalk it up to nerdragey stubborness.

[Malakili]

Y'know what I cant really understand is why many developers, 'specially Vigil's bunch, seem just totally oblivious to the h8terade their press generates.  Is there some kind of legal obligation for them to just go ahead with whatever capitalized design they originally came up with?  'Cause really it just seems like they're flipping off the informed-masses and just going ahead with their PoS design, rather than recognizing they need to tweak their vision quite a bit.  Is it egos?  Is it a non-flexible engine?  I just dont understand it.  I shall chalk it up to nerdragey stubborness.

Actually, this is easily the best information so far I've heard about this game but sadly I don't see it making too much of a difference, especially because if its all instanced, i just immediately don't care.

[Mrbloodworth]

What was unexpected or bad in that info? Its mostly what I thought it would be. I am glad its a shooter, cover is also cool, I like tanks, match sizes and instances are expected. Only thing that gives me pause is RPG gear in a shooter, but there is like, zero info about that yet.

[Malakili]

What was unexpected or bad in that info? Its mostly what I thought it would be. I am glad its a shooter, cover is also cool, I like tanks, match sizes and instances are expected. Only thing that gives me pause is RPG gear in a shooter, but there is like, zero info about that yet.

If its just Global Agenda + Warhammer, they aren't really going anywhere useful.  I wish people would get off this fucking gear + grind train and just solid games again.

[jakonovski]

I'm just happy if I finally get something in Serbian for my PvP experience.

[Mrbloodworth]

I seriously do not think it will have anywhere near the pace of GA.

Anyway, I know some here really do not believe going beyond the typical player counts in shooter, or that there is a huge difference between traditional asynchronous games (DIKU) and synchronous shooters, or that any game breaking this limit is not impressive. (Great article in a recent Game Developer mag about this)

But I never expected that if this game was a shooter, for them to even attempt a solution, if it had any shooter in it, I knew it would hit the 64 player limit.  Its an important IP, that has a not so successful older brother. The IP owner would not take such a risk.

[Surlyboi]

Fuck all the rest of that noise.

Is it balanced for lean?

[Ghambit]

But I never expected that if this game was a shooter, for them to even attempt a solution, if it had any shooter in it, I knew it would hit the 64 player limit.  Its an important IP, that has a not so successful older brother. The IP owner would not take such a risk.

What the frag are you talkin about??  64 player limit?  That's not some magic babyjeebus number all devs must live by.  Matter of fact,  100-man Joint-Ops servers were common even in 2004 and WW2O was doin the 100-man cap in 2001 (the 100-limit is now gone btw).  All this with dated tech.

The trick to high users in shooters is avoiding chokepoint situations.  Very often in RPGs though, 'chokepoints' are common (small rooms, dungeons, forest glades and shit).  Warhammer though has the ability to avoid this problem via vast battlescapes on land, in vehicles, in the air, and in space.  If they'd embrace this ideal they'd have no problem wtfpwning the arbitrary player limits.  And even then, if they got capped they could always limit views to what's absolutely necessary... i.e. if I'm in the air I dont really need to see every infantry.  If I'm in a tank I dont need to see anything really besides what's on my scope or viewfinder, etc.

And DIKU by all rights should have an easier time of chunking more than 100-users yes (with today's tech)?  40k is asynchronous.

As for the IP itself, as has been flamed in many a forum already,  GamesWorkshop is all about hordes of units... if they turn it into squad-level stuff they should've went Space Hulk instead.  Or better yet, chosen a better IP and went Iron Kingdoms - Warmachine.

[stu]

64 seems kinda low ball. I'd like to have battlefields that expand or contract as more players log in or out.

[Typhon]

What was unexpected or bad in that info? Its mostly what I thought it would be. I am glad its a shooter, cover is also cool, I like tanks, match sizes and instances are expected. Only thing that gives me pause is RPG gear in a shooter, but there is like, zero info about that yet.

I'm wondering the same thing, for all the points you brought up and this - I'm really pleased they are defining a scope that seems achievable.  I really hope they budget enough time to iterate out the crap and refine the fun. 

If they focus on making the maps/game types fun, don't make the difference between top gear and scrub gear more than 10-15% and don't make getting the next-to-highest gear take too much effort I'll likely enjoy the game.

And, as you say (later post), to expect innovative gameplay from an expensive-to-license IP seems unreasonable.

[Mrbloodworth]

But I never expected that if this game was a shooter, for them to even attempt a solution, if it had any shooter in it, I knew it would hit the 64 player limit.  Its an important IP, that has a not so successful older brother. The IP owner would not take such a risk.

What the frag are you talkin about??  64 player limit?  That's not some magic babyjeebus number all devs must live by.  Matter of fact,  100-man Joint-Ops servers were common even in 2004 and WW2O was doin the 100-man cap in 2001 (the 100-limit is now gone btw).  All this with dated tech.

The trick to high users in shooters is avoiding chokepoint situations.  Very often in RPGs though, 'chokepoints' are common (small rooms, dungeons, forest glades and shit).  Warhammer though has the ability to avoid this problem via vast battlescapes on land, in vehicles, in the air, and in space.  If they'd embrace this ideal they'd have no problem wtfpwning the arbitrary player limits.  And even then, if they got capped they could always limit views to what's absolutely necessary... i.e. if I'm in the air I dont really need to see every infantry.  If I'm in a tank I dont need to see anything really besides what's on my scope or viewfinder, etc.

And DIKU by all rights should have an easier time of chunking more than 100-users yes (with today's tech)?  40k is asynchronous.

As for the IP itself, as has been flamed in many a forum already,  GamesWorkshop is all about hordes of units... if they turn it into squad-level stuff they should've went Space Hulk instead.  Or better yet, chosen a better IP and went Iron Kingdoms - Warmachine.

Joint ops servers are 64, with exception of the multi-server-farm run by the makers, where each node holds 64. Like I said, there is a great tech article about this in one of the recent game dev mags. WW2O is in the same boat, though the net architecture for that title is closer to asynchronous. Planetside deferred most calculations client side, WW2O does to an extent (but the subset of actions is small for each player, IE lack of physics, collision, or deployables ETC..), M.A.G also deferred to client side, but avoids a good portion of hacking issues by virtue of it being on a closed system.

The limit is not arbitrary at all. Anyway point still stands, any of the viable solutions are risky at best, and costly to develop. SEE: Every game that has attempted.


EDIT: found it, Game Developer, September 2010, "Big Wars" By Lin Luo 

Big Wars
By Lin Luo

Massively multiplayer combat is the new frontier for First-Person Shooters. While there are a number of titles that combine fast-paced, FPS gameplay with a persistent MMO-style world, hosting truly large numbers of players at once remains a technical hurdle. Here, veteran networking engineer Lin Luo proposes a new approach to client-server architecture that uses a central server to coordinate the distribution of data across multiple server systems.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Seems like they are trying to re-do WAR but better. Basically a WoW style game with more emphasis on PvP.

Im sure kind of confused is there full weapon aiming or no?

...lots of direct control and direction of sight on the weapon, like a shooter person...[/i]

Is not very clear, especially when they've dodged this question in previous interviews.

So basically WoW style game everyone is familiar with, except you level in battlegrounds like WAR. We don't know how much more actiony it will be than WAR but they seem to want to emphasize that but how far into FPS/shooter land will they venture? They want to go mass market and if player twitch skill becomes too much of a factor then they'll lose a lot of the WoW crowd who can't play action games due to lack of skill.

If they execute this well they could be quite successful with the WoW PVP crowd (WAR was poised for success but execution failed them), but the whole 64 limit + 2 faction thing doesn't inspire much confidence this will be anything more than a WoW in space (with more battlegrounds, less dungeons), not a groundbreaking MMO that a lot of people were hoping for (still waiting for that planetside meets shattered galaxy MMO).

[Mrbloodworth]

Im sure kind of confused is there full weapon aiming or no?

...lots of direct control and direction of sight on the weapon, like a shooter person...[/i]

Is not very clear, especially when they've dodged this question in previous interviews.

Its a question I have as well.

[IainC]

The trick to high users in shooters is avoiding chokepoint situations.  Very often in RPGs though, 'chokepoints' are common (small rooms, dungeons, forest glades and shit).  Warhammer though has the ability to avoid this problem via vast battlescapes on land, in vehicles, in the air, and in space.  If they'd embrace this ideal they'd have no problem wtfpwning the arbitrary player limits.

Chokepoints or high traffic areas are inevitable unless you are artificially segregating your players (instances etc). Players will go where the action is rather than spread themselves out through some idealised Brownian motion. If there's a fight going on then players will gravitate towards it. The more players that get involved, the longer it will last and the more players will get sucked into it until you have a snowball effect. DAoC as an example had huge frontier areas but at any given time most of the RvR population was crammed into a quarter of one zone because that's where the fights were happening.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Chokepoints or high traffic areas are inevitable unless you are artificially segregating your players (instances etc). Players will go where the action is rather than spread themselves out through some idealised Brownian motion. If there's a fight going on then players will gravitate towards it. The more players that get involved, the longer it will last and the more players will get sucked into it until you have a snowball effect. DAoC as an example had huge frontier areas but at any given time most of the RvR population was crammed into a quarter of one zone because that's where the fights were happening.

Well battlefields are basically FPS maps not open frontiers, pretty easy to spread around high action areas. Plenty of examples in FPS land of 64+ player maps which don't become huge clusterfucks of everyone trying to get through a single hallway because objectives & chokes are spread around and thoughtfully layed out.

[Mrbloodworth]

The issue though, I think, is elbow room, you have, No, MUST, be able to handle it when those incentives fail.  Because they will.

[Malakili]

The trick to high users in shooters is avoiding chokepoint situations.  Very often in RPGs though, 'chokepoints' are common (small rooms, dungeons, forest glades and shit).  Warhammer though has the ability to avoid this problem via vast battlescapes on land, in vehicles, in the air, and in space.  If they'd embrace this ideal they'd have no problem wtfpwning the arbitrary player limits.

Chokepoints or high traffic areas are inevitable unless you are artificially segregating your players (instances etc). Players will go where the action is rather than spread themselves out through some idealised Brownian motion. If there's a fight going on then players will gravitate towards it. The more players that get involved, the longer it will last and the more players will get sucked into it until you have a snowball effect. DAoC as an example had huge frontier areas but at any given time most of the RvR population was crammed into a quarter of one zone because that's where the fights were happening.

The reason you can avoid it in a game like WW2O is the the "chokes" are still HUGE.  Sure there are only a few battles happening at any time in the game, but I don't think you realize just how vast and open they battlefields really are. 

WW2O does to an extent (but the subset of actions is small for each player, IE lack of physics, collision, or deployables ETC..),

Well, to be fair, they have added some physics (ragdoll), and deployables are going into their next patch.  My point just being that, WW2O is actually a great example of how to do an MMO Shooter (in my opinion), and they are actually continuing development on it.

If people just want to make a team based shooter, just make one.  And please avoid adding gear farming, stats, and everything else that ruins otherwise perfectly good shooters. (I was really close to buying Global Agenda during that discount sale, but as soon as I read about Tokens for buying gear I immediately said screw it).  

[Mrbloodworth]

Well, to be fair, they have added some physics (ragdoll), and deployables are going into their next patch.

The ragdoll is client replication, its not the same across clients. I was speaking of networked physics. I did read about the deployables recently, though I didn't read about anything other than needing placement location IE: Not automated turrets, or the drones from GA/PS/ETC... I have always been impressed with WW2O scale, and management of all this stuff, but we can't really say its the most responsive game compared to more traditional shooters, there are some heavy sacrifices here. I would love to see them ditch all the ballistics calculation on the sever, and just go a hit box route, then revamp up the capacity and features, i think its holding them back TBH, but I know its how they want the design.



Let me pose this: Would you, as an IP holder, invest in a Reskinned WW2O to Warhmmer 40k, with no changes in features, or limitations in 2010? Would it be an appropriate treatment?

[Malakili]

Let me pose this: Would you, as an IP holder, invest in a Reskinned WW2O to Warhmmer 40k, with no changes in features, or limitations in 2010? Would it be an appropriate treatment?

I think its pretty appropriate in every respect except pacing.  Huge battles raging across a continent, air, armor, infantry, cities being fought over, etc.

[Comstar]

If you kept out the Titans (average 6-8km engagement range according to my last Dan Ablett novel) and aircraft, you can easily do WW2OL:40K in a much smaller area than WW2OL does.

Unfortunately they won't and are clearly going for a 64man-32 a side(!) console crap is not. Just think- you could field HALF a Imperial Guard Infantry platoon vs 3 squads of Space Marines! Epic battles, indeed.

[Lantyssa]

What was unexpected or bad in that info? Its mostly what I thought it would be. I am glad its a shooter, cover is also cool, I like tanks, match sizes and instances are expected. Only thing that gives me pause is RPG gear in a shooter, but there is like, zero info about that yet.

You also thought APB was amazing.  At first.

[Arthur_Parker]

I'm just happy if I finally get something in Serbian for my PvP experience.

I actually thought that was the most interesting comment, so I didn't attempt to fix it.  All these games promise unicorns and rainbows, we hear the same shit all the time, if I was marketing a new game I swear I'd just made stupid phrases up.  WoW killed the word "Battlegrounds", WAR came along and defiled the corpse, Serbian PVP sounds fucking awesome and I really don't care that's it's a Babel fish invention.