Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 25, 2017, 08:45:42 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Subscribe! | Shop: Amazon

***DONATION DRIVE 2 HAS BEGUN:
CLICK HERE TO BURN MONEY***
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Topic: War December Newsletter + Looks like it's coming to a console 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14 Go Down Print
Author Topic: War December Newsletter + Looks like it's coming to a console  (Read 136923 times)
Signe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 18820

Muse.


Reply #140 on: January 01, 2007, 12:01:51 PM

You've woken up intoxicated, haven't you, Damijin?!?

My Sig Image: hath rid itself of this mortal coil.
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #141 on: January 01, 2007, 12:05:40 PM

Do what you want, draw your own conclusion, welcome him as you think is right.

Just remember what happened before and take what Mark Jacobs says with a grain of salt. There isn't anything new, if not for those gullible.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
Modern Angel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3553


Reply #142 on: January 01, 2007, 01:11:16 PM

The only thing that happened before was everyone drank the Kool Aid. Of course you take what he says with a grain of salt; you should take what EVERYONE says with a grain of salt. He didn't do anything to anyone before and he's not going to do anything to anyone now. Hurt fanboys playing the victimized consumer are only marginally less annoying than furries with subscription graphs. The majority of everything sucks. How anyone can get past the age of 14 and not realize that is beyond me.
MarkJacobs
Developers
Posts: 109

Mythic Entertainment


Reply #143 on: January 01, 2007, 01:25:41 PM

^^^ And that's why I wanted a private discussion area.

Wherever I go HRose loves to follow and post the same stuff, year after year after year.   It's pointless to hash over what he says for the 100th time because no matter what I say, he has his own interpretations and, in the end, nothing changes. He loves to say things about me and Mythic that he can't prove but he knows that we have better things to do than try to force him to prove them in a court of law. 

FYI, just so we get all the facts straight, I didn't come here to hype WAR, I was offering a chance for people here to chat about things privately not out in the open.  Frankly, it's 2007, and the amount of hype that would be derived from a private discussion here compared to what we have already generated for WAR with the Warhammer IP, DAoC and as part of EA is, in all fairness, quite tiny.  I just thought that since I read this site every day and a number of people here have, over the years, had interesting things to say (as many of you know whom I've sent private messages) that I give them a chance to unload their thoughts about MMORPGs in a more focused environment.  And as expected, along comes HRose along with his "anger" and "dire warnings" about me and Mythic.

And so, once again, because of this nonsense from him and people like him, what was going great is quickly derailed.

To damijin,

  It was harsh and ruder than I normally like to be but as everyone here knows I hate gold farmers, gold sellers and I've spent a ton of money fighting them and we continue to refuse to participate in what I consider is a bad business model for most MMORPGs.  We've turned down offers to participate in the business or to turn a blind eye for cash and I've always said no regardless of investor pressure or personal profit.  In 20+ years of posting to the community that comment was one of my worst and while I don't regret it, I do regret if it really soured you on Mythic.  I just hate the business and the people who profit by it.

So, I'll offer my apologies for what has happened in this thread and go back to lurking.

Mark

Edit: P.S.  I'll respond to some of the questions/issues raised here before I go back to lurking mode.  It would be rude to do otherwise especially since my involvement ramped things up. 
« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 01:31:55 PM by MarkJacobs »
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #144 on: January 01, 2007, 01:39:23 PM

we have better things to do than try to force him to prove them in a court of law. 
Yeah, you are this close from Serek Dmart.

Beside my opinions (that I believe are well founded) I really don't understand what would be these "lies" I'm spreading and that should be material for a court of law.

I have absolutely no "anger" beside the fact I found irritating that particular line:
Quote
I'll tell you this though, any idea that someone posts there that I like and that I pass on to the design team, I'll make sure that the person gets game credit for it
Maybe you know why I found it so.

Quote
what was going great is quickly derailed
Nope. I don't have any interest to go further or to fuel the derail. I never liked feeding drama. I presented a point of view, now you can continue.

Quote
I'll offer my apologies for what has happened in this thread and go back to lurking
Yeah, that's what you like to do. "Look! Meanie HRose make me go away! Lynch him, or you won't see again the precious red color of my name"

If you have the balls you can stand critics and not flee away like a sissy. I surely don't offer my apology because I believe in what I write.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
garthilk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 49


WWW
Reply #145 on: January 01, 2007, 02:01:42 PM

P.S.  I'll respond to some of the questions/issues raised here before I go back to lurking mode.  It would be rude to do otherwise especially since my involvement ramped things up. 
Thanks,

Some answers about what has changed regarding your stance on the consoles, considering just 4 months ago you said that, "While I like the new generation of hardware a lot, that doesn't mean that it makes sense to do a console game based on WAR or Warhammer Fantasy right now." Obviously things change in 4 months, I'm wondering what changed that a console game now makes sense? I think a console MMO definitely opens up the market and it's a great idea, just seems like a slight change of pace or a change in tone on the topic.

Other than that Mark, don't let the negativity drag you down. The more attention you give to negativity the more it's perpetuated IMO.

Building and Destorying the Truth in Equal Measure
Strazos
Greetings from the Slave Coast
Posts: 15288

Trading Cotton for Chalupas in 2014!


Reply #146 on: January 01, 2007, 02:13:09 PM

Wow, somehow Hrose went from being quiet for the last couple of weeks/months to beating out Geldon for #1 Delusional Douche. And with just two posts.

It must be a gift.


Anyway, stop the tired act already, and go back into the woodwork you crawled out from. If you were "wronged" in the past, over a game, it was your own fault for buying so wholly into the hype or whatever. Also, stop trying to make up words - there's a Spell Check here for a reason.

Fear the Backstab!
"Plato said the virtuous man is at all times ready for a grammar snake attack." - we are lesion
"Hell is other people." -Sartre
Modern Angel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3553


Reply #147 on: January 01, 2007, 02:34:54 PM

No fucking kidding. You have your own site where you can post your rambling fever dreams. There was an opportunity to have a certain give and take with a developer working on a game I'm at least interested in and instead of having the chance to seperate hype from good information LIKE ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD DO we get HRose queering things up with his special brand of stupid. Burn your own bandwidth, you obnoxious pedant.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10316


Reply #148 on: January 01, 2007, 02:42:43 PM

Now, you could argue that you prefer group v group even when RvR is working properly, in which case the whole concept of RvR isn't your thing, and you should probably play Guild Wars more.
I'd say that there is a large flaw in RvR if group v group isn't viable strategy.  Just as large of a flaw as the 90/10 thing.  I really doubt RvR was more fun with more people.  It's more to the fact that the zerg was the dominate strategy and if there were 20 people playing in the BG, that was 20 less people in your zerg or counter zerg.

I guess it does depend on how your sever ran etc.

But at least when I played daoc, organisation > zergs. At least within reason.


The population disparaties do have to be kept in check by some mechanism of course. And there were servers where DAoC was broken because of this.

But if you don't make the large 60ish v 60ish battles the focus, I struggle to see why you would make a game RvR at all, it might as well be guild v guild, and have All-race-all-class guilds all the time.

If you can't make a game which works in the context of somewhat lopsided sides, and you can't make a game that focuses on wars as opposed to skirmishes, or even if you just don't want to, that's all fine. Plenty of successful games work that way. I just don't see the point in paying the costs of segregating your population, and offending the IP by giving Orcs an alliance with Chaos, and then end up focusing on sandbox battles between small groups anyway.

Arguably ARAC guilds fighting each other would be more in keeping with the WFRPG lore than a two sided war with the sides specified in WAR anyhow.

If you look at WoW, what, really, is the point of the Horde / Alliance split?

Doesn't it just create aggravation and increase the whining about balance?


People don't whine nearly so much about balance in games where they aren't on a delineated side which individuals are locked into by ties to a community.

In EVE people don't complain that space-French or space-Chinese ships are more powerful, they fiddle about trying find a way to prove the consensus wrong.

In Magic people don't complain that Green sucks, they just play Blue for a few months while the devs bring it back in check.

In CS how many people threaten to quit because the terrorist side got nerfed?


So sure, there are lots of really good reasons not to build for RvR, and to go GvG instead.

But if you aren't aiming to focus on something different, ie. proper epic feeling battles that are also fun and interesting to play, I don't know why anyone would pay the cost of entry that RvR development carries with it.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 02:46:18 PM by eldaec »

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #149 on: January 01, 2007, 02:45:35 PM

Anyway, stop the tired act already, and go back into the woodwork you crawled out from. If you were "wronged" in the past, over a game, it was your own fault for buying so wholly into the hype or whatever. Also, stop trying to make up words - there's a Spell Check here for a reason.
I think I've witnessed the kind of implicit blackmail that Mark Jacobs loves to perpetuate: ban HRose or I won't be back.

With that reply he confirmed exactly what I wrote. History repeats. Or he has a tight grip on what it's being said, or he'll bring his candies somewhere else. And of course it's easy to choose between HRose and Mark Jacobs candies. Because we love red names and everything can be sacrificed for them. Maybe he sent a PM to Shild promising beta slots to F13 members if he banned me? I wouldn't be surprised.

Can't you see this is exactly what happened back then with SND? With that comment he blatantly demonstrated how what I wrote was correct. Read that quote I posted, read his last post. They are identic. It just didn't take a full year to go from the first message to the last.

Or the same attitude when he proposes a "private forum" where he can receive proper attention and celebration. He loves to control and pilot things and that's why he asked a private forum. Why no one is wondering about why he asked for this private forum? Shild's reply was great, and all that it was worth saying at that point.

He says that year, after year after year I stalk him wherever he goes. Wow. I must be a great stalker because I believe this is the very first time I reply directly to a post he wrote on a forum. I don't even have a clue where he "goes" because all I'm aware of is those handful of posts he wrote here and some other on Warhammeralliance. And in that case I'm not even registered there nor planning doing so. As far as I know I have 825 posts on this forum while he has 5. 

It doesn't seem I'm chasing him around everywhere. Is Mark Jacobs frequenting other places? I don't have a clue nor care. It's actually the very first time I remember that I'm confronted directly with him.

But anyway, I'm as annoyed as everyone else by all this. So if this thread is ruined, open another and I promise I won't post there.

P.S.
The spell checker doesn't detect any mistake, if not that it wants to replace Shild with shield, child or shill.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
Modern Angel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3553


Reply #150 on: January 01, 2007, 02:50:26 PM

Nope. I don't have any interest to go further or to fuel the derail. I never liked feeding drama. I presented a point of view, now you can continue.

Die
MarkJacobs
Developers
Posts: 109

Mythic Entertainment


Reply #151 on: January 01, 2007, 03:07:08 PM

Folks,

 
  As to the differentiation between PvE and PvP and how it is idiotic, I agree somewhat.  In a perfect world/game they would indeed be the same things.  However, I see no way of doing that and at the same time, ensure that new players would have an enjoyable newbie experience.  Subscription-based MMORPGs have to be fun for the newbies or they won't becoming subscribers and if they don't become subscribers, well, then bye-bye game.  And since newbies can be total newbies to even an MMIORPG, requiring them to do PvP will be, for many of them, a reason not to subscribe.  However, if the quest calls for 10 "Enemy Ears" and you can get the enemy ears from the PvE Greenskins or the PC Greenskins, that's how a simple, perfect PvP/PvE quest should be created.

   As to a Cyberpunk game, I totally agree.  For all the stuff swirling around Imperator (good and bad), at least we were trying to get out of the Fantasy realm and move to Sci-Fi. I'm totally there the first time someone does a great SF game.

    As to the quote from me regarding time-sink quests, drop-rate .001 quests, etc., no, that hasn't changed at all.  That's still part of my design for the game and that also won't change as part of the EA deal.

    As to quests making sense in the evolving world, tough to do.  As to quests making sense to the current world, that is part of the design as well.  We'll never be able to create enough quests that are 100% perfectly aligned, sensible, etc. but we are trying.

   Voice chat in these games is a huge issue.  Those who have it have a distinct advantage over those that don't.  It is something that we have been discussing with EA since Day One.  They love VC and would love to see something brilliant in WAR dealing with it.  So would I.

   As far as casual PvP goes, I think having that ability to come on and participate in PvP easily, quickly and profitably is another goal of ours.  Long queues, waits, etc., are not what we have to do if we want to take RvR/PvP to the next level.

   As to the difficulty of going against WoW/EQ2/MEO/etc. with another game that features Elves, Dwarfs, Humans, etc., it is not the easiest path.  However, we heard the same things back in 1999 (remember all the dire predictions) and we ended up doing quite well.  We will need both skill and luck (luck is always involved) to succeed but I said the same thing then that I'm saying now, we're going to take our best shot at it and if we fail, you'll know who the blame.

   As to terrain-based advantages, it was actually in one of my designs for DAoC.  Lots of issues with it sadly.  Who knows though, maybe someday.

   As to EA beta people versus outside beta people.  EA's guys are in first since many of them are both experienced MMO gamers and, of course, bound by their own employment agreements not to spill the beans about any EA game, not just WAR.  As you guys know, we had a long beta test for DAoC with outside testers and will do the same with WAR.  However, a year into dev. and a year out out from launch is a little early to bring in outside testers given the current state of the game.  While we are right on schedule, the last thing I want is to bring people here who would be expecting too much (What do you mean it's not perfect yet!) and then would be disappointed.  Heck, even with a couple of the EA folks we had to remind them of the 1/1 (one year one, one year out) status after one of their posts. :)

   As to the console version, nothing much has changed.  We had a version of WAR working on the 360 at E3, we have a version of WAR working on the 360 now.  Until I am 100% convinced that doing a version of WAR for the consoles makes sense from every perspective (game design, support/maintenance and financial) nothing will be official.  We will continue to look at the project from all those perspectives (and more) and make a decision.

   As to WAR PvP just being nothing more than WoW's PvP but with a new skin and if we did that, that would mean failure, I agree.  We don't want to clone WoW's PvP, we want to take what we have learned from DAoC and do an even better PvP/RvR system.  Copying WoW's PvP is the last thing I would want to do.

   As to WAR appealing to MMORPG newbs, total agreement.  Keep in mind that we want to bring a lot of new MMORPG gamers into the fold with this game.  We hope that by tapping into the Warhammer community we will have a similar result (not in scope) to what WoW did.  WoW brought in a ton of new MMORPGs who were Blizzard fans.  We hope to do the same thing with WAR and Warhammer gamers.

    As to a strong guild system, total agreement.

    As to making RvR/PvP a grind.  Agreed, we don't want to do that either.

    In terms of our PvE versus WoW's PvE, I think we are getting much better at PvE than we were with DAoC.  Keep in mind that with DAoC we only had 18 months and a very small team (18 total) and we had a ton of quests to do.  I give those guys a ton of credit for even creating the sheer number of quests they had to create and many of them were really quite excellent.  Now, we also made a lot of mistakes and some bad quests.  We've learned a lot over the years and hopefully you'll like our PvE quests as well. 

    As to less damage, not more, total agreement.  OTOH, you don't want to take 3 mins to kill a rat/spider/vulture/etc.  Tough balancing act and one that will get a lot of attention in beta.

    As to archers, they are another tough class to do right.  We have to do a better job than we did with DAoC.

    As to "taking the player out of the action" I agree.  That's one of the things I would have taken out entirely from DAoC if I had to do it over again.

    As to incentives to play as the underdog, already part of the plan.

    As to the trouble of getting beta testers to actually test, you're preaching to the choir.  We will be a heck of a lot stricter in a few months than we are now and those who are looking for a free ride will not get it.

    As to scaring me off, nah, had family commitments the last two days.  Though nothing says suck like coming back from a couple of days off to the usual stuff from HRose.

    As to the Warhammer Alliance site, we've had some interesting discussions over there.  They've been very supportive of the game from day 1 but, if you read through the threads, not always 100% in agreement with us or our design decisions and that is fine by me.  They've been tough on true trolls (pro and con) and we/they have tried to stay away from the stuff that I hate (WAR ROCKZ, WoW SUXOORS) and that kind of nonsense. 

     As to eliminating mindless zergs as a way to improve RvR, agreed. 

     As to taking what developers say with a grain of salt, I have always said never to trust *any* developer or game till you see the results.  As those who have been here for a while know, I said the same things during DAoC's development.  Listen, contribute, play and then decide for yourself whether the game/developer is any good 30 days or so after launch.  As any of the Warhammer Aliiance guys can tell you, I said the same thing over there day one.  I'll leave the cult of personality for other people (no offense intended to them just different ways of doing things) and let them have the adoration/love/etc. as all I want to do is make great games for EA Mythic just as I did for Mythic or A.U.S.I. (my previous company).  Again, trust the game first, the developer second. :)

   As to the negativity dragging me down, nah, there's nothing that someone like HRose could say that would drag me down but it's pointless to try to have a discussion (pro/con) in public when people like him come in and mess things up because they want to.  I simply ignore whatever he says and refuse to respond to him directly.  The trouble is that other people then get involved and things devolve.  If we are discussing how to make a great MMORPG, avoid making a bad MMORPG or even what went wrong on DAoC, having guys like him jump in and scream SND, Lum, LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!!!! is distracting and pointless.  It's not criticism I mind, I welcome any idea that could make my games better but over the years I've found that if I disagree with someone then all of a sudden I'm being unreasonable, close-minded and stupid but if I ever treated them with the scorn I or other developers at times get, does the bandwidth really get burned up.  And boy, let me tell you, there's nothing worse than the "genius-in-their-own-mind" variety of Internet person scorned.  As I've also always said, if we are so stupid and you/they so bright, they get a job in the industry and prove us wrong.  That's why/how I created my first MUD back in 1984 and let me tell you, the one of the things that the computer game industry needs more of are bright/original/creative thinkers.  And, the genre that needs them the most right now is the MMORPG genre.  FYI, I've never asked the guys at the Alliance site to delete/mod any post that is critical of WAR or our design and I don't intend to.  I've always believed that suggestions/criticism are equally valuable if based on objectivity and that even if subjective, can also be valuable.  It's when it is simply hate, delusion or simply someone trying to stir up trouble than it's useless and even counterproductive.

As to banning HRose or anyone else, hell no, that will simply feed his/their ego even more.  I find his stuff at times really amusing, especially the fact that he thinks the whole private thing was just to keep him out and the whole having balls things.  One of the things that has always bugged me about the Internet is the number of posters who, under the cover of alias/jolly pirate nickname, engage in personal attacks, threats, etc. and almost never stand up as who they really are in real life. Because, after all, there's nothing that says bravery like calling someone a dirty, rotten scoundrel while posting under the name of "JkOff1" and such. :)  FYI, I told the guys at Warhammer Alliance the same thing early on (we need to keep stuff focused, we'd get trolls of all shapes and sizes, no personal attacks) and now he will probably think it was solely to keep him out as well. 

Mark


EDIT: And my offer still stands.  If some of you guys want to have a private section here where we can chat and the powers that be agree, let me know.  It's way too early to offer any outside EA/partner beta slots (I'm sorry about it) and access to our private boards to have these discussions as we have not even opened the beta to trusted friends/family yet. As long as we can keep it focused, constructive (pro & con) and polite it might be fun.

Also, sorry about the long post, should have broken it up.





« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 03:53:28 PM by MarkJacobs »
Threash
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7660


Reply #152 on: January 01, 2007, 03:36:49 PM

Quote
As to WAR PvP just being WoW PvP with a new skin and that = failure.  Total agreement.

Hmm i dont think thats what you meant to say.

I am the .00000001428%
MarkJacobs
Developers
Posts: 109

Mythic Entertainment


Reply #153 on: January 01, 2007, 03:43:06 PM

Threash,

   Hmm, still looks clear to me but I've re-edited for clarity's sake.  I was responding to a post that said that if WAR PvP was just WoW PvP with a new skin that would mean that our PvP system would be a failure.  I was agreeing to that.  Our PvP has to be better than WoW's and we can't simply try to clone WoW's system, re-skin it and call it a success.

Mark
« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 03:46:45 PM by MarkJacobs »
Strazos
Greetings from the Slave Coast
Posts: 15288

Trading Cotton for Chalupas in 2014!


Reply #154 on: January 01, 2007, 03:48:46 PM

WoW PvP is boring and pointless. Sorry, but I would have to agree with the quoted statement.

And Fucking A Hrose, no one cares about SND. Half the people here probably don't know what your babbling about, and the other half simply don't care. If you have an axe to grind, great - go do it in your own corner of the intardnet. Some people here might want to actually discuss the...you know...game.

Also, if anyone around here who actually mattered agreed with you, we would not be having this discussion about a private discussion forum. Besides, all games that have NDAs get a private forum Anyway, so I have no idea what your actual point is. What is it? You got burned because DAoC wasn't all that your built it up to be in your mind?

Boo hoo hoo, cry some more newb. Somewhere else, preferably. I'm done with this shit, because I'd actually like to talk about the Actual Game.

PS: Shit like "delegitimate"...they're not real words. Use the Spell Check. or Dictionary Dot Fucking Com.

Fear the Backstab!
"Plato said the virtuous man is at all times ready for a grammar snake attack." - we are lesion
"Hell is other people." -Sartre
Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865

Internet Detective


Reply #155 on: January 01, 2007, 03:53:07 PM

Mythic came out of NOWHERE and it absolutely needed a way to be recognized and a way to evangelize the community. And these flowering communities of cynical, passionate players started to have a very important role, because it was here that you could get the unbiased commentary. DAoC was hyped as the best thing ever. DAoC's devs posted on the forums giving the illusion that they actually cared about the community, that everything was going to change, that they would have taught SOE a lesson. It's the exact same thing that happens in politics when they want you to vote for something else. Life will change! All empty promises.

LTM turned into a news site for mmorpg's, the front page was sometimes updated a few times a day, if you think DAoC was not going to be discussed when all there was to talk about was EQ, UO & AC you have a very selective memory.  It all started when some guy posted some beta screenshots from daoc, he was a player not a dev.  As for being hyped as the best game ever, I made a point of asking if DAoC was going to be a solo friendly game like AC and whoever the mythic dev was who was posting at the time on ltm actually replied to say "if that's what you want, find a different game you will not like DAoC".  Can't get much clearer than that, I bought it anyway and he was right, I don't like forced grouping games.

Most people make decisions for themselves, if WAR is crap you will likely read about it here or similar places before any of the mainstream news sites and a red name posting here should make zero difference to that.  Sure, I'll jump at the chance of joining a private WAR forum, but it's not because I want to suck up to any red names, it's so I can start pointing out all the things I don't like in the game if there's early beta access included.  If a company get some decent feedback out of set of people who have been playing these games for years but who can respect an NDA, then I see it as a win win for everyone.
Modern Angel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3553


Reply #156 on: January 01, 2007, 04:03:04 PM

What Parker said. I promise I can be constructive when there's not some screaming monkey flinging crap at my screen.

My main concern (to Mr. Jacobs) is that the beta dwarf v greenskin video on your site looked sssslooooowwwww. While WoW's pvp is pretty much pointless it feels good; it's fast with seamless animations. The sit in one spot and pound on each other model isn't what most people are going to be looking for but that's exactly what's in the video: a bunch of rejects from a Roger Corman fantasy flick autoattacking every three seconds.

So I want to hope that's because it's still way early in the process but out of all the stuff I've seen or read on the game so far that video's the thing that made all of my friends and I go "Ick!"
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #157 on: January 01, 2007, 04:13:31 PM

As to banning HRose or anyone else, hell no, that will simply feed his/their ego even more.
Nope, I like posting here and don't look forward to get banned, thank you. Those 850 posts I wrote weren't a preamble so that I could get banned. I like writing about game design and games in general and these last posts against you that you are trying to paint as the standard of what I write are actually 0.1% of my total posts. The rest being comments on games and ideas, included all I wrote in Warhammer's threads till today.

In fact I also wrote not just general, flame-free comments about Warhammer. But also ideas that I believe could (arguably) improve the game. Which I believe is what you asked earlier on this thread? THAT's what I'm interested about. So lets speak about that?

These are the three ideas in short:

1- How do you deal with overcrowding? Warhammer is going to use instancing for scenarios, but the way they are described they work like WoW's battlegrounds:
Quote
Jump into a Scenario and you'll be automatically grouped via our lobby system for a balanced fight. Scenarios are instanced battles against two groups of equal strength.
With the difference that in Warhammer you expect to cut the queues by using "fill-in" NPCs, that you call Dogs of War.

The idea I proposed was instead to forget about copying WoW, quoting: "Scenarios offer different game play, ranging from Deathmatch to Capture the Flag to Assault". And instead make these scenarios as an automated part of the structure. The idea is: instead of queuing for a scenario, a scenario is spawned automatically as there are enough players in a zone. So: a few players = no scenarios, you just wander around the Battlefield. Too many players = you start to spawn as many "scenarios" as needed to segment the population and avoid overcrowding. Scenarios would be just clones of the Battlefields but with more interactive content and a precise objective (so without purposeless roaming).

Basically the transition from Battlefields to Scenarios wouldn't be "on request" as it is now. But it would be an automatic transition as there are enough players crowding a zone, like triggering an event (that the players can then accept or refuse).

2- This is an idea dear to me and that I believe is important for the health of the PvP system. Warhammer is divided into four "tiers", and also four zones (with the last branching in the campaign, that is four maps on its own).

The idea was about the possibility to institute a recruit office in each zone. When "recruited" to that zone, your character is capped to the max level of that zone. At the same time higher level players could enter low level zones, get recruited and be "deleveled" to the cap of that zone. This would mean that instead of an obligatory, one-directional transition from one map/tier to the other, every PvP zone in the game would be playable, always.

This would mean that if you have a max level character but you have a friend who is starting to play that day, you can recruit your character to that zone, delevel and go adventure together. The level gaps (or tiers gaps) wouldn't be anymore a barrier between the players.

At the same time you allow deleveled characters to still gain progress to their current level (or whatever the PvP advancement is). So you can decide to still play in the tier 1, if you like particularly that zone, or maybe if there's a lack of players in other zones, and still gain progress that you would get back as you recruit to your proper tier zone.
Quote
This is not only a significant advancement in the overall design of the game (all accessible and based on the player's choice), but it will be also useful to keep the game well-populated and vibrant at ALL level ranges even years after launch. This because the players aren't forcefully pushed against the level cap wall, but can also go back and decide where they prefer to play. The players will ALWAYS have the possibility to go play in the PvP zone where there's some action, no matter at which level it is. The levels aren't anymore impassable barriers separating you from the fun or your friends. Instead they become "permeable". Just a way to measure the content, but not a way to segregate and isolate.
Finally I had proposed to add special rewards and incentives for those who continue to play in a zone-tier. Like unique and recognizeable weapons and armor pieces who don't have better stats, but just a special look as a reward and demonstration that the player has achieved a lot of experience on that map. Just a way to "personalize" your character even more, without fucking the PvP balance and gameplay.

Even by just looking at you and the special armor, people would recognize that you played there for a long time. It's gear to keep the achievers hooked and reward them, by adding what we could define "trophies". They are totally avoidable and optional as they are only cool-looking and don't grant special abilities or better stats.

3- The third idea was to find a way to balance objective-based PvP, with the direct kills/free roaming:

- In DAoC: the players form selective and specialized ganking groups and ignore shared PvP objectives because ganking is by far the best way to gain Realm Points, while defending or conquering keeps is never as rewarding.
- In WoW: the honor reward coming from the objectives is much better that direct kills (diminished returns) to the point that In Alterac the players AVOID EACH OTHER so that they can quickly get the PvE boss kill and get honor.

How to balance the two extremes? One of ideas is that the players only gain a small amount of "progress" (experience, realm points or whatever) directly from killing opponents, but at the same time every direct kill grants an amount of bounty points. These points are only useful when they are "cashed", so they need to be converted in the currency that the PvP system uses.

So there are two moments. The first moment you build up a pool of bounty points by killing other players, then you have to "cash" these points you hoarded and transform them into actual progress. And to "cash" you have to complete whatever is the objective in that map.

The number of points you can cash after each objective completed would be capped.

The purpose of this idea is also to avoid exploits. For example if there aren't players in the other faction it would become too easy to win the battleground repeatedly while noone is around. With the bounty system the objective itself wouldn't be worth anything alone, but it becomes important after you have fought enemies for a while and then need to redeem your bounty points. No enemies = no bounty points. So nothing to convert. The PvP goals are essentially just exchange systems.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 04:16:23 PM by HRose »

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865

Internet Detective


Reply #158 on: January 01, 2007, 04:16:20 PM

What Parker said. I promise I can be constructive when there's not some screaming monkey flinging crap at my screen.


Don't get me wrong I think HRose went way over the top, but given a choice between sycophants and crazy, I'll take crazy most days.
Averno
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1


Reply #159 on: January 01, 2007, 04:21:50 PM


As to quests making sense in the evolving world, tough to do.  As to quests making sense to the current world, that is part of the design as well.  We'll never be able to create enough quests that are 100% perfectly aligned, sensible, etc. but we are trying. I have seen atempts made by games such as the MMO 'Wish' that atempted ever-evolving Quests.. This was an utter failure. Static quests are fine as long as they have an air of quality

Voice chat in these games is a huge issue.  Those who have it have a distinct advantage over those that don't.  It is something that we have been discussing with EA since Day One.  They love VC and would love to see something brilliant in WAR dealing with it.  So would I. I hope that is not a suggestion of larger bandwidth requirements from game servers as they are generally laggy as it is. 3rd party VC such as Ventrillo seems perfectly fine

As far as casual PvP goes, I think having that ability to come on and participate in PvP easily, quickly and profitably is another goal of ours.  Long queues, waits, etc., are not what we have to do if we want to take RvR/PvP to the next level. DAOC wouldnt have been a que fest if it wasnt for its low populations.. I cant recall the number of times I had sat in Emain screaming LFG, while knowing there were only a handful of people around. I think this is all a gamers responsibility to come into a game with an RvR mindframe as much as it is a developers duty to get things sorted mechanics wise

As to terrain-based advantages, it was actually in one of my designs for DAoC.  Lots of issues with it sadly.  Who knows though, maybe someday. - If that is a reference to the unclimable banks in DAOC NF's early version I would agree.. But anywhere you have to constantly tilt a camera up/down is bad voodoo
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #160 on: January 01, 2007, 04:24:43 PM

Sure, I'll jump at the chance of joining a private WAR forum, but it's not because I want to suck up to any red names, it's so I can start pointing out all the things I don't like in the game if there's early beta access included.  If a company get some decent feedback out of set of people who have been playing these games for years but who can respect an NDA, then I see it as a win win for everyone.
Excuse me, but Mark Jacobs didn't ask Shild to open a private forum so that he could hand out beta invites and be sure the NDA is respected. In fact Shild replied to him: I'll open a private forum when I hear someone is in beta.

Why? Because only in that case it would make sense to have a private forum.

Isn't Mark Jacobs happy of the moderation on this site? There isn't any other reason to move the discussion to a private forum if not to moderate it in another way.

Honestly, beside Mark Jacobs, who around here feels the need to move the discussion to a private forum, and why? If it happens and Shild accepts to comply it's ONLY because a red name asked to change the rules as he sees fit.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #161 on: January 01, 2007, 04:25:42 PM


As to quests making sense in the evolving world, tough to do.  As to quests making sense to the current world, that is part of the design as well.  We'll never be able to create enough quests that are 100% perfectly aligned, sensible, etc. but we are trying. I have seen atempts made by games such as the MMO 'Wish' that atempted ever-evolving Quests.. This was an utter failure. Static quests are fine as long as they have an air of quality

Voice chat in these games is a huge issue.  Those who have it have a distinct advantage over those that don't.  It is something that we have been discussing with EA since Day One.  They love VC and would love to see something brilliant in WAR dealing with it.  So would I. I hope that is not a suggestion of larger bandwidth requirements from game servers as they are generally laggy as it is. 3rd party VC such as Ventrillo seems perfectly fine

As far as casual PvP goes, I think having that ability to come on and participate in PvP easily, quickly and profitably is another goal of ours.  Long queues, waits, etc., are not what we have to do if we want to take RvR/PvP to the next level. DAOC wouldnt have been a que fest if it wasnt for its low populations.. I cant recall the number of times I had sat in Emain screaming LFG, while knowing there were only a handful of people around. I think this is all a gamers responsibility to come into a game with an RvR mindframe as much as it is a developers duty to get things sorted mechanics wise

As to terrain-based advantages, it was actually in one of my designs for DAoC.  Lots of issues with it sadly.  Who knows though, maybe someday. - If that is a reference to the unclimable banks in DAOC NF's early version I would agree.. But anywhere you have to constantly tilt a camera up/down is bad voodoo

I'm not sure if that's better than a SirBrucing or not.

Actually....Orange is quite pleasant. Hmm..
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #162 on: January 01, 2007, 04:31:45 PM

As to terrain-based advantages, it was actually in one of my designs for DAoC.  Lots of issues with it sadly.  Who knows though, maybe someday. - If that is a reference to the unclimable banks in DAOC NF's early version I would agree.. But anywhere you have to constantly tilt a camera up/down is bad voodoo
But the unclimbable banks were NOT the problem. Mark's design about tactical terrain was NOT the problem.

Proof: WoW has plenty of unclimbable banks both in PvP and PvE and they aren't perceived as frustrating as in DAoC.

Why? Because it was the implementation that sucked in DAoC. You just couldn't anticipate the parts of the terrain climbable and those unclimbable as the difference was completely *arbitrary*. So you continued to bump against "invisible walls".

Why WoW works? Because the impassable barriers are automatically determined by terrain inclination. In DAoC you can ideally run up vertical surfaces. In WoW instead you walk only at certain inclinations and while playing you develop a precise perception of where you can walk and where you cannot.

So, really. THIS is one of those parts that they shouldn't be ashamed to copy from WoW.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 04:34:16 PM by HRose »

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
Strazos
Greetings from the Slave Coast
Posts: 15288

Trading Cotton for Chalupas in 2014!


Reply #163 on: January 01, 2007, 04:33:10 PM

Honestly, beside Mark Jacobs, who around here feels the need to move the discussion to a private forum, and why? If it happens and Shild accepts to comply it's ONLY because a red name asked to change the rules as he sees fit.

Were you not paying attention when this thread got linked on outside sites, and we started to see a bunch of leeches come in and beg for beta keys? Keys that no one actually has, and that are also not given out thoughtlessly?

Why WoW works? Because the impassable barriers are automatically determined by terrain inclination. In DAoC you can ideally run up vertical surfaces. In WoW instead you walk only at certain inclinations and while playing you develop a precise perception of where you can walk and where you cannot.

So, really. THIS is a part that you should shouldn't be ashamed to copy from WoW.

No, it's still fucking stupid in WoW. There were plenty of "inclined areas" that, while my character could not walk up the area, any reasonably healthy person could. I hate playing the game of "Find the spot on the hill that the game will let you run up."
« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 04:34:53 PM by Strazos »

Fear the Backstab!
"Plato said the virtuous man is at all times ready for a grammar snake attack." - we are lesion
"Hell is other people." -Sartre
WindupAtheist
Army of One
Posts: 7028

Badicalthon


Reply #164 on: January 01, 2007, 04:39:32 PM

Mark, you seem cool and all, but suck it up.  Don't ask for a special private "no flaming" forum.  Take your beatings like a man.

Lord knows Raph does.   :-D

"You're just a dick who quotes himself in his sig."  --  Schild
"Yeah, it's pretty awesome."  --  Me
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #165 on: January 01, 2007, 04:41:10 PM

Were you not paying attention when this thread got linked on outside sites, and we started to see a bunch of leeches come in and beg for beta keys? Keys that no one actually has, and that are also not given out thoughtlessly?
That's why we have moderators? It's not the first time that F13 is linked on mainstream sites. I never seen people proposing to run private forums because of that.

Quote
No, it's still fucking stupid in WoW. There were plenty of "inclined areas" that, while my character could not walk up the area, any reasonably healthy person could. I hate playing the game of "Find the spot on the hill that the game will let you run up."
In this case you aren't talking about "walking" mechanics. You are talking about the desire to see "climbing" implemented in games.

Normal people, even in real life, don't walk easily on surfaces with an high inclination. But, yeah, they can climb.

I know that I can say at a glance in WoW where I can go and where I cannot.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
garthilk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 49


WWW
Reply #166 on: January 01, 2007, 04:48:02 PM

In terms of PvP you basically have "open" PvP constrained to PvP areas, you also have "instanced" PvP and "Battlegrounds". With battlegrounds being points of interest thay may benefit your particular alliance. With Victory points being the reward, how do you balance the rewards of 3 different types of PvP so that none are less worthwhile?

I wonder can victory points be variable based on certain conditions of a battle? I can already see the "you nerfed victory points in X" posts now.

Building and Destorying the Truth in Equal Measure
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #167 on: January 01, 2007, 04:59:14 PM

In terms of PvP you basically have "open" PvP constrained to PvP areas, you also have "instanced" PvP and "Battlegrounds". With battlegrounds being points of interest thay may benefit your particular alliance. With Victory points being the reward, how do you balance the rewards of 3 different types of PvP so that none are less worthwhile?

I wonder can victory points be variable based on certain conditions of a battle? I can already see the "you nerfed victory points in X" posts now.
In the idea I proposed above there is no real issue. By the way, in Mythic's speech the BG are static, while the scenarios are instanced and spawned from BGs. So the terms can be confusing for those coming from WoW as things are reverted.

I believe at the "endgame" the victory on the scenarios defines the progression through the maps till the capital end battle (Dark Messiah map change way).

In the idea I proposed the three types of PvP are unified into a choesive structure:
1- Skirmishes - You gain bounty points through direct kills
2- BGs/scenarios - You redeem the bounty points by completing an objective

In theory the scenarios should be "more fun", with more directed play. In short: the favorite place to be in PvP. They spawn automatically as there are enough players in that zone, so their purposes don't overlap with the static zone/battleground. You play the Battleground/static zone if there are fewer players. You move to the scenario/instance when there are enough players around and you are interested to progress in the campaign.

So in my idea battlegrounds and scenario don't compete against each other to get more players involved.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
schild
Administrator
Posts: 55315


WWW
Reply #168 on: January 01, 2007, 05:02:42 PM

Hey, Hrose. It hasn't been said in a while?

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?
HRose
I'm Special
Posts: 1205

VIKLAS!


WWW
Reply #169 on: January 01, 2007, 05:12:53 PM

Hey, Hrose. It hasn't been said in a while?

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?
I don't understand your attempt at humor, sir.

-HRose / Abalieno
cesspit.net
schild
Administrator
Posts: 55315


WWW
Reply #170 on: January 01, 2007, 05:21:16 PM

It wasn't humor. You've established your problem with Mark runs deeper than game design. You need to stop. Now.
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 26498


Reply #171 on: January 01, 2007, 05:26:26 PM

Christ, you guys managed this in 24 hours ?   Happy Fucking New Year, same old shit as the Old Year.

Hrose, meds.  Then Bed.

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Endie
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6231


WWW
Reply #172 on: January 01, 2007, 05:32:54 PM

Mark, you seem cool and all, but suck it up.  Don't ask for a special private "no flaming" forum.  Take your beatings like a man.

Lord knows Raph does.   :-D

While Raph's patience with the endless stat-loss/HAM discussions is positively saintly, I think Mark was offering a deal, not suggesting an F13 policy: "you keep out the mad spurned-love types, and we'll indulge in a genuine discussion with anyone who wants to suggest the occasional game design element."  It's up to Schild ultimately, I suppose, but so long as you accept that both parties are looking to get something out of it, and so long as both sides of the resulting discussion see what they get as of value, then it strikes me as a fair enough offer.

I was really enjoying reading the discussion, but the fact that it all went ugly when HRose started on his usual DAoC angle kinda made the point, really.  Why do we get the only Italian who won't change sides in a conflict?

Edit: got rid of an extraneous "is"
« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 05:50:17 PM by Endie »

My blog: http://endie.net

Twitter - Endieposts

"What else would one expect of Scottish sociopaths sipping their single malt Glenlivit [sic]?" Jack Thompson
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 26498


Reply #173 on: January 01, 2007, 05:36:31 PM

 shocked

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
MarkJacobs
Developers
Posts: 109

Mythic Entertainment


Reply #174 on: January 01, 2007, 05:50:02 PM

WindupAtheist,

   Thanks for the compliment but my reasons are as follows:

1) Legal - A private forum with its own agreement that any idea suggested there becomes part of public domain.  I will not put EA in a position of an IP lawsuit from some disgruntled participant. 

2) Signal-to-noise ratio.  This is not aimed at HRose or anyone in particular but if it's private, it will be easier to keep the discussion focused, fun and NOT, repeat NOT about WAR.  I'm not looking to talk just about WAR, I don't want to have a private WAR area.  This was intended to be a place for a bunch of F13 guys/gals to chat about MMO ideas, suggestions, criticisms a bit more directly with either the horse's head or the other end of the body, your choice. :)  I don't want it to become a huge group with people coming over just to participate, I'd prefer to have the guys who have been posting here for a while not every Tom, Dick and Jerky from the Net.

3) I don't have a ton of time these days but if (2) is true, I can make the time to chat here for a while.  If it's public, long, loud then two things will happen: a) I won't have the time to keep up and people will be pissed; b) When I leave, people will be more pissed and then we'll have SND II.  On the Warhammer Alliance boards I told the guys that as they grew more popular it would be impossible for me to keep up and the time would come that I would pull back from my postings.  Between EA and Mythic and WAR and family, my free bandwidth is at an all-time low so I need to use it wisely.

And as far as sucking it up, well, I said a long time ago that if DAoC failed I'd be happy to admit my and my company's failures.  I have spoken publicly and more often than any other MMO CEO when we have messed up (and not because we've made more mistakes) it's just I don't like personal attacks and never have.  That was one of the rules when I got involved in Scott's old site and every other site I've participated in.  The very, very few times I've done that I wished I hadn't and I won't do that again.  To me, there is a world of difference between an analytical approach to building up or tearing down an idea/system and it doesn't involve flaming, vulgarity, threats, name-calling, etc. As Mythic's and my history has shown (Blacksnow, Mythica) I/we don't run from a fight but since the choice of where to chat is mine, I rather have a fight/discussion on my terms (polite, professional, focused).


Endie,

   Spot on.  I have no intention/idea/thought/twinkle in the eye to change F13 policy.  I love this place.  I may want to strangle some of the posters at times but it is no doubt the same way they feel about me/Mythic and lord knows, EA. :)  It's all good till it gets personal, nasty and downright ugly.

Mark



Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Topic: War December Newsletter + Looks like it's coming to a console  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC