Warhammer Newsletter - March

[Hoax]

So much revisionist history in this thread...

@caladein:  Population issues in WoW were nowhere near that bad on every PvP original pvp server and the servers they were split off into from what I've heard/seen.

@eldaec:  Because making pvp content success = keying for a pve raid is the only way pvp could influence pve content?   

[Nija]

Population problems weren't bad on WOW PVP servers? Archimonde was down 4 out of the first 7 days of release! More than half of the people who "signed up" (forums) to play on Archi ended up leaving because they started "alts" on other servers who quickly outleveled their "mains", and they never went back!

[eldaec]

Which leads to a question for WoW players, what do you think would happen to your server if victories in the BGs impacted your realm in ways such as granting access to the raiding dungeons, or gave your realm % damage and % xp bonuses (these first two are the actual rewards that daoc rvr gave to realms), or just directly gave better-than-raid gear as rewards?

@eldaec:  Because making pvp content success = keying for a pve raid is the only way pvp could influence pve content?   

 
Well, apart from, for instance, the other three examples of ways to to do it that I listed in the same sentence of the post that my exchange with Caladien refers to - plus whatever way you want to add of your own. Nobody is trying to be exclusive here. Anyway, the point is about the scale of impact, and all indications are that Mythic wants to retain the same scale of impact as in DAoC, which is why I listed examples from, you know, DAoC.

[Venkman]

I strongly disagree that immersion is inversely proportional to appeal. And SWG is one of the least immersive games I've played.

Maybe you have this distorted idea of "immersion" like real-world boring tasks. There's really no link between the two.

No, actually, I’m looking at the numbers. Eve, SL, ATiTD, pre-CU SWG, SB, Underlight, when we measured “big” by the low hundreds of thousands, whatever, whenever. Go down the list. I know some people immediately point to “executional issues” as a main reasons for nichification. And they are right in doing so. But I also believe the average gamer is not as interested as some of the veterans here in a completely immersive experience that requires they set aside their life in large chunks.

So why aren’t we seeing more immersive games? I think it’s precedence.

It almost doesn’t matter to businesses why certain games didn’t cut it with the masses. The more than don’t, the harder it is to justify the next attempt. So even if I’m wrong and there’s millions of people who would play, say, SB if the code didn’t suck, nobody seems really interested in delivering it. It’s a catch-22. Nobody’s interested in building it because they don’t think anyone will come when there’s no way of knowing who’ll come without building it.

Do you not realise that BGs would quickly become unplayable to all but the uber under these circumstances

I don’t know man. There was SO much BG activity in WoW once they linked servers into larger Battlegroups that the chances of being wiped twice in a row by the same set group of ubers was fairly rare, at least for me. For months before BC, there was no less than 20-35 copies of each BG going on.

If there was less population or less activity (as there probably was, say, mid-2006) then I think we’d see what you’re talking about.

And again, I agree with the ideas you and Hrose have had throughout this thread. I’m actually not even interested in debating them on paper. I’m more interested in understanding why nobody’s thinking along those lines, and whether the players really wanted them anyway.

[Hoax]

I'm starting to hate this fucking thread almost as much I as I hate the UO thread..

@Eldaec, I'm sorry I dunno when you posted that I was going off this post.  You must have posted that other one somewhere in the middle of HRose's useless Braveheart idea, I was skimming that part, sorry.

do you realise how much wailing and gnashing of teeth would ensue when an Onyxia (or whatever) raid had to be canacelled because some dumbass scrub had entered the BG and given away too many points to the other gang? And if you disagree, if you don't think this will happen, what do you think makes WoW special and unlike other MMOGs in this regard?"

The way I read Caladien's posts was PvP should influence a player's power in PvE as much as PvE influences a player's power in PvP.  Clearly though I missed part of the discussion my bad.

@Nija:  We were talking about population balance, not too many people too many of one side or the other.  Your bad there.



@Darniaq:  I dont think those numbers prove shit tbh.  I would say 90% of the wet behind the ears, never touched a MMO (most may not even be RPG fan's) do not want to play anything immersive.  They dont want a virtual world, because that sounds lame.  But you can't go three threads on the WoW boards right now without finding some mention of WAR or AoC it seems like.  But to be fair I really only read the Battlegroup and PvP forums regularly.  I know I've seen a ton of sig's mentioning WAR though...

As MMO gamers gain experience I think its natural for them to start to wonder why they have month(s) /played on their character but the world still seems exactly like it was when they first signed up.  Because there is no immersion.  Hell in WoW once you hit 70 the world might as well not exist if it wasn't for mat farming.  If they had a lobby like b.net and you just tell the game what instance you want you wouldn't loose any content.  That is starting to get on the "WoW is my first game" crowd's nerves.  Or at least some of them.

That is my theory.  No proof but w/e this is the internet I dont need no stinkin proof.

[HRose]

a completely immersive experience that requires they set aside their life in large chunks.

I just don't see immersion related in any way to time requirements. Meaning that you can make a casual game that is also immersive.

So, "requirement of large chunks of time" goes against a large commercial success. I agree. But that's not my idea when I talk about the immersion.

Nor time requirements are related to the RvR. If they are then the model is broken. But it isn't broken because it's RvR, it's broken because badly designed, and you can design badly anything. RvR, PvE or whatever.

There's only one reason why RvR is more risky: because no one went down that path, so we've seen a small number of reiterations. As opposed to PvE that went through much more work and testing.

[HRose]

A couple of examples about my idea of "immersion", to avoid misunderstandings.

The diplomacy system in Vanguard. I consider it immersion-breaking. In general every puzzle-based game tends to be anti-immersive. Every game where you "abstact" what goes on to another level. Playing cards simulating a diplomacy is anti-immersive because it works on abstractions. It's not what you expect from that kind of world. The natural game flow pauses for the diplomacy game to happen, and then resumes.

Immersive is also the environment. If I start to walk in a direction and then hit an invisible wall because I reached the zone border, that's anti-immersive. The same if I see a floating tree or rock.

These are simple examples that have nothing to share with "time requirements" or either casual or hardcore gameplay.

Of course you can also make a game tedious or frustrating in the name of realism or immersiveness. But that's not obligatory, nor unavoidable if you still want to make an immersive game.

[caladein]

The way I read Caladien's posts was PvP should influence a player's power in PvE as much as PvE influences a player's power in PvP.  Clearly though I missed part of the discussion my bad.

On the micro level, that's exactly what I said. On the macro (battlegroup) level, I can't help but see the folly of trying to coordinate a subset ~50k people (concurrent) into one action or another. Enough of them are going to not give a shit that the outcome wouldn't be affected by whatever benefits the uber-guilds. It becomes a classical example of an economic coordination failure. The same is true of a single WAR server with ~2-3k concurrent players, it's simply too many people who wouldn't care/know about the downsides to change it from whatever equilibrium the mechanics and population would naturally come to.

It takes actual direct punishment to get players to do things in double-digit groups, the "gnashing of teeth" is so irrelevant given the size of the communities you'd be dealing with that there is no real reinforcement to not play even if you suck.

[eldaec]

I strongly disagree that immersion is inversely proportional to appeal. And SWG is one of the least immersive games I've played.

Maybe you have this distorted idea of "immersion" like real-world boring tasks. There's really no link between the two.

No, actually, I’m looking at the numbers. Eve, SL, ATiTD, pre-CU SWG, SB, Underlight, when we measured “big” by the low hundreds of thousands, whatever, whenever. Go down the list. I know some people immediately point to “executional issues” as a main reasons for nichification. And they are right in doing so. But I also believe the average gamer is not as interested as some of the veterans here in a completely immersive experience that requires they set aside their life in large chunks.

So why aren’t we seeing more immersive games? I think it’s precedence.

.....

Do you not realise that BGs would quickly become unplayable to all but the uber under these circumstances

I don’t know man. There was SO much BG activity in WoW once they linked servers into larger Battlegroups that the chances of being wiped twice in a row by the same set group of ubers was fairly rare, at least for me. For months before BC, there was no less than 20-35 copies of each BG going on.

If there was less population or less activity (as there probably was, say, mid-2006) then I think we’d see what you’re talking about.

And again, I agree with the ideas you and Hrose have had throughout this thread. I’m actually not even interested in debating them on paper. I’m more interested in understanding why nobody’s thinking along those lines, and whether the players really wanted them anyway.

On the first thing, what do you see as immersiveness?

I think the point hrose is making is that sometimes people confuse realism and to an extent sandboxyness with immersiveness.

I see immersiveness being about a design that seems coherent within its own universe, and about avoiding arbitary rules that don't seem natural in the presentation of the game, also about providing a varied and sustainable experience as well as a way to see your character as impacting the game world (impacting it through social links, or by adding unique/rare dongles to your character is often enough!), this all usually means including ways to encourage community building. SWG has never been immersive, imo, because it was full of counter-intuitive design theory and rules-lawyering, plus the design discouraged community and grouping in the combat system. HAM was not immersive, rifle damage not stacking with pistol damage was not immersive.

WoW on the other hand is reasonably immersive, rules are inutitive, people have reasons to form groups and guilds, people have a reasonable variety of things to do with those groups; impact on the game world is very limited, but the game still gives space for guild based social structures to provide that. However, Mythic have ruled out this approach because from the outset they say they want a pvp game.

GW is not immersive from a casual point of view. The pve plays out like a roadblock, and the pvp feels very arbitary at the low levels. Highly organised guild play can be immersive, because the high level game is much deeper and richer, and because a great guild can impact the meta game and the guild ladder; plus the high end competitive game has a much more coherent structure to it. Immersiveness-for-ubers-only in GW is a great example of why sport pvp is flawed at a casual player level. I suspect this is why GW has a rabid following amougst the regular players, but attracts a great deal of indifference on the part of people who try it fresh.

Clearly things like EVE can be very immersive, becaused EVE gets immersion almost for free with it's sandbox nature and high impact pvp. The problem is that for most people the sandbox and the high impact pvp outweighs the immersion.

The point is immersion itself is attractive to players, the trick is to deliver it without making the game unplayable on a casual timescale in the process. (and ofc to avoid the executional issues you already mentioned)

Well designed RvR allows you to bring in immersion at the same time as safety mechanisms in a ways that sport pvp or open guild v guild don't really give you design room for. RvR has the advantage of fewer arbitary rules being imposed than sport pvp and more opportunities for casuals to impact the game world. Wheras compared to guild v guild FFA, RvR has the simple advantage that casuals can play at all.


On the second thing, I think you hit on something really important around clustering of servers. That was something that helped give daoc a last hurrah when they did the same with the frontiers. In fact, it's the only truly successful population imbalance countermeasure I've seen.

[eldaec]

There's only one reason why RvR is more risky: because no one went down that path, so we've seen a small number of reiterations. As opposed to PvE that went through much more work and testing.

I agree of course. But in this case we're not even talking about rvr against pve, it's rvr or small group pvp.

And small group pvp *has* been tried in persistent mmog type games. But failed to attract large audiences.

[Hellinar]

There are couple of different meanings that seem to come up when people talk about immersion. One is what I would refer to as “engagement”. That is, the game keeps me, as a player, paying attention and interested. When you are engaged in a game though, you can still be very aware you are sitting in a chair playing a game.

I’d reserve “immersion” more for the sense of being in a world, doing stuff.  A lot of the points eldeac talks about contribute to that. I think there is a pretty easy test for if a game world is “immersive”. Check general chat. If people are mostly talking about what it happening in the game world, the game is “immersive”. If they are talking about  most everything else, it isn’t.

The only games I have seen pass that test in live tend to be niche ones, like ATiTD and WURM. I’ve also seen it in the big games in Beta, when the world is new and unexplored. My conclusion is the mass market doesn’t want immersion. They want to sit with one foot in the world, and half an eye watching TV.

[ajax34i]

That may be because PVE (interaction with the game's world) is generally immersive in most games, but interaction between players isn't designed to be, from the artificial way that we must communicate (via chat channels) to the huge advantages that out-of-game websites and voice-comms give.

Take WoW, make it a single player game, would it be immersive?  I think yes, very.  Go back to MMO, and it is no longer.

[Venkman]

The point is immersion itself is attractive to players, the trick is to deliver it without making the game unplayable on a casual timescale in the process. (and ofc to avoid the executional issues you already mentioned)

If we remove PvP was the equation I still think there's a lot of attraction to immersion, and do think every game has this to a degree. What can make players MORE invested in a game though are the typical things that give developers aneurisms, like dynamic world content, player-buildable structures, relevant craftable goods, full-on PvP, structured PvP battles with short and long term relevance, all the stuff that requires more money and time and therefore the need to convince VC/Publisher that doing more than "WoW, with aliens!!".

But you can't go three threads on the WoW boards right now without finding some mention of WAR or AoC it seems like

A bunch of people looking longingly at their second MMO ever does not a measure of immersion make. I avoid the oboards like root canal these days, but they seem populated by just about the same folks at UO.com and EQ.stratics circa 2000 in the dawn of AO and then DAoC. ANYTHING is better than WoW to these semi-bored players who are e-peening their knowledge of the "next best MMO evar!". It could be any game really, and for any reason. I would fully expect people to talk about "more immersive" games on WoW forums because I entirely agree there just isn't much immersive about WoW beyond core achievements for one's character. The world is largely unaffected by the player.

But most of the record-busting MMOs don't have it either and haven't since (and including) EQ1. That's part of the reason I think as I do about what players truly want. There's a difference between stating how you'll vote and what you end up actually doing. And in the case of deeper immersion with a game, I have long wondered just how many people want to be that invested in a game when it means setting aside their real life to do it.

The median age for MMO players is 29 these days, and in fact I just read that's considered the median age for all PC gamers (which I guess makes sense but I don't accept that at face value). 29 is not just outta school with disposable time and money. That's getting closer to career>marriage>house>kids.

Granted, WAR and AoC seem to be trying to target that 18-24 male gamer. But then the argument could be made that WoW was too.

I don't have any way to substantiate this. It's just something of a gut feel I have, and mostly when we talk about PvP and immersion in the same topic. I think there is no greater way to be immersed in a world than when a player is full PvP all the time. However, the cockblockery of level-based/class-based systems largely makes me agree with some who think the best way for full PvP to work is to either flatten all level-based calculations in a fight, or ditch that noise and go skill-based.

[eldaec]

A bunch of people looking longingly at their second MMO ever does not a measure of immersion make. I avoid the oboards like root canal these days, but they seem populated by just about the same folks at UO.com and EQ.stratics circa 2000 in the dawn of AO and then DAoC. ANYTHING is better than WoW to these semi-bored players who are e-peening their knowledge of the "next best MMO evar!". It could be any game really, and for any reason. I would fully expect people to talk about "more immersive" games on WoW forums because I entirely agree there just isn't much immersive about WoW beyond core achievements for one's character. The world is largely unaffected by the player.

Point of order, people in Norrath gazing longingly at world-impacting-RvR in DAoC is part of what made DAoC successful on a scale comparable to EQ.

If WAR has the same relationship with WoW as daoc has with EQ, I'm sure there will be money hats all round at Mythic.

The median age for MMO players is 29 these days, and in fact I just read that's considered the median age for all PC gamers (which I guess makes sense but I don't accept that at face value). 29 is not just outta school with disposable time and money. That's getting closer to career>marriage>house>kids.

Granted, WAR and AoC seem to be trying to target that 18-24 male gamer. But then the argument could be made that WoW was too.

I don't have any way to substantiate this. It's just something of a gut feel I have, and mostly when we talk about PvP and immersion in the same topic. I think there is no greater way to be immersed in a world than when a player is full PvP all the time. However, the cockblockery of level-based/class-based systems largely makes me agree with some who think the best way for full PvP to work is to either flatten all level-based calculations in a fight, or ditch that noise and go skill-based.

I don't disagree with this, I just remain unconvinced that this is an argument for sport pvp.

And I think it does demonstrate that the immersion discussion was really about different definitions of immersion.

I certainly agree that a successful-on-a-scale-with-WoW mmog cannot demand excessive commitment from its whole player base.

Now. The trick is working out how systems can exist to make low-commitment gamers involved to some degree in the meaningful 'war' endgame?

[HRose]

If WAR has the same relationship with WoW as daoc has with EQ, I'm sure there will be money hats all round at Mythic.

Warhammer seems more alike to WoW than how DAoC ever was to EQ. The most interesting aspect is that DAoC was successful for those parts that weren't EQ, without those it would have failed badly.

With the time Mythic got worse in game design and ambition but much better in art, they even seem inversely proportional. We'll see what will pay off.

[shiznitz]

With the time Mythic got worse in game design

That doesn't make sense. Maybe you didn't like the design choices the team made but that is different than competence in implemenation. I could be wrong, though. Never played a second of DAoC.

[Numtini]

No really, they got worse with time. They reached a high point with the Darkness Falls dungeon and really didn't do anything past then other than copy other games. EQ did a flag restricted high end grind, DAOC did a flag restricted high end grind. EQ did instanced missions, DAOC did instanced missions. I think they have epic armor sets now nipped from WOW?

In a sense it shows the danger of copying the popular kids. Planes of Power was very popular for EQ. Everyone copied it. TOA was not only not popular, it was devastating to the population. AO: Shadowlands ran aground on the same rocks as TOA. The problem was if you wanted to play EQ: POP, you were playing EQ. If you weren't playing EQ, the big popular game that was, well, easy to play cause so many of your friends were playing it and it was such a focus of gaming culture, it's probably because you didn't like that playstyle. By copying it, they irritated their own players and attracted none of EQs.

[eldaec]

I think they have epic armor sets now nipped from WOW?

In a sense it shows the danger of copying the popular kids. Planes of Power was very popular for EQ. Everyone copied it. TOA was not only not popular, it was devastating to the population. AO: Shadowlands ran aground on the same rocks as TOA. The problem was if you wanted to play EQ: POP, you were playing EQ. If you weren't playing EQ, the big popular game that was, well, easy to play cause so many of your friends were playing it and it was such a focus of gaming culture, it's probably because you didn't like that playstyle. By copying it, they irritated their own players and attracted none of EQs.

DAoC had epic armour sets several years before WoW was even concieved. As far as I can tell there is literally nothing other than production values that WoW did first, though I stand ready to be corrected.

I think ToA shows the danger of copying the cool kids when it isn't appropriate to your game. PoP was intended to extend the pve game, which was the right thing for EQ, but obviously innappropriate for daoc. Copying LDoN was probably a good idea, copying sidekicking (albeit in a very limited way) was a decent idea. Being a fast follower is a positive trait, you just have to look before you leap, and always ensure that whatever you do supports your own unique thing (in this case RvR).

[Nebu]

If you want to credit Mythic with something, the two areas I'd point to are:

1) Reduction of the PvE grind to trivial levels.  People Play DAoC almost exclusively for the PvP endgame (the exception being the low population Gaheris server).  You can now a) level to the endgame in record times (as low as 7 hours in a competent group and significantly faster on the open PvP server) and b) obtain decent gear through crafting, questing, and bounty point purchase (bounty points are obtained from PvP).  They have also made the ToA hurdles trivial by allowing players to purchase artifact and ML credit with bounty points as well.  The amount of time investment required to participate in the endgame is smaller than just about any other title available.  This was a welcome move. 

2) Diversification of RvR through the New Frontiers changes.  New realm abilities, terrain diversification (towers, bridges, water, keeps), and clas defining rank 5 abilities.  While I'm still undecided about the benefits and advantages of the new frontiers over the old frontiers, they took some bold steps to make PvP more of a diverse experience.  The PvP area is large, varied, and offers players the ability to somewhat control the type of pvp they engage in. 

[Numtini]

copying sidekicking (albeit in a very limited way) was a decent idea

I cannot fathom why any game doesn't have this included.

[Venkman]

Cockblockery. Sidekicking to make levels irrelevant makes it harder to wave an e-peen or set up goals for newbies. It's stupid but tradition. How could you possibly identify people to respect if just anyone could group with just anyone?

Point of order, people in Norrath gazing longingly at world-impacting-RvR in DAoC is part of what made DAoC successful on a scale comparable to EQ.

Monkey trial counselor. DAoC RvR was irrelevant for quite a long time after DAoC already attracted the majority of the people they were going to get from EQ1, which continued to grow very well after DAoC. An RvR endgame achievable only after a score of levels sans content turned off quite a few people. Today DAoC is RvR, but back in the first year? Before DF? Before all the good stuff that came since?

However, I do agree with you on the potential of WAR. To PvPers, WAR may deliver what WoW does not. The difference from DAoC/EQ is that the endgame goals were not for the same person.

I certainly agree that a successful-on-a-scale-with-WoW mmog cannot demand excessive commitment from its whole player base.

Interestly, one could compare Maplestory with Habbo and come up with "proof" that both sides (directed-play and immersion, respectively) can be successful. It's just that while both games together have over 11 times the active accounts as WoW, all those accounts are free and I believe each game makes less money per anum than WoW (which is fine because both cost about 11 times less to make ;) ).

It's an open question. Habbo is immersion without time sinks. Eve is exactly the opposite. There's a lot that separate the target demographics though, and this too can't be ignored.

All I'm hypothesizing about is why companies that have a bottomless warchest don't do anything more than rip a 20 year old game system.

[eldaec]

DAoC RvR was irrelevant for quite a long time after DAoC already attracted the majority of the people they were going to get from EQ1, which continued to grow very well after DAoC. An RvR endgame achievable only after a score of levels sans content turned off quite a few people. Today DAoC is RvR, but back in the first year? Before DF? Before all the good stuff that came since?

However, I do agree with you on the potential of WAR. To PvPers, WAR may deliver what WoW does not. The difference from DAoC/EQ is that the endgame goals were not for the same person.

Interestingly RvR was relevant almost immeadiately after launch.

The first time I went RvR in Daoc was 3 weeks after buying the game, at level 20.

The key point was of course that level 50s basically didn't exist and most RvR battles were zerg standoffs.

Obviously that wasn't sustainable in daoc without the level limited BGs.

Between BGs and the early days of a tiny lvl 50 population, daoc RvR showed just enough leg to keep the Norrathian refugees who came for RvR interested until they qualified properly by levelling up.

I'll be intrigued to see if WARs tier structure can really make RvR at-all-levels viable. I suspect it might turn out the same way as daoc BGs; where you would tend to pve grind up to near the top of a tier level range, then to finish off each tier, you go play RvR, or in WAR you might possibly go sport pvp if you are an uber in a well organised guild.

[Numtini]

The first time I went RvR in Daoc was 3 weeks after buying the game, at level 20.

Same here and it was one of the most incredible experiences I ever had in gaming. It was the 2nd weekend and something like a quarter of the entire server population was in emain fighting over the milegate. Until then the largest groups of people I'd ever seen in a game was 20 or 30 at a UO tavern or the tunnel in EQ. This was 20 times that. It was incredible.

DAOC's design intent was to have you in the frontiers all the time starting around 15 or 20. The quests led you to the gate and there were prime levelling spots available for the 20-50s. That worked for a few weeks. I remember levelling outside the gates in Midgard and occasionally a raiding party would come and you'd have a little fight out by the lake. It was great. But once you had a few stealth archers at 50, they grey ganking drove everyone out.

But really at launch, both PVP and PVE were pretty viable for at least a month or two. Then PVP became off limits except for a few ubers. Then PVP became the game and PVE was useless unless you had a bot or someone to PL you.

[Numtini]

dup

[Furiously]

Deja Vu. Quite literally too. That pretty much mirrors my experiences. Other then my friends and I flipped realms like 4 times during the leveling up process, which really slowed us down.

[tazelbain]

I think it shows the RvR was never really tested in DAoC Beta, beyond the very basic mechanics.

I'll be intrigued to see if WARs tier structure can really make RvR at-all-levels viable. I suspect it might turn out the same way as daoc BGs; where you would tend to pve grind up to near the top of a tier level range, then to finish off each tier, you go play RvR, or in WAR you might possibly go sport pvp if you are an uber in a well organised guild.

I doubt organized guilds are going to give a crap about tier 1-3, except to power level through to tier 4.
It also depends on how xp/loot you get for losing in Scenarios and how much control people have over the make up of the teams in Scenarios.  Still too many open question that will have a large affect on how it all plays.

[Nebu]

My gut tells me that the whole "scenario" thing is a recipe for disaster.  I hope that I'll get a chance to play in beta.  After playing DAoC for the past 5 years, I'm keenly aware of the pitfalls that could happen with WAR.  I'm hopeful, but not optimistic.

[Hutch]

copying sidekicking (albeit in a very limited way) was a decent idea

I cannot fathom why any game doesn't have this included.

Sidekicking works in City of Heroes because that game is designed for it. Your character's powers scale up when you level up. To do this in a more traditional swords-and-sorcery type setting, the fireball spell you learn at level 1 would be the same spell you'd use at level 50; of course it would do more damage at 50. The sword you use at level 1 would have the same (relative) effectiveness at level 50.

Of course, if you could use the same sword at level 50 you had at level 1, and be just as effective in combat, that changes your game significantly. Level limits on items, for example, would cease to make sense. Indeed, they would make your sidekicking system more complex.

So the gear (weapons, armor, spells) systems, and any associated systems (loot, crafting, auction, etc) have to change significantly to accomodate sidekicking.

So your game would have to be designed from the ground up with sidekicking in mind. Coming up with ideas for changing or replacing the more traditional gear systems would be quite challenging, and I'd guess this is why it hasn't been done more.

[Murgos]

EQ 2 does it.  It's not as complicated as you make it seem.

[Hutch]

EQ 2 does it.  It's not as complicated as you make it seem.

I'm not familiar with EQ2.

EQ2 does "it". EQ2 does what, exactly? Has a sidekicking system? Has a sidekicking system that accomodates level limits on spells and gear? However they do it, was sidekicking in from day one of retail? Or did it get added in by the current live team?

[shiznitz]

EQ2 original mentoring system:

1) Exp bonus for the mentoree per mentor, 5 mentors max. Bonus was 5% for the first, 4% for the second...down to 1% for the 5th.
2) Gear was adjusted automatically.
3) Spells were not. The mentor had to have either change spells to lower level versions or keep a separate hotbar.

It worked but was cumbersone due to 3).

Then they improved it so a level 70 spell would get adjusted down to level 50 power when you mentor a level 50. This adjustment would still account for whether your spell as an Adept 1 or Master in strength. So now it is simple. In practice, a reasonbaly well-equipped mentor is a bit more powerful than an equivalent level character.

[Hutch]

EQ2 original mentoring system:

1) Exp bonus for the mentoree per mentor, 5 mentors max. Bonus was 5% for the first, 4% for the second...down to 1% for the 5th.
2) Gear was adjusted automatically.
3) Spells were not. The mentor had to have either change spells to lower level versions or keep a separate hotbar.

It worked but was cumbersone due to 3).

Then they improved it so a level 70 spell would get adjusted down to level 50 power when you mentor a level 50. This adjustment would still account for whether your spell as an Adept 1 or Master in strength. So now it is simple. In practice, a reasonbaly well-equipped mentor is a bit more powerful than an equivalent level character.

Thanks for the info.
Maybe I should learn more about EQ2 at some point. I guess it's been working its kinks out for a couple years now :)

[Glazius]

EQ2 original mentoring system:

Down is easy. Up is hard.

What you described is CoH's exemplar/malefactor system.

The sidekick/lackey system lets a level 25 hang with the big boys and take down the level 50 endgame villains. As far as I know EQ2 had nothing like that.

--GF

[Murgos]

Yeah. That's true.  EQ2 is designed more traditionally where the focus is getting to the end game and that the farther you progress the 'better' it gets so it didn't even occur to me that boosting the lowbie would be an option.

I like EQ2 but it's still a cockblocking Diku.

[tazelbain]

To answer Nebu's question:  Mythic still believes RvR can work.  Instatized PvP is hughly popular. So they incorporated it into their RvR.  I don't see what the mystery is.