Interview with Darkfall's Lead Designer - Claus Grovdal

[schild]

Flamebait here.

[Murgos]

I had more fun reading your questions than any of the answers.  A tad aggressive in the question asking department aren't we?

[Slayerik]

This dev kinda sounds like he knows a lot of the answers people here on f13 want to hear. Hell, I am more interested in Darkfall now than I was before...probably mostly due to the Ultima Online comment. God I miss old school UO (but that is another, wore out thread). I'll give his game a shot and hope to get into beta.

[Alluvian]

I have been avoiding prerelease hype like a disease, but it was a very good interview.  I hate softball questions and didn't see any here.

Has darkfall already had their beta signup apps?

[Mr_PeaCH]

Since I know how much Schild loves Star Wars...



"Help us, Darkfall.  You're our only hope!"

--- Princess PvP



I'm going to try and keep my expectations low but I get the feeling that if Darkfall doesn't make a dent that open PvP is a dinosaur in today's MMORPG market.  I wish these guys all the luck in the world.

[cevik]

The first game to offer players more than Counterstrike, but with considerably less time investments than Lineage II, might have a real winner on their hands. I think Shadowbane came close, but they had too many and too serious technical problems with their software.

Despite Shadowbane's short leveling curving, it required more time investment that most games.  The risk of losing months of work in a very short period of time requires the players to keep a constant vigil on their cities.  The amount of damage that could be done to a city during non-siege times could devastate a guild.

The converse of the issue, a city that either can't be damaged at all, or can only be superficially damaged during non-siege periods means that guilds run little or no risk, which could take some of the excitment out of the game.  I'm very very curious to see how Darkfall plans on balancing the issue, requiring non-superhuman amounts of time invested, yet having exciting and meaningful gameplay.

Let the players define their own character classes. Let them pick up the skills, spells and equipment they feel like. As an example, in Darkfall we haven't balanced the spell casters by not allowing them to wear armor; instead we've given armor a casting time penalty. This way you can decide yourself if you want to be a quick but fragile mage, or a slow but more protected tank mage.

Do you have a plan on how to avoid the "template of the week (or maybe I should say weak)" syndrom that usually comes along with skill based systems?  Will you be allowed to unlearn old skills and acquire new ones?  I love the idea of a skill based (or at least non-class based system) but it seems like every implimentation I've seen yet ends up with a situtation where all players play a slight variation of the same character.

Do you see this as a bad thing and do you plan to address it?

In Shadowbane you could build a city for months, only to have it burned down completely in a few hours. It is a cool sounding feature on paper, but in the end I think it is punishing the losing side way too much. I don't have any numbers to back it up, but I am pretty confident that every guild that had their city burned down, saw a good percentage of their players quitting the game in the following few days. Rebuilding after defeat was just too hard and tedious, and most players didn't want to go through with that again.

This could easily have been avoided in Shadowbane if they had had a worthwhile resource system and required cities to exploit that system.  The problem with Shadowbane was, once you had a city you didn't really another, in fact additional cities just cost you more resources (rather than gaining you extra resources like they do in the real world) so you are actually rewarded by destroying rather than capturing your opponents city.  

If you created a system of geographically isolated resources that are extremely important in the game, then required fully built cities to acquire, protect and trade/distribute those resources, you'd see a lot more of people taking over cities and a lot less razing cities.  If a game were designed around certain resources, much like the real world is designed, then invasions would be based on capturing goods for use or trade and the city infrastructure would need to be preserved as you invaded.  The world should be created so that there are dozens of varying and important resources and that it would be near impossible to maintain control over those resources by just one guild.  Not only would siege warfare become an important aspect of daily life, but diplomacy and trade would also become central to the game if one cannot acquire all of the goods necessary for survival via conquest alone.

In addition to resources, you'd have to insure that retreating or defeated forces cannot instantly destroy their cities like they can in Shadowbane.  Cities should be as hard to destroy as they are to build, having a "nuke this building" button on each building in the city would defeat the purpose of a resource system.  I only mention this because it had become a standard practice to destroy your city and quit the game "FOREVAR!!!" the night before a siege when you knew you couldn't win in Shadowbane right at the time I decided to quit.

Has darkfall already had their beta signup apps?

Well, this is what their FAQ says:

Q. When is beta?
A. Darkfall began internal beta testing in late 2003 and is currently in the final stages. This means that the game is being tested in-house in preparation for closed public playtesting. A beta registration form will become available on the website soon. There is currently no date for open beta.

So according to that, beta signups have not started.

[kaid]

He is right about shadowbane it was very close to being right with the fun diverse classes and the quick leveling times. The big downfall aside from technical issues was the super long city building times. They took a month or more real time to build and rank up and if you got crushed they would be gone in a single evening. You also needed a work shop of a certain level to make seige tents so if a big guild destroyed your city there was almost no chance to recover.

If they could destroy your capitol they could blow up any outpost you tried in vain to grow high enough to get the equipment to even try to avenge yourself. Basically you only were let back into the game if the opponents chose to let you back into the game.

The side effect is I have never been in a mmrpg where people were more polite to me than shadowbane.


I think there is a niche for games like COH. They are not big obsessing plotting and planning games as some other mmrpg but  it does give you fun right from square one. I think there is room for games like this to play during burn out phases from the bigger games. I likely will keep coh on the side for when I just want to fly/hop/jump around smiting evil while keeping a game like eq2 or swg as my more main game.


Kaid

[HaemishM]

Shadowbane suffered greatly from the fact that cities were more of a burden than a boon. Once you got your character levelled up and well-equipped (along with your spare equipment banked), the city was an albatross around your neck. It made you a big, fat, juicy target, but really gave you nothing in return. You had to farm boring mobs just to maintain the city, you had to farm boring mobs to repair the city after it was attacked, and you had to constantly monitor the city to make sure you weren't under attack. Guilds and cities were more necessary to a fun game for developing characters than they were for maxxed characters.

The resource system was really needed to make Shadowbane's siege game work, and it never materialized. Shadowbane would have actually been more fun long-term if it HAD been just a medieval Quake, because the PVP fights were fun. The sieges could have been; they were certainly an amazing spectacle to look at (when you could get frame rates in double digits). But without a reason to siege, without a tangible reward for maintaining a city, it just wears on the guild's officers and players.

[cevik]

Yeah Shadowbane missed an important aspect of the Real World.  We don't build cities because we can, we build them for the advantages they gain us.  Shadowbane counted on cities being built and destroyed because players could do it, and they expected players to maintain the cities even if they cost more than they were worth.

Cities exist in reality because they turn a profit, maybe not in cash out of the system, but in the productivity, resources, and convience that they afford humanity.  If a city was more hassle than payback, humanity would be more spread out and less inclined to build cities.  Cities don't exist simply because they can exist, they exist because there are advantages to their existance.  Shadowbane never really groked this concept, or at least not deeply enough.

[Preston]

Hi there, I"m a Darkfall fan and just popping in to answer a few questions.  

Do you have a plan on how to avoid the "template of the week (or maybe I should say weak)" syndrom that usually comes along with skill based systems?  Will you be allowed to unlearn old skills and acquire new ones?  I love the idea of a skill based (or at least non-class based system) but it seems like every implimentation I've seen yet ends up with a situtation where all players play a slight variation of the same character.

Do you see this as a bad thing and do you plan to address it?

Yes, the latest information we have is that the skill system is fully adjustable.  You can raise and lower skills according to what you want to raise or lower. It won't be automatic and it will take time to raise and lower, but every character won't be "locked" into skills they don't want forever.  

One of the other ways Darkfall avoids "skill templates" is that each race does have skills unique to that race.  We don't know how many or what they are yet.  On top of that, there are prestige classes.  Basically, this means that once you take a prestige class you are limited in the skills you can use, but also gain other skills.  (There are reportedly over 50 prestige classes.)  Say for example, you complete the skill requirements for Necromancy and the quest and are awarded the prestige class.  This prestige class may open up other skills that would not be open to others without it.  You now can probably do things like raise a special undead summoning skill to summon skeletons and other undead creatures as your skill improves.  But because you chose this class you cannot now raise your healing skill.  The opposite would be true, say with the Paladin class.  Prestige classes can lock out other skills.  You also are never required to choose a prestige class and if you change your mind, over time you can disavow your class and move on to something else.  Darkfall is all about Freedom and not making the mistake of "gimping" your character.  

This could easily have been avoided in Shadowbane if they had had a worthwhile resource system and required cities to exploit that system.  The problem with Shadowbane was, once you had a city you didn't really another, in fact additional cities just cost you more resources (rather than gaining you extra resources like they do in the real world) so you are actually rewarded by destroying rather than capturing your opponents city.  

If you created a system of geographically isolated resources that are extremely important in the game, then required fully built cities to acquire, protect and trade/distribute those resources, you'd see a lot more of people taking over cities and a lot less razing cities.  If a game were designed around certain resources, much like the real world is designed, then invasions would be based on capturing goods for use or trade and the city infrastructure would need to be preserved as you invaded.  The world should be created so that there are dozens of varying and important resources and that it would be near impossible to maintain control over those resources by just one guild.  Not only would siege warfare become an important aspect of daily life, but diplomacy and trade would also become central to the game if one cannot acquire all of the goods necessary for survival via conquest alone.

This is pretty much how Darkfall is designed.  There are resources to control in each "province" that a clan controls.  

There's an example in this article:

Trinwood is an important village since whoever controls it has access to the stone quarry in the area. Stone is an important resource in Darkfall, as it is the main component in most player-made structures.

http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/455/455562p1.html

[Speedy Cerviche]

It's good they have the resource/territory system. As others have mentioned that was a key thing missing from SB. In SB guilds were forced to go for each others throats (destroy cities) because there was nothing else to fight over.

I don't mind if cities not being instantly razable somehow makes the sieging more superficial, but siegeing should still be a major investment that guilds would shy away from unless they felt the odds were in their favour, and success would be to their benefit.

Lower level territory/resource combat that is meaningful but not fatal to a guild is important and should add a lot of fun combat that SB lacked (hopefully thought, there will be some checks to prevent lameness like a guild taking over 3/4 of another's land at 4am).

[CRIMSON]

I think a better balance lies somewhere between Shadowbane and Dark Age of Camelot. Let the conqueror take over the city and allow them to destroy a few assets if they so desire, but limit how much they can burn down. Basically you want them taking over instead of destroying. This way the losing guild has the chance to lick their wounds, regroup and try to take their city back through diplomacy, trade, or by force.

You keep most of the gameplay about building and taking over, instead of destruction, which ultimately chases players away from the game. The fun part in both Shadowbane and Dark Age of Camelot is the fighting anyway, so now there's always something to fight over.

It's still possible to burn down entire cities in Darkfall, but only a few buildings/structures every so often, giving the losing team the possibility of reclaiming what was theirs before it is forever gone. With this system we hope to increase the fun and excitement of waging war, and decrease the sense of a definitive Game Over.

I don't think this will work entirely. For reasons already stated about SB. The problem with city destruction isn't that you can destroy buildings, but rather because there is no point in not destroying buildings.

If this is to prevent a grief type attack, it won't work. People will just hold the buildings untill they can burn em all. And there should be no real problem if cities have a purpose. If cities are profitable than people will take them not burn them.

Bottom line. Game Developers need to look at RL as to a clue about how city mechanics should be implimented. In real life as stated cities aren't there just beacause a bunch of people could build one there, they are there because there has always been an advantage to their creation. And in RL thorugh out history there have been relativly few advantages to burning a city to the ground (as far as bottom line profit is concerned). You don't have 2000+ year old cities still here on this planet because there was some devine intervention keeping people from destroying them.

[Dark_MadMax]

I don't think this will work entirely. For reasons already stated about SB. The problem with city destruction isn't that you can destroy buildings, but rather because there is no point in not destroying buildings.

If this is to prevent a grief type attack, it won't work. People will just hold the buildings untill they can burn em all. And there should be no real problem if cities have a purpose. If cities are profitable than people will take them not burn them.

 One of  the solution is to be able to "capture" the cities  -and make it pay obligatory  fees/contribution to captor  .  With such capture pacts previosu owners will still be able to have their buildings/vendors ,but say 25% of their income and resources traded is automatically transferred to their captor .

 Captor could also have  control over military and fortification structures  -to make rebellion more difficult.

[CRIMSON]

any solution that takes away the intrest in destroying a city vs a solution of taking away the ability to destroy cities would be good IMHO. That one or others. But If that city has to pay your guild 25% (I assume you mean the guild that owns that city), and that gold is comming from a crapload of farming, than yeah it's good for the attacker but it will suck a lot for the deffence.

[Dark_MadMax]

any solution that takes away the intrest in destroying a city vs a solution of taking away the ability to destroy cities would be good IMHO. That one or others. But If that city has to pay your guild 25% (I assume you mean the guild that owns that city), and that gold is comming from a crapload of farming, than yeah it's good for the attacker but it will suck a lot for the deffence.

There should be no farming whatsoever done by PC - as its boring.  Farming should be done by NPC on nearby resources, PC job will be to direct and protect them.

[Preston]

When I played Shadowbane, the reason why cities were leveled was primarily because people were really pissed off and wanted to hurt the enemy as much as possible.  If you lost the bane, the city was destroyed in a few hours.  

There were also some real incentives to destroy an enemy city.  If the enemy lost the city they lost all their investment both in gold and time to build.  This was a painful loss.  Also, capturing an enemy city didn't do much for the attacker because it would take a huge amount of resources to repair and build everything back up.  Plus, it takes men to man it.  Another thing Shadowbane started to lack after the first month, players.  

So, Darkfall is putting limits on the time it takes to destroy a city.  1) There's no incentive to destroy what you acquired.  (From what I can gather your city clanstone is kind of like a capital of a small province:  http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?loc=img10&image=darkfall2.jpg that gives you some control over local resources.)  So, you don't really want to destroy this city you just captured if you want to control those resources.  2) You also don't want to destroy a city if you want to keep expanding your territory.  3) If attackers are hell bent on destroying your city and it takes them time, you may very well have enough time to fight and take it back before too much is lost.  This last point is what Claus emphasizes.  The fighting is what is most important and destruction can seriously hurt player morale so much that players just don't want to fight or even play anymore.

I think Darkfall clearly identifies and addresses the concerns you illustrated.    


 

I don't think this will work entirely. For reasons already stated about SB. The problem with city destruction isn't that you can destroy buildings, but rather because there is no point in not destroying buildings.

If this is to prevent a grief type attack, it won't work. People will just hold the buildings untill they can burn em all. And there should be no real problem if cities have a purpose. If cities are profitable than people will take them not burn them.

Bottom line. Game Developers need to look at RL as to a clue about how city mechanics should be implimented. In real life as stated cities aren't there just beacause a bunch of people could build one there, they are there because there has always been an advantage to their creation. And in RL thorugh out history there have been relativly few advantages to burning a city to the ground (as far as bottom line profit is concerned). You don't have 2000+ year old cities still here on this planet because there was some devine intervention keeping people from destroying them.

[Preston]

There should be no farming whatsoever done by PC - as its boring.  Farming should be done by NPC on nearby resources, PC job will be to direct and protect them.

In Darkfall, you can hire NPC's to collect resources for you, like mining, chopping wood, or even fishing.  You can even hire NPC's to help fight/heal you in battle.

[Pug]

It's fun to hurt other people. It's fun to gank that no.0b with your level 50 Barbarian. It's fun to kill steal. It's fun to torch another clan's city. It's fun knowing that you are making another person curse at the top of their lungs as they mash their fist down on their keyboard.

The only way you'll be able to prevent players from finding ways to hurt other players is to make sure that hurting other players isn't fun. Making siege warfare take time or require 733+ farm skillz isn't enough. There has to be some consequence for the players' actions that actively discourages antisocial behavior or else antisocial behavior will be prominent.

It's a giant leap of faith to accept "we don't want to go into details just yet" as a definite solution to a game ruining problem. The problem with DarkFall isn't the devs, the fans, the ideals, or the promises, it's the lack of tangible information that most people associate with MMOLG development and have come to expect. When a MMOLG developer says, "Ya, we have the answer! We can't tell you yet but just wait and see!" 9 out of 10 times they are full of shit and talking about something that never did and never will exist.

The answer to the question of how does DarkFall hold its players accountable and will it work has always been, "Wait and see." Well... I'm waiting to get excited, too.

Other than that one minor flaw; DarkFall kicks ass and will conquer all pussy MMOLGs by mercilessly skull fucking their dead bodies... if the implementation is as good as the concept and the developers are able to deliver on their promises.

Still waiting.

[Preston]

It's fun to hurt other people. It's fun to gank that no.0b with your level 50 Barbarian. It's fun to kill steal. It's fun to torch another clan's city. It's fun knowing that you are making another person curse at the top of their lungs as they mash their fist down on their keyboard.

I disagree.  I think it is much more fun to kill people who think they are badass and take all their phat lewt.  

The only way you'll be able to prevent players from finding ways to hurt other players is to make sure that hurting other players isn't fun. Making siege warfare take time or require 733+ farm skillz isn't enough. There has to be some consequence for the players' actions that actively discourages antisocial behavior or else antisocial behavior will be prominent.

Agreed.  Darkfall addresses this.  Siege warfare and farm skillz are only two aspects of Darkfall.  Really, there is much more.  

Darkfall has a system that I think is genius.  Ironically, it has never been done before.  Amost in so many games, but not quite.  Here's a quick rundown:

The world of Darkfall has 6 different player races.  Three of those races are loosely allied.  The Dwarves, Mirdain (good elves), and Humans are allied.  The Orks and Mahirim are loosely allied.  The Alfar (bad elves) hate everyone and everyone hate the Alfar.  

You may freely attack any race you are not allied with.  So, if you are an Alfar you can attack any other race.  If you are Human, you could attack the Mahirim, Orks and Alfar with no penalty.  

You may attack anyone of any race at any time with some special caveats:  1) If you attack someone of your own race or alliance, then you will suffer an alignment penalty.  2) If someone in your clan attacks someone of an opposing race or alignment, your clan suffers an alignment hit.  3) Taking too much of an alignment hit will mean your fellow race and allied races can freely attack you without penalty.  4) Taking too much of an alignment hit will mean you will be attacked by NPC guards which patrol racial capitals and surrounding territories.  5) Too much of an alignment hit will mean you may not be able to use NPC shops, etc.. in racial capitals.

There are no safe zones, per se.  You only really can count on your friends and some strong guards near the racial capitals to help you out.  

This is really a very brief overview Darkfall's anti-social system.  All subject to change of course.  

It really reminds me of the old school UO system mixed in with a lot of common sense.  If anyone played L2 Closed Beta, you'll recall towards the end when people weren't too worried about their alignment, thousands of players were "raiding" opposing races for the fun of it.  It truly amazes me a MMORPG hasn't done this sooner.  DAoC to a very limited extent, but it was never fully implemented there because races could never truly raid the home turf of the other races.  It is almost a "natural" thing for players to do.  

It's a giant leap of faith to accept "we don't want to go into details just yet" as a definite solution to a game ruining problem. The problem with DarkFall isn't the devs, the fans, the ideals, or the promises, it's the lack of tangible information that most people associate with MMOLG development and have come to expect. When a MMOLG developer says, "Ya, we have the answer! We can't tell you yet but just wait and see!" 9 out of 10 times they are full of shit and talking about something that never did and never will exist.

Claus did not go into details on the question regarding how they are going to deal with the 3 a.m. Ninja  and Zerg raids.  

We have several ways of balancing the power of the zerg and the 3AM raid syndrome, but I don't want to go into specifics yet.

That little bit had absolutely nothing to do with the general problem of player accountability.  I certainly don't think "zerging" or "Ninja raids" are a game ruining problem.  A thorn yes, but not game ruining.  It is one aspect of advantages used in sieging which, personally, I think is very small.  Heck, I'm a big fan of 3 a.m. Ninja raids.  I did it all the time.  On the other hand, I realize the importance for others who don't like to camp their town all night long and want this issue addressed.  Claus and the DF dev team are addressing this issue, however.  One of the reasons I suspect they don't go into it in detail is because other MMORPG's out right now (i.e. Shadowbane) can copy it before they get their game in open beta.  Another reason is that it might change before it gets to beta.  This issue is one that I'm sure will get worked over good in beta no matter what.  

The answer to the question of how does DarkFall hold its players accountable and will it work has always been, "Wait and see." Well... I'm waiting to get excited, too.

There is quite a bit of information that has been slowly drained out of the Darkfall Devs.  It really requires months and months of research to gather it all together, read it, digest it, and even piece some of it together.  We have a general idea of how it will work.  I think it is a very innovative design system that looks great in theory because it deviates and yet enhances the design from an old game I used to play that was very similar.  Pre-Trammel UO.  

Other than that one minor flaw; DarkFall kicks ass and will conquer all pussy MMOLGs by mercilessly skull fucking their dead bodies... if the implementation is as good as the concept and the developers are able to deliver on their promises.
Still waiting.

I agree.  I am waiting too.  The true test will be playing it.  Unfortunately, the PvPers of the MMORPG community have been burned so many times in the past that many of us are turning into callous, jaded, scab-infested, wound-licking cynicsts that feel it is very difficult to believe in a great PvP MMORPG again.  

I don't think I have faith so much in the game of Darkfall as I do in Claus and the rest of the Razorwax dev team.  Not because of what they promise, but because of their vision, their belief in their convictions, and their perseverance.  I admire the strength it has taken to get this far with their ideas and I'm willing to believe again and wait again.

[Claus]

Hi guys, thanks for the comments.

I deliberately tried to talk as little as possible about Darkfall in this interview, as the F13.net staff told me they wanted to do a more general MMOG industry interview as opposed to a specific Darkfall interview. I am happy to discuss Darkfall here though.

As several of you point out in this thread, structures should have a meaning and a clear value for conquerors other than something to burn down to hurt other players.

They do have a value, and it will be worthwhile conquering them in Darkfall. Other than the obvious bragging rights, cities and structures are needed in crafting, they offer protection, they generate income and they count as points in various ingame clan ranking lists generated by the game. We have several other interesting beneficial features related to controlling clanstones (the Planetside equivalent to bases, Tree of Life in SB, Lifestones in Asheron's Call, etc), but I can't really talk about them yet.

We are constantly adding new elements to the strategical and tactical importance of cities and structures, and I appreciate the comments in this thread.

[CRIMSON]

NPC hirelings can follow you around and fight with you, they can carry your loot, they can perform skills and spells to aid you, etc. NPC hirelings can do pretty much everything that player friends can do. In addition, NPC hirelings can be given advanced orders such as patrolling your city, looking for enemies, criminals, and thieves. They can be a vendor in your shop that you have set up, they can mine for minerals in a mine, they can go out into the forest and chop wood for you, or stand on the banks of a river fishing for you all day.

That's from the darkfall FAQ under economy. Ok so if money basicly isn't a problem (NPCs will go gather everything you need). What's left to do? build things and kill people. Now so far there hasn't been much of a crafting system in any MMOG, If DF comes up with a good crafting system that makes crafters usefull, than great. But as for the other option, PVP and GVG will be where most players are.

Now if they do impliment an NPC system that takes away all tedious activity, than cities basicly don't have much cost. So there is a major issue of SB cities taken care of right there.

But you still have the problem of use. If cities are not usefull than capture will be relativly pointless. I mean unless you just want bragging rights. Otherwise it's easyer to deffend less territory.

You need cities to do something else. Gathering resources is a good option. But heck why stop there. If DF is gona have all thesethings promised why not just create a simulated economy run by NPCs and by economy I mean something like a real world economy. Than cities have a place.

but if cities have a place, why destroy them?

In pvp, if you kill someone and they drop some Uber weapon, are you gona just go drop it in a lake? or are you going to use it?

Now if taking a city is a major endevour, why would someone trash it?

And if someone wouldn't destroy a city, why impose limits on destroying buildings? Ok I can understand some limits. It isn't all that realistic, even in a game for buildings to just *poof* vanish. Maybe it should take some time to tear em down. But the way Claus made it sound was as though it was an artificial imposition, not centered in a sence of realism but rather to prevent people from burning towns down in raids. So why do you need such a system unless there is a reason to burn a city down? Or more specificly, a reason not to keep a city?

[schild]

For those who want to follow a thread in progress at the official boards:

Here's a link.

EDIT: Being nice is hard.

[Pug]

We have several ways of balancing the power of the zerg and the 3AM raid syndrome, but I don't want to go into specifics yet.

That little bit had absolutely nothing to do with the general problem of player accountability.  I certainly don't think "zerging" or "Ninja raids" are a game ruining problem.  A thorn yes, but not game ruining.

I don't differentiate between harming a player while they are online and harming them while they are offline. As we've seen in ShadowBane, losing something of value while you're offline can be extremely frustrating and leave you feeling helpless. Since zergs and ninja raids tend to leave players feeling frustrated and helpless and territory control is suppose to play a major role in DarkFall I'd have to assume that any solution Claus has will either make or break his game.

It's not Claus' fault that I'm skeptical. There have been way too many MMOLGs that have promised the moon and delivered butt crack. "Wait and see" turns into "We'll add content as we go" and then "Look for features that were suppose to make it into the original game in our first paid expansion" and finally "Our next paid expansion will fix some of the bugs that have plagued our game since its release." I'm not really looking for an explanation as to why the DarkFall developers can't devulge information. I'm looking for proof of concept. There's not much RazorWax can do to appease me other than release a fully functional game that is also fun to play. It's nothing personal.

I really don't have anything negative to say about DarkFall except that it has not proven itself. If DarkFall is more than empty promises then it will be an amazing game. That's more than I can say about a lot of other upcoming games.

[Roac]

The world of Darkfall has 6 different player races. Three of those races are loosely allied. The Dwarves, Mirdain (good elves), and Humans are allied. The Orks and Mahirim are loosely allied. The Alfar (bad elves) hate everyone and everyone hate the Alfar.

I think "never been done before" is more than a little streatch.  That's just factions again.  Unlike DAoC, DF has unrestrained PvP - unlike SB, there are some alignment penalties, which translate to penalties around racial capitals, for PK.  Or not so unlike, if you consider every SB alliance to be a racial faction, pissing off that alliance gets you / your guild KOS to all their cities, which seems to be the same thing here, except that DF is automatic while SB is player driven.  Of course, neither DAoC or SB were "genius" with these ideas either (brave, probably) - UO had a faction system and open PvP.  It didn't invent the ideas either, since UO was derrived from MUDs, which have had hundreds of implementations of PvP (faction, open, partial, etc) going back 20 years.

That little bit had absolutely nothing to do with the general problem of player accountability. I certainly don't think "zerging" or "Ninja raids" are a game ruining problem. A thorn yes, but not game ruining.

People seem to have brief memories.  Yes, these can most definately be serious problems.

Claus and the DF dev team are addressing this issue, however.

When has any dev team ever come out and said "We are not addressing this issue"?  It's a content-free statement.  It should be taken for granted that for any problem, those in charge are going to say they are addressing it.  In no way does that help reduce from the entire field of possibility which solution they are going to pick (to include status quo).  

One of the reasons I suspect they don't go into it in detail is because other MMORPG's out right now (i.e. Shadowbane) can copy it before they get their game in open beta. Another reason is that it might change before it gets to beta.

Any dev would more than likely be flattering himself if he thought keeping a design secret was to prevent copies.  Lack of design suggestions has never, ever, been a limitation.  There are piles upon piles of ideas out there, many of which are broken down, categorized, and analyzed by various fans and amateur devs.  I can attest to this first hand as a MUD dev - there was always a mountain of really good ideas.  Most of them never got put in, and i knew at the time they wouldn't.  The shortage isn't ideas, it's manpower (for MMOGs, that means money).  

Pick any problem, large or small, in any MMOG.  All a dev has to do is make a post asking for feedback on what to do, and he will be near-instantly inundated with hundreds (literally) of suggestions, including point-counterpoint rebuttals.  Some of them will actually be quite good.  Some, though, will simply cost too much to be worthwhile (or so the devs perceive).  Sometimes the problem itself is not viewed to be problematic enough to warrant dev-time.  Very, very few ideas are truly revolutionary, in the sense that you'll want to keep them quiet for fear of someone getting the jump on you.  It's the type of thing you might get once in your life if you're lucky.  Maybe DF has such an idea, but I'd bet against.  It's also noteworthy that such ideas are rarely along the lines of "lets add factions!" and usually more like "lets invent the MMOG genre", or "lets add easy-to-use network play to our RTS!".

It's a safer bet that it's #2 - the idea isn't finalized, probably because the alotment of personnel hasn't quite been worked out yet.  DF is already sitting on 4y in development, without word of when beta is (besides "soon"), so time is getting to be quite precious.  I'm sure the DF guys know exactly what they want to do.  That's the easy part, and the part that entraps so many devs.  The other likely reason is that there are contractual obligations to their pub which is keeping the lid on things (so that marketing can take advantage of timing).

I don't think I have faith so much in the game of Darkfall as I do in Claus and the rest of the Razorwax dev team. Not because of what they promise, but because of their vision, their belief in their convictions, and their perseverance.

History shows that this isn't what gets products out the door, however.  Unless we admit that figures of past did not have these qualities, in which case we are poor judges of character, which means we might be making mistakes with the Razorwax team.  Either way, we've been down this road before.  Many times.  It isn't that people here are "callous, jaded, scab-infested, wound-licking cynicsts" (well, some are) - it's that people like you keep showing up saying the same damn shit, and expect people to jump up with glee.  Nothing new is being brought to the table.  It isn't about belief - MMOGs aren't my religion.  I, and most people here, expect to see a solid design, real backing, deadlines, and so forth, because we know steaming piles of marketing turds when we see it.  Behind that Dogbert Enterprise, there might well be a fantastic game, but don't expect anyone here to have faith in MMOG medicine men.

[cevik]

In pvp, if you kill someone and they drop some Uber weapon, are you gona just go drop it in a lake? or are you going to use it?

That depends on a lot of factors.  Do I already have one of these uber weapons?  If I do, does having more than one make me more effective? What risks am I running by keeping the uber weapon vs. throwing it away?  Do I already have something better than the uber weapon?

You see, cities are only useful to keep around if they can afford you something that you don't already have.  Cities had an intrinsic value in Shadowbane, but they had a diminishing rate of return so great that your second city was actually a burden instead of a boon.  The problem was, you have to have one city, but additional cities can only duplicate the effort of the first city.  

To use your uber weapon example, if everyone has to have this uber weapon to be effective in PvP, then everyone will have the uber weapon already.  If you can only use one weapon at a time, then the only available option for you is to destroy the weapon so you can be assured it will never fall back into the hands of your enemy.  Cities are like that in Shadowbane, they have value, you can't play without them, but you only need one, and in fact each additional city hurts you more than it helps you, so the only solution is to destroy rather than capture the cities of your foes.

That's why I pointed out that there needs to be geographically isolated resources.  If my city is a great place for Iron, but has no available Stone, then I must either conquer a land with Stone or setup a trade alliance to acquire stone.  If everyone needs all or most of the available resources to be effective, but if each guild can only acquire some of the resources on their own, it will lead to conflict and trade and it will give value to additional land and cities.  

There also needs to be a diminishing rate of return for your cities.  The first city can harvest 100% of the Iron available, the next can harvest only 50% Stone, the Next 25% of whatever resource, and so on until you are only getting 1% or so of the available resource.  That way each additional city still has value, but one nation will have difficulty conquering the entire world (or they would be better off allowing others to run part of the world)..

[HaemishM]

Agreed.  Darkfall addresses this.

Not to be a scrabrous, jaded, cynical fucker or anything, but Darkfall hasn't addressed anything. They are in design. Until they have a working, released product that people are paying to play, they haven't addressed anything other than concepts.

Belief in developers who have not produced anything in the past, or anything like what they are proposing is FOLLY. It is a path that leads to cynicism, resentment and despair. It is the path of the fanbois. Tread not this path.

Hell, if I was banking my beliefs on MMOG's based purely on pre-beta hype, FAQ's and some mystical belief in the dev's capabilities, I'd have thought Shadowbane was the second coming, City of Heroes the most unimaginative doomed to fail shite, and Lineage 2 the way of shining light.

[Roac]

That's why I pointed out that there needs to be geographically isolated resources.

Mmm... I think cities need a couple things.  One, a geographically isolated resource means that you can restrain (or direct) where cities are placed.  Sticking one in the middle of a desert suddenly doesn't have a lot of meaning, unless it can serve as a trading post (but that requires some meaning to be given to distance-based trading).  If cities can be used to help control a region, then it may have military value - but it needs to extend beyond the walls of the city (which, historically, real cities did).  

Also, players need to have a reason to need and use a city.  If I own the city, that's great - I'm a king, and a monopoly.  Sucks for the 400 other people who live there, and there isn't a lot of reason for them to go make their own city - you're just duplicating effort, and doubling the total cost.  Also sucks that they don't get to participate in any of the l33t city-owning things I get to do.

Ok, so that needs to end.  Limit what authority city rulers can have, both politically and economically.  Don't void it - "It's good to be king", afterall, but don't make the ruler the end-all, be-all of the city.  Other people are playing the game, too.

[HaemishM]

That reminds me of another thing that was both boon and curse about Shadowbane. The city-building interface and strategy involved was quite fun and interesting. The biggest problem was that maybe 1-2% of the players would ever see any part of it, ever. The rest of the people were just grunts, and being a grunt is generally not fun, or only fun in little spurts.

Not everyone can lead, will want to lead, or have the ability to lead. But when one of the most interesting parts of the game that required a lot of dev time is isolated from most of the players, it seems a lot of effort gets put into the game for very little return.

[cevik]

Also, players need to have a reason to need and use a city.  If I own the city, that's great - I'm a king, and a monopoly.  Sucks for the 400 other people who live there, and there isn't a lot of reason for them to go make their own city - you're just duplicating effort, and doubling the total cost.  Also sucks that they don't get to participate in any of the l33t city-owning things I get to do.

I think, like the Real World, you can handle it all with resources.  You make sure resources are required to play the game, i.e. you have to have iron to make weapons, you have to have stone to build buildings, you have to have wood to create energy, etc. and to acquire any of the resources in a quantity large enough to be effective, you have to have a city.  

Everything else follows naturally.  A rutheless dictator who controls the Iron supply of the server will find that if he's not good to his friends, his enemies will "liberate" his country in a search for Weapons of Mass Destruction.  A capitalist who freely trades with even the most vile of n00b ganking pvpers will soon find that his kingdom is no more when his people get sick of being ganked.

If the players are less "citizens" of the city, like they are in Shadowbane, and instead play the role of the standing army of the city, the king will basically have no power without the players.  If your king treats you poorly you can show him what has happened historically when a king has upset the majority of his standing army.  Your army, as well as the other Armies around the globe, require the resources of your city.  Your king, as well as your kingdom, profit off of those resources.  Your king and your kingdom require you to defend those resources, if your king proves himself unworthy your army can claim those resources for themselves and the whole cycle begins again.

[HaemishM]

Another thing that could make cities a requirement for play is to think of them as waypoints on a long journey. I'm sure I'm about to get blasted for this concept, but what the hell.

Make it necessary for players to "rest" at cities after having traveled long distances. It would be much like SWG's cantinas, except not full of AFK dancers. Every 8 hours or so of game time, start degrading a player's abilities due to lack of food or whatever. I'm not in favor of making food a requirement that sits in inventory because it just becomes an irritating nuisance. This would be similar to WoW's rest state thing, except meant more to make cities not only a gathering point, but also a way station for travel. Make the player come to a city and pay a toll every 8 hours or so to refresh their stats. After all, often cities were built merely to make long-distance travel possible. Just a thought.

[RipSnort]

I gotta say I'm havin'  trouble avoiding fanboism with this MMO. Claus's comments here and in the online world's roundtable is exactly what I want to hear. I want to say it's music to my ears but since it's written instead of spoken what is the equivelant of music to my ears? Boobies to my eyes?
He talks the talk, I wonder if Darkfall will walk the walk.

[WayAbvPar]

Another thing that could make cities a requirement for play is to think of them as waypoints on a long journey. I'm sure I'm about to get blasted for this concept, but what the hell.

Make it necessary for players to "rest" at cities after having traveled long distances. It would be much like SWG's cantinas, except not full of AFK dancers. Every 8 hours or so of game time, start degrading a player's abilities due to lack of food or whatever. I'm not in favor of making food a requirement that sits in inventory because it just becomes an irritating nuisance. This would be similar to WoW's rest state thing, except meant more to make cities not only a gathering point, but also a way station for travel. Make the player come to a city and pay a toll every 8 hours or so to refresh their stats. After all, often cities were built merely to make long-distance travel possible. Just a thought.

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps scatter some inns or 'rest areas' around the map randomly as well. Sometimes cities will spring up around them, and others will remain remote outposts. Alternatively- allow players to place inns or similar structures, and to earn profits from running said structure.

[Roac]

Make it necessary for players to "rest" at cities after having traveled long distances.

Have a map setup so that cities can be natural crossroads.  For example - if you have a NPC caravan system (discussed in another thread) of some sort, have the cost of travel go up with distance at greater than linear rate.  Why?  They have to carry lots of supplies for long voyages, and tend to dislike being alone.  Often cheaper to hop from city to city, and resupply along the way, than to load up at the start (and pay for the extra mounts or whatever) to go the whole way alone.

That would be a bit frustrating to also impose on players, although normal needs should drive them toward cities (equipment, housing, social events, questing, etc).  However, cities could serve as choke points on some travel routes.  Allow speed while on roads to be high; even as much as 3x when offroad.  Cities will naturally sit on roads (regardless of which comes first), and players will normally want to then use them to cut travel time.  Going through a city would also be quicker than going around it (almost 5x quicker for a more or less round city).  If city owners are allowed to extend walls or such to try and cut back people going around them, that could funnel people as well (it's a loooong way around).

[Fargull]

I like the caravan system, and hell, having them instanced content would be fine.  If you wanna go from city X to city Y, you have several options.  One involves just hoofing it, second involves hiring out as a guard on a caravan, which has a small chance of making the journey safely and much greater chance of having a fight or several fights on the way, third option would be to pay to take a coach, which would have a small chance of encountering any trouble.

I like the idea of requiring some sort of tithe at a city gates and even the introduction of having some sort of rest required, but I would not make it directed at sitting in an inn, but just being in the environs of a city/town/village/inn where one's character can also shop/chat up over an ale/train, ect...

I do not like WOW's limitations on where you must rest, but the rest of the system looks good to me.

[Dark Vengeance]

I had more fun reading your questions than any of the answers.  A tad aggressive in the question asking department aren't we?

Seems to me that some of the questions are old hat around here. If a dev has read the sites or forums surrounding this community for any length of time, these subjects get addressed regularly. My take was that it was like doing a snapshot of all the issues most of us find relevant.....kind of like trying to encapsulate 6 months worth of posting/discussions into a quick breakdown of dev philosophy.

But that's a good thing....better to get actual opinions than just generic hype. Though, unfortunately with a frontpage update, it kind of restricts the dev in their answers....because their answers are inavriably tied to the product being promoted.

In contrast, a redname speaking their mind on the forums can speak in generalities. In the past, I didn't even know which game some rednames were associated with....and IMO that is also a good thing. It removes any preconceived notion of spinning or arguing for a certain type of ruleset because it happens to be the one used in their upcoming MMOG.

I liked the interview, but I'm more partial to seeing devs on the forums of their own accord, as opposed to just front page pieces. At least it wasn't a puff piece on Darkfall specifically....but I guess I got spoiled seeing guys like Raph so regularly on the old forums.

The real question might be...is Claus going to stick around the forums? Or is this strictly a promotional Q&A visit?

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............