Interview with Claus Grovdal - Round 2

[schild]

Alright. New thread with new chances for everyone. If I (or any other mod) smell even the slightest hint of fanboi in here your post will either be deleted or you will get a 24 hour ban (depending on the degree of stupid). There is an entire forum set up for your fanboish antics over at the Darkfall Online site.

That said:

Flamebait here.

P.S. All questions and discussions should be directed to Claus, if you want to foster a discussion between players, please do so in the gaming discussion or game development forum.

EDIT: Fanbois are annoying.

[Pug]

Claus,

In response to the question of whether or not casual MMOLG gamers exist you mentioned that you felt PlanetSide failed to attract a larger player base in part because it didn't offer more than what CS and BF1942 offer for free. I came away from reading your response with the feeling that you blame instant gratification for PlanetSide's failure. What did you mean by more when you said that PlanetSide didn't offer more than CS or BF1942 (more ways to invest time or more mandatory time investment)? Do you feel that there is room for activities that give instant gratification and long term goals to coexist in the same game and why?

In response to, "f13: How would you avoid the pitfalls of the current crop of PVP-centric games, such as the power of the zerg, 3 AM raid syndrome, time-investment being more important than player skill, serial killer griefer PK syndrome, and the loser quitting because rebuilding is too hard," you seemed to skip past the accountability issues. Given the huge impact that these issues will have on your current project I'd love to hear what you are doing to address player accountability and game balance issues including zergs, 3AM raids, and preventing random PKs from prevailing and why you feel that your solution will work where so many others have failed.

To comment on the importance of community building... When I first began playing Counter-Strike I would only play for brief periods of time. I'd join a game now and then when I had free time. I kept on playing Counter-Strike because the game was fun to play. After I had played for a few months I started seeing the same players on a regular basis and made a few friends. The more I played the more people I met and the more I felt like playing, but I never felt as if I couldn't play Counter-Strike if I wasn't able to devote dozens of hours every week.

I don't believe that the development of MMOLG communities is a result of or should be coaxed by mandatory time investments like many MMOLGs try to do. Players will form communities and decide how much time they can invest on their own, even in games that have absolutely no time investment requirements. Make the game fun and players will want to play. The rest comes naturally.

[Uzik]

In response to, "f13: How would you avoid the pitfalls of the current crop of PVP-centric games, such as the power of the zerg, 3 AM raid syndrome, time-investment being more important than player skill, serial killer griefer PK syndrome, and the loser quitting because rebuilding is too hard," you seemed to skip past the accountability issues. Given the huge impact that these issues will have on your current project I'd love to hear what you are doing to address player accountability and game balance issues including zergs, 3AM raids, and preventing random PKs from prevailing and why you feel that your solution will work where so many others have failed.

For accountability they are implementing a alignment system to help keep peopel from greifing and attacking without declaring war and such.  There was also talk of having access to a players complete info(even PK ratings) through a IG browser.  And for the 3am raid, they talked about making sieges take a very long time(24 hours was mentioned once I believe) to destroy a city.  This avoids the more carebear solution that L2 is taking by having people schedule sieges but also defeates 3am raids by making it take a good deal of time before buidlings can be damaged so that defenders can muster some forces.


I am very interested to see what people outside the DF community think of the game and will try to give as many un-biased answers as i can.

[Pug]

An alignment system? Such as...? How does it work and why is it better than what other games have already tried? How does Darkfall's alignment system solve any problems?

Exactly how long is a very long time and how is that amount of time controlled? How does sieging work and why is it better than what has already been done? How does Darkfall's siege system reduce the impact of a zerg force and counter 3AM sieges?

I don't believe that anyone can answer those questions other than Darkfall's developers. I also don't expect an answer. I'm just letting RazorWax know that these are the kinds of questions that many players will want answers to. Unfortunately for us giving a bad answer may well be worse than giving no answer and so there will not likely be an answer until the game is in public beta.

[Uzik]

An alignment system? Such as...? How does it work and why is it better than what other games have already tried? How does Darkfall's alignment system solve any problems?

If you attack some1 who is in your racial group and you are not at war with their guild you go towards a negative alignment.  After awhile you will be labeled evil and guards in your racial capital will attack you and vendors will not sell to you.  You can get your alignment back more positive by killing certain monsters.

As for sieging.  All we know is that there is going to be something called a gloomer.  The gloomer takes awhile to build and slowly moves into the oppposing guilds city.  What the gloomer does is nullify the protection that the Clanstone gives to all surrounding buildings for short periods of time.  During these short periods when buildings are vulnerable the attackers can attack the Clanstone and eventually destroy it.  This will take a LONG time.  Again I say that the only number I remember getting was 24 hours.  Not sure if that meant IG or RL hours.  During this time the defenders can rally up defenses.  ALSO, remember that in DF there are very little instant teleportation so when an attacker is killed he must go ALL the way back from his spawn point which gives a small allegiance some hope against an "uber" guild.  While this is pretty much all the info we have on sieging.  It does however distinguish DF's system from SB's very easily.

[Anonymous]

Can we please avoid idiocy such as "some1"?  This is not the fucking vault, and I grow tired of pointing that out.

[Mordare]

It does however distinguish DF's system from SB's very easily.

Um, no.

Gloomer=Bane Circle
Clanstone=Tree of Life

BTW I think he was asking Claus. I would also like to know some more details, but only if HE ANSWERS.

[Shockeye]

Gloomer=Bane Circle

So the question is, are gloomers able to be destroyed from the get-go or do they have a time of invulnerability before they "fire" like SB?

[Uzik]

GLoomers can be attacked as their being built and once their constructed.  

 And it isnt like SB where you lay down a bane circle and after awhile you can kill everything.  The gloomer only makes buildings vulnerable to attack for short periods of time, in which you can do some damage to the clanstone.  And isn't the ToL always open to attack after the siege begins so people can jus log on at 3am and kill it while no defenders are on?  Well if you cannot constantly attack the clanstone then that is different isn't it ; )  Also, if you die at a siege in SB you just get some1 to summon you back.  In DF if you die in a siege it could very well take you an hour or more to run back.

Can we please avoid idiocy such as "some1"? This is not the fucking vault, and I grow tired of pointing that out.

Wow flames, very mature.  Typing some1 is no different than typing don't.  I am simply condensing "someone" into some1 just as "do not" is condensed into don't.  And if you are going to criticize my use of some1 then please learn how to properly use a comma.  In an instance where a comma is not necesary, "and" has the same function as a comma.  Just using "and" will create the pause that you were going for.  So just for future reference, using a comma THEN and is redundant.  Thanks for the flame though.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the grammar lesson, even though you are incorrect.  The sentence falls under the "two independent clauses" rule.

I'll also point out there is a great wide gap between typing "some1" and don't.  One is a contraction, the other is a "1337" spelling.  One is correct English, the other is lazy shorthand.  I'm sure you are having trouble differentiating between the two, but since you are such an expert on grammar, try to slide that one past your english teacher.  Good luck, you'll need it.

And if you are going to criticize my use of some1 then please learn how to properly use a comma.

You don't make things easy on yourself, do you.  Starting a sentence with "And", missing the comma before "then", you simply are a overqualified to correct grammar.  Or is it completely unqualified to critique grammar, I forget.

So just for future reference, using a comma THEN and is redundant.

Overuse of capitalization, I see.  Not to mention more poor punctionation.  I believe the sentence you were aiming for here is, "So just for future reference, using a comma, then and, is redundant."  Still, that's a really awkward sentence, wouldn't you say?

I stand by my original assertion.  You belong on the vault.

[Joe]

And if you are going to criticize my use of some1 then please learn how to properly use a comma.  In an instance where a comma is not necesary, "and" has the same function as a comma.  Just using "and" will create the pause that you were going for.  So just for future reference, using a comma THEN and is redundant.  Thanks for the flame though.

Actually, you're supposed to put the comma before the "and." Otherwise, God slays a ninth grade English teacher for your sins. Were he to drop the "and," he'd have to use a semi-colon. But hey, don't take my word for it.

[Mordare]

Hehe, looks like Grammarian

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame31.html

versus Ferrous Cranus

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html

(ok I guess images are not allowed, maybe links will work)

[Mordare]

The gloomer only makes buildings vulnerable to attack for short periods of time, in which you can do some damage to the clanstone.

By the way, we don't know this yet. Devs have said that is one way that it could end up, but nothing is set yet. For all we know 6 weeks into beta they could ditch the Gloomer thing and come up with something totally different.

I'm getting tired of arguing points about Darkfall and having people spew out vague quotes like they were absolutes.

Darkfall isn't a game yet.

[koboshi]

Redirect, Your Honor?

Claus,

In response to the question of whether or not casual MMOLG gamers exist you mentioned that you felt PlanetSide failed to attract a larger player base in part because it didn't offer more than what CS and BF1942 offer for free. I came away from reading your response with the feeling that you blame instant gratification for PlanetSide's failure. What did you mean by more when you said that PlanetSide didn't offer more than CS or BF1942 (more ways to invest time or more mandatory time investment)? Do you feel that there is room for activities that give instant gratification and long term goals to coexist in the same game and why?

In response to, "f13: How would you avoid the pitfalls of the current crop of PVP-centric games, such as the power of the zerg, 3 AM raid syndrome, time-investment being more important than player skill, serial killer griefer PK syndrome, and the loser quitting because rebuilding is too hard," you seemed to skip past the accountability issues. Given the huge impact that these issues will have on your current project I'd love to hear what you are doing to address player accountability and game balance issues including zergs, 3AM raids, and preventing random PKs from prevailing and why you feel that your solution will work where so many others have failed.

To comment on the importance of community building... When I first began playing Counter-Strike I would only play for brief periods of time. I'd join a game now and then when I had free time. I kept on playing Counter-Strike because the game was fun to play. After I had played for a few months I started seeing the same players on a regular basis and made a few friends. The more I played the more people I met and the more I felt like playing, but I never felt as if I couldn't play Counter-Strike if I wasn't able to devote dozens of hours every week.

I don't believe that the development of MMOLG communities is a result of or should be coaxed by mandatory time investments like many MMOLGs try to do. Players will form communities and decide how much time they can invest on their own, even in games that have absolutely no time investment requirements. Make the game fun and players will want to play. The rest comes naturally.

These are good questions, and if you haven't been driven off Claus, I for one would love a response.

[B-prime]

A question to Claus.

If you are commited to using a noto-PK system with factions to curb rPKing and ARAC clans, how are you planning to solve the fundamental problems that all other games using them have had?  Namely cross teaming and the use of blue mules.

[HaemishM]

Nothing described above by Uzik is any different from any other game we've seen before other than nomenclature. Negative alignment sounds extremely similar to going red in Lineage 2 or Ultima Online. Also, if as in Shadowbane, vendors mean nothing after a certain point in a character's life, not being able to buy from vendors won't hurt a character who RPK's. Also, if you are able to loot people you have PVPed, even RPK'ed, you won't need vendors. Not to mention the use of second accounts or multiple characters on the same accont for mules will totally invalidate any accountability gained via use of negative alignment. The original concept of "outcasting" that Raph had floated for Star Wars Galaxies, in which every character on the RPK's account went "red" is a much better system, IMO. That is, if I understand the system being discussed.

There is no forum, no form of written communication, nor any form of communication between two sentient beings in which the use of "some1" should be acceptable. Any place that fosters or allows such rampant retardation should be sterilized by the holy flame of Uggoth immediately.

[Roac]

For fuck's sake, people here can't even get over the VERY well-established rules of grammar, so how in the world do you expect them to talk intelligently about game design which (to me at least - English pwnz me) is far simpler.  Uzik is like the anti-fanboi of English.  Die in a grammar avalanche.

[Roac]

Ok, on the note of game design and DF:

Are PLAYER cities fairly close to a requirement (meaning, there is a driving need to make use of a city with frequency) for play during a character's entire "life"? How many services does a city provide? How many of these does a typical character need? Can NPC cities supplement a player's need for cities?

On this point: if a player needs a player city, what systems are in place to prevent monopolization by the elite of these resources? If a player does not need a player city, what is the point in offering this as a feature, since they would appear to be primarily for bragging rights and decoration, and also a liability (due to the addition of sieging)?

Griefing is a big concern for players. That is, people do not like being victimized. More importantly, they do not like to pay money to be victimized. It isn't that people hate losing (though some do) - if it were, there wouldn't be so many board games and such which only allows for one winner. If I sit down to play a game, I know I may very well lose, and accept that as part of the game. I don't like to feel like I've lost, despite never having sat at the table. Even though people log in, that does not mean they feel as though they have "sat down", despite disclaimers to the contrary. How is this resolved in DF? Specifically, I'm asking what sort of justice system is in place, if any. Note that any suggested answer must actually address the victims - racial alignment penalties does not do so. Such penalties only tell you who the bad guy is, which the victim was probably made aware of soon as he was attacked.

Do the DF devs intend to address the problem that in competitive systems, such as PvP and sieging, the rule in a "relaxed" ruleset often turns into "might makes right". This is coupled with the rule that characters, and guilds (through communication, experience, etc) tend to become more powerful with the more time invested in them. This results in the top 10% of the players having the bulk of the game's power. That isn't a problem in a game such as EQ - it can be in a game such as DF where players are in direct competition. What can exist is an economy of monopolies and trusts, with key players taking the role of Robber Barons, who double as warlords. Such roles in our RL history are not known for their pleasantries, or met with much fanfare from the peasantry.

That's only a few items, but is a good start for any design discussion. I've yet to hear any design from DF that directly addresses them, despite some marketing-esque comments to the contrary. Mostly what I've heard from Claus and gang is that their design is going to mimic SB, DAoC, UO, and probably a couple others to a lesser extent. That's fine in that all three games are successful, but not fine in that unlike all three, DF doesn't appear to bring anything new to the table. The notion that DF brings the best out of them and leaves the rest falls flat as well, at least so far, since "the best" would suggest answering the above questions - but as of yet, they have not been.


Note: if at any point the "system" to create or prevent something is "the players will [not] want to", and if you do NOT hold advanced degrees in sociology and psychology, you are (the technical term) a stupid fuck. If that argument is used to keep something working smoothly, you will find it not working. Players take delight in breaking things, and if it's difficult to break, the more challenge it is (and bragging rights to) to the one who breaks it. This is often why hackers do what they do; just to say they did it, and prove they could. Even if you held both those degrees, I'd have serious misgivings about such a statement, but I'd at least pause to listen.

[Burl Swift]

Roac, from what I can tell from the limited info we have so far that the cities are going to be a "requirement" similar to how it worked in SB. Sure...you can live without one, but you'd be missing out on some of the gameplay. The real driving force I believe to actually needing to belong to a city is the alignment system, another thing we know little about. That fact that the alignment it strictly bound to racial interaction is going to really push the players to bind together.

One important piece of the puzzle to me is the unknown information about caravans and resource control. Both of which will have a dramatic influence on the participation of city building.

You know as well as anyone that until external beta starts up and the information levies break we're all going to remain in the dark on the meat an taters.

Sorry I missed out on the last thread...looks like you all had fun.

Edit - Sorry about the lack of answers, we really need Claus or another dev to jump on this.

[Romp]

one difference between DF and SB as far as cities goes is that in DF if you want you can bind at your racial capital and bank and shop there.  Whereas in SB you had to find a player run city to bind to etc (once you got to a certain level).  So I think cities will be less necessary than in SB.

[Virtra]

Well, whether or not there are technical differences between SB's siege system and what we know of DF's siege system, the fact remains that the basic design theory behind DF's system can be seen as a "rip off" of SB's system (not trying to demean the system, but frankly it is what it is).

Anyway, I believe there is a fundimental flaw in the theory of a siege system, which is that a siege system eliminates the idea of war.

Before I go on let me define what I mean by 'siege' and 'war.'

[*]Siege: A single battle between two or more guilds where the fate of the defender's city is determined by who "wins."  Sieges are almost always restricted to the area around the defender's city, for it is the city that is what can be gained or lost.

[*]In a siege the roles of attacker and defender are determined by who places a gloomer near someone's city.[*]There are only two real outcomes to a siege.  Either the attackers win, or the defenders win.[/list:u][*]War: A series of in-game battles where by two or more guilds attack eachother.  Durring which time territories and resources can be gained or lost by either side.  The fate of either side's cities also weigh in the balance.

[*]There are no set attacker/defender roles in a war.  Rather the only roles that are of dsignificant meaning are the roles of the 'agressor' and the 'reactor’ which only characterize who instigated the war.

[*]The terms 'attacker' and 'defender' are situational terms dependant on the circumstances of events at specific times and places.[/list:u][*]Durring each battle, the fate of territory and resources is in question.

[*]The attackers wins and gets new territory/resources[*]The defenders wins and retain their territory/resources[*]In either case, the fate of territory and resources is never final at the end of the battle.  Rather, only the end of the war will determine that fate.[/list:u][*]The fate of a city only comes into play once enough battles have been won/lost by either of the sides.  Also, “enough battles” is dependant on the numbers, skill, available resources, strategy, etc... of both sides.[/list:u][/list:u]

What happens to a siege system is that you end up with having to put all the marbles on the table (so to speak) in one large battle that determines the fate (not only of your city, but of your guild).  To compensate for this, devs have tried to give a huge advantage to the defenders, because the loss of a city is such a dramatic change that it could easily cause players to cancel their accounts if not mittigated in some way.  

But these solutions are often rough and patchy at best, and do nothing to really fix the problem, only lessen the symptoms.

To change a siege system into a war system is dependant on imbuing a purpose and a meaning into controlling territory and resources.  And there have been hints of this happening within DF (i.e. the resource, territory, and law systems).

HOWEVER, owning territory and resources has to have a purpose and meaning in and of itself.  In otherwords, the main purpose of having territory and resources can't be because it helps your city (although this can be an indirect effect, and in fact it should be.  Owning more territory should allow you to build your defenses farther outward form your city, thus attackers are less able to penetrate all the way to your city).

I'm not sure exactly what this purpose should be, but I do believe it is a combination of being able to house players, being able to influence other guilds/nations (i.e. being able to set the rules of the game), and opening up other aspects of the game (other than the game of thrones aspect, like owning a territory will allow you to do certain quests).

So my question to Claus is:

What, if anything, are you doing to promote a war system above a siege system?

Also the underlying theory behind the siege system (combined with player guilds and player ownership) is fairly complex already.  Yet even it seems to be fatally flawed.  Do you think the MMORPG dev community understands the importance of sound game theory?  If yes, how well do you think the dev community is at getting from theory to a playable game, and what are the obsticles that can prevent this from happening?