I've been playing with the Silithus Field Duty quests a bit. They seem flawed to me. The actual quests are okay, but I really dislike the method of obtaining them.
The quests are elite, which means you need a group to do them. However, there is no way of sharing the quest you are working on with the entire group. So basically, you get a group of five people doing something which can only benefit one person. This just doesn't seem to work.
It's one thing if everyone in the group is working on the same quest, but when each person has a different Field Duty quest, it just becomes uncomfortable. So realistically, what people do is get a whole bunch of Field Duty quests, and hope that there is some overlap between quests gained, then do the quest with the most overlap.
This seems terrible awkward to me. There should be some way to easily share Field Duty quests, so that your entire group can work on one together, and be rewarded together.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Is the Spell System Breaking Down?
Lately, I've begun to see some posts saying that the spell system in WoW is breaking down at the very high end. I think that there is some truth to the matter. Here is my description of the problem:
The amount of damage done or healed by a spell or ability is given by:
Total = Base + Modifiers
During levels 1-59, the Base damage is greater than Modifiers (+dmg/heal), so getting new ranks of spells is important, as it's the only way to significantly increase your damage.
At level 60, the Modifiers start becoming larger than the Base. Eventually, you can stack enough modifiers so that the Base is negligible compared to Modifiers. At this point it effectively does not matter what rank of spell you use, as the Total damage is determined mostly by the modifiers.
Total = Modifiers
However, the cost of the spell is still determined by the Base spell. So you choose the cheapest spell you can cast. Your cost is significantly reduced, but your damage is still roughly the same.
The second problem is that there are ways to reduce the cost even more: Spell Crit, via Illumination; and Mana/5s. With enough of these stats, you can reduce your costs to zero, while still keeping about the same total damage.
In effect, the old paradigm of 'Significantly larger effects require significantly larger costs' no longer really holds at the very high end of Warcraft, and this is game-breaking.
Honestly, the best solution would be to dissuade casters from casting lower ranked spells, probably by nerfing the effect of Modifiers such as +heal on lower ranked spells. If a lower rank of a spell costs 50% less mana, it should heal about 50% less damage.
This isn't a problem specific to paladins, but the existence of Illumination and a really cheap Flash of Light makes it very visible when looking at our heals.
The amount of damage done or healed by a spell or ability is given by:
Total = Base + Modifiers
During levels 1-59, the Base damage is greater than Modifiers (+dmg/heal), so getting new ranks of spells is important, as it's the only way to significantly increase your damage.
At level 60, the Modifiers start becoming larger than the Base. Eventually, you can stack enough modifiers so that the Base is negligible compared to Modifiers. At this point it effectively does not matter what rank of spell you use, as the Total damage is determined mostly by the modifiers.
Total = Modifiers
However, the cost of the spell is still determined by the Base spell. So you choose the cheapest spell you can cast. Your cost is significantly reduced, but your damage is still roughly the same.
The second problem is that there are ways to reduce the cost even more: Spell Crit, via Illumination; and Mana/5s. With enough of these stats, you can reduce your costs to zero, while still keeping about the same total damage.
In effect, the old paradigm of 'Significantly larger effects require significantly larger costs' no longer really holds at the very high end of Warcraft, and this is game-breaking.
Honestly, the best solution would be to dissuade casters from casting lower ranked spells, probably by nerfing the effect of Modifiers such as +heal on lower ranked spells. If a lower rank of a spell costs 50% less mana, it should heal about 50% less damage.
This isn't a problem specific to paladins, but the existence of Illumination and a really cheap Flash of Light makes it very visible when looking at our heals.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Mmm...Epic Hammer
I picked up an [Earthshaker] in Molten Core today. I was kind of surprised I won it, as I was in the middle of the pack for DKP. I guess the other paladins are waiting for Lawbringer pieces.
I'm pondering respeccing to take advantage of the proc. As it's a stun, I could Judgement of Command for extra damage. However, I'm currently 30/21/0 for Blessing of Sanctuary and raid healing. If I kept Sanctuary (I'm the only paladin in the guild who has it), I could do something like 14/21/16. Or I could forget about Sanctuary and go for a more normal Holy/Retribution build.
(Another option is a Reckoning build, but I really dislike Reckoning.)
As well, I need to enchant it. I'm currently using a 1H and shield (non-epic) inside MC, but I could put +22 Int on the [Earthshaker] and use that as my primary raid weapon. I could also just forget about it in raids and put a combat enchant on it for farming or PvP.
Of course, I actually need gold to do any of this, so its all theoretical at this point. :)
Blizzard's Paladin Vision
After thinking about it for a while, I think that Blizzard intended for paladins to be in melee on raids. To heal and cleanse from melee range.
Proof: Lawbringer armor
Lawbringer is our Tier 1 set. The first armor we get from 40-man raid instances, armor specifically designed for us, and the armor that prepares us for what Blizzard thinks our should be our role in raid content.
So let's look at Lawbringer. It has +Int and +heal, which implies that we should be helping to heal. But it also has a bit of +Str which adds to our damage. As well, take a look at the set bonuses:
3 pieces: Increases the chance of triggering a Judgement of Light heal by 10%.
5 pieces: Improves your chance to get a critical strike with spells by 1%.
5 pieces: Improves your chance to get a critical strike by 1%.
8 pieces: Gives the Paladin a chance on every melee hit to heal your party for 189 to 211.
Three out of four bonuses only work if the paladin is meleeing!
Lawbringer is meant to help us fulfill our role in raiding. It has +Str and bonuses that reward the paladin for meleeing. It has +Int and +heal that reward the paladin for healing.
I believe that it is clear from Lawbringer armor that Blizzard intended us to melee in raids and heal from melee range.
This is their vision, and it is a good vision.
The problem is not with Blizzard, but with guilds who are too timid to let their paladins live up to the role that Blizzard intends for us.
Proof: Lawbringer armor
Lawbringer is our Tier 1 set. The first armor we get from 40-man raid instances, armor specifically designed for us, and the armor that prepares us for what Blizzard thinks our should be our role in raid content.
So let's look at Lawbringer. It has +Int and +heal, which implies that we should be helping to heal. But it also has a bit of +Str which adds to our damage. As well, take a look at the set bonuses:
3 pieces: Increases the chance of triggering a Judgement of Light heal by 10%.
5 pieces: Improves your chance to get a critical strike with spells by 1%.
5 pieces: Improves your chance to get a critical strike by 1%.
8 pieces: Gives the Paladin a chance on every melee hit to heal your party for 189 to 211.
Three out of four bonuses only work if the paladin is meleeing!
Lawbringer is meant to help us fulfill our role in raiding. It has +Str and bonuses that reward the paladin for meleeing. It has +Int and +heal that reward the paladin for healing.
I believe that it is clear from Lawbringer armor that Blizzard intended us to melee in raids and heal from melee range.
This is their vision, and it is a good vision.
The problem is not with Blizzard, but with guilds who are too timid to let their paladins live up to the role that Blizzard intends for us.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Monday, May 08, 2006
What I Miss...
You know what I, as a 60, miss the most from levels 1 to 59?
I miss the sound you get when you discover a new area and piece of the map fills in.
Such a nice sound. The sound probably doesn't play at 60 because it's tied to the experience gained for the discovery, and you no longer get experience at 60. It's a pity though. Hopefully it will return when the level cap goes up.
I miss the sound you get when you discover a new area and piece of the map fills in.
Such a nice sound. The sound probably doesn't play at 60 because it's tied to the experience gained for the discovery, and you no longer get experience at 60. It's a pity though. Hopefully it will return when the level cap goes up.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Casuals vs. Raiders, Part IV
Continuing the eternal series, part of the problem between casuals vs raiders is that the gulf between them is only one-way. Casuals cannot do raid content. However, raiders can do casual content.
In fact, they will do such content if the rewards are half decent, or if they are simply bored. So there's no such thing as content specifically for casuals. And this feels a little bit unfair to casual players. After all, both groups are paying the same amount of money to Blizzard. Yet the raiders get new content which they don't share, but casuals have to share all their content. It's possibly a bit irrational, but that's the way we are.
I think WoW needs to address this asymmetry (in addition to making it easier to raid). My suggestion would be an epic 5-man dungeon. This dungeon would be hard and would drop unique loot slightly better than Tier 1, but less than Tier 2 (a Dungeon 3 set). The dungeon would be on a 7-day timer, like the raid instances, allowing a small group to work on the dungeon over the course of the week.
The kicker, though, is that if you were saved to this 5-man, you would be locked out of the 40-man raids for the week. And if you were saved to MC/BWL/etc., you'd be locked out of this epic 5-man.
So for raiders, this dungeon presents a real drawback. If you go to this dungeon, you can't raid with your guild that week. If you raid with your guild, you can't try this dungeon. However, for a casual player, there is effectively no drawback to trying this 5-man, as you aren't raiding anyways.
The key is giving the casuals an experience that the raiders can't easily share. Raiders still have the lion's share of endgame and loot. However, casuals get a toy for them, and them alone.
In fact, they will do such content if the rewards are half decent, or if they are simply bored. So there's no such thing as content specifically for casuals. And this feels a little bit unfair to casual players. After all, both groups are paying the same amount of money to Blizzard. Yet the raiders get new content which they don't share, but casuals have to share all their content. It's possibly a bit irrational, but that's the way we are.
I think WoW needs to address this asymmetry (in addition to making it easier to raid). My suggestion would be an epic 5-man dungeon. This dungeon would be hard and would drop unique loot slightly better than Tier 1, but less than Tier 2 (a Dungeon 3 set). The dungeon would be on a 7-day timer, like the raid instances, allowing a small group to work on the dungeon over the course of the week.
The kicker, though, is that if you were saved to this 5-man, you would be locked out of the 40-man raids for the week. And if you were saved to MC/BWL/etc., you'd be locked out of this epic 5-man.
So for raiders, this dungeon presents a real drawback. If you go to this dungeon, you can't raid with your guild that week. If you raid with your guild, you can't try this dungeon. However, for a casual player, there is effectively no drawback to trying this 5-man, as you aren't raiding anyways.
The key is giving the casuals an experience that the raiders can't easily share. Raiders still have the lion's share of endgame and loot. However, casuals get a toy for them, and them alone.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Friday, May 05, 2006
Reckoning Idea
A while back, I posted about how I dislike the current incarnation of Reckoning. Here's an idea for a change to Reckoning to add a little interactivity, help tanking a bit, and add a little dps while soloing.
Make Reckoning trainable and change it to:
It's modeled after the warrior skill Overpower. You get critted, the button lights up, and you smack them back once. No charges or any other silliness.
So we get another button to press during combat, which makes soloing a little bit more interactive. It does Holy damage which helps with Righteous Fury and tanking. It's not usable if you aren't being attacked, so it doesn't really change us in raid situations. It's based on weapon damage, so it scales as well as emphasizes the melee aspect.
Then in the place of the current Reckoning talent, we could have:
Admittedly, you can't do Reckoning bombs in PvP anymore, but an instant attack for 100% Holy damage is still pretty sweet. I also think this is more in line with the original intent behind Reckoning.
Make Reckoning trainable and change it to:
Reckoning
5% of Base Mana
Instant, 5s cooldown, Requires Melee Weapon
Instantly counterattack the enemy, causing Holy damage equal to 50% of weapon damage. Only useable after being the victim of a critical strike.
It's modeled after the warrior skill Overpower. You get critted, the button lights up, and you smack them back once. No charges or any other silliness.
So we get another button to press during combat, which makes soloing a little bit more interactive. It does Holy damage which helps with Righteous Fury and tanking. It's not usable if you aren't being attacked, so it doesn't really change us in raid situations. It's based on weapon damage, so it scales as well as emphasizes the melee aspect.
Then in the place of the current Reckoning talent, we could have:
Improved Reckoning
Requires 20pts in Protection
Improves the damage done by Reckoning to 60%/70%/80%/90%/100% of weapon damage.
Admittedly, you can't do Reckoning bombs in PvP anymore, but an instant attack for 100% Holy damage is still pretty sweet. I also think this is more in line with the original intent behind Reckoning.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Baseline Spiritual Focus?
Blizzard has announced that in Patch 1.11, druids will be getting Innervate--previously the 31-pt Restoration talent--as a baseline trainable talent (and some sort of new 31-pt talent). I think this is a good move, as a lot of raiding guilds were making Innervate mandatory for their druids.
On the paladin boards, a lot of people are suggesting paladin talents that should become baseline. While things like Seal of Command, Consecrate, Kings, etc. would be nice, I'd like to propose a different talent becoming baseline:
Spiritual Focus.
(70% chance to avoid spell interruption from damage)
Why? Well, almost every build includes this talent, forcing paladins to go 10pts deep into Holy. Pure Protection/Retribution builds are extremely rare.
Secondly, we are meant to be melee fighters. Emphasizing that we can cast healing spells in melee combat reinforces that ideal. As well, priests have a similar talent, save that it is only 2 points and in the first tier. It's slightly disconcerting that priests are able to cast from melee better than paladins.
Spiritual Focus is as close to a must-have talent as there is for paladins. By replacing Spiritual Focus with a different, more unique 5pt talent in the second tier, we should see a greater variety in paladin builds, and more freedom in abstaining from the Holy tree.
For example, I would love to make a 0/32/19 1H+Shield 'porcupine' build that features both Holy Shield and Improved Retribution Aura. Such a build would be very interesting to try.
However, not having Spiritual Focus is a huge risk. Improved Concentration Aura only gives a 50% chance to avoid interruption, and the long cast time of Holy Light means there's a high chance of the spell being delayed. Spiritual Focus + Concentration Aura gives a 100% of avoiding interruption, which is essential as we are always in melee. A priest can fear, shield, cast an instant HoT, or cast a quick flash heal and avoid interruption in that manner.
On the paladin boards, a lot of people are suggesting paladin talents that should become baseline. While things like Seal of Command, Consecrate, Kings, etc. would be nice, I'd like to propose a different talent becoming baseline:
Spiritual Focus.
(70% chance to avoid spell interruption from damage)
Why? Well, almost every build includes this talent, forcing paladins to go 10pts deep into Holy. Pure Protection/Retribution builds are extremely rare.
Secondly, we are meant to be melee fighters. Emphasizing that we can cast healing spells in melee combat reinforces that ideal. As well, priests have a similar talent, save that it is only 2 points and in the first tier. It's slightly disconcerting that priests are able to cast from melee better than paladins.
Spiritual Focus is as close to a must-have talent as there is for paladins. By replacing Spiritual Focus with a different, more unique 5pt talent in the second tier, we should see a greater variety in paladin builds, and more freedom in abstaining from the Holy tree.
For example, I would love to make a 0/32/19 1H+Shield 'porcupine' build that features both Holy Shield and Improved Retribution Aura. Such a build would be very interesting to try.
However, not having Spiritual Focus is a huge risk. Improved Concentration Aura only gives a 50% chance to avoid interruption, and the long cast time of Holy Light means there's a high chance of the spell being delayed. Spiritual Focus + Concentration Aura gives a 100% of avoiding interruption, which is essential as we are always in melee. A priest can fear, shield, cast an instant HoT, or cast a quick flash heal and avoid interruption in that manner.
Monday, May 01, 2006
The Invisible Hand of Raiding
A lot of guilds restrict loot by class. They justify this with the phrase "Guild progress comes before personal progress."
As a counter, I offer these words:
Liberal capitalism is, in general, the dominant economic system in modern times. It's fundamental idea is that of the Invisible Hand: that an individual seeking to improve his own situation will unintentionally work for the benefit of the group. For the most part, the system works in real life.
The same philosophy should also work in WoW. A neutral system of earning and spending DKP should lead to people seeking to improve their characters as they want to, and thus unintentionally improving the raid. I have not yet seen a good reason why the Invisible Hand does not apply to WoW.
The argument against this is "a warrior will do more dps with Uber-2H-sword than a paladin on a raid." And this is strictly true. So how then does giving the paladin the Uber-2H-sword improve the raid? For one thing, the paladin will be less likely to quit. If you are prevented from improving your character as you want to, your enthusiasm wanes. If the paladin quits, the guild loses multiple epics and a skilled player. This is a bigger loss to the raid than a single weapon being used slightly less efficiently. It's generally taken as a given that healing classes, in addition to being the rarest, are the ones which burn out fastest. Keeping healers from burning out, at the cost of one or two dps epics going to a healer, improves the raid.
As well, people do other things than raids. They quest, farm and PvP. By making a rational decision to improve some of these other areas, they benefit the guild. As a personal example, I'm currently working on farming for my Hide of the Wild. I'm specced for raiding (30/21/0 - raid gets Blessing of Sanctuary), and thus farming is painfully slow. A good epic weapon would make farming easier, leading to a better healing cape which would improve the raid. In fact, farming is so painful--and I have to farm for some other enchants--that I am considering to switching to 20/0/31, which means no more Blessing of Sanctuary and worse healing on raids.
In the end, people are most productive when they are improving their character as they see fit. A raiding guild should think long and hard before abandoning the wisdom of Adam Smith.
As a counter, I offer these words:
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."
- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776
Liberal capitalism is, in general, the dominant economic system in modern times. It's fundamental idea is that of the Invisible Hand: that an individual seeking to improve his own situation will unintentionally work for the benefit of the group. For the most part, the system works in real life.
The same philosophy should also work in WoW. A neutral system of earning and spending DKP should lead to people seeking to improve their characters as they want to, and thus unintentionally improving the raid. I have not yet seen a good reason why the Invisible Hand does not apply to WoW.
The argument against this is "a warrior will do more dps with Uber-2H-sword than a paladin on a raid." And this is strictly true. So how then does giving the paladin the Uber-2H-sword improve the raid? For one thing, the paladin will be less likely to quit. If you are prevented from improving your character as you want to, your enthusiasm wanes. If the paladin quits, the guild loses multiple epics and a skilled player. This is a bigger loss to the raid than a single weapon being used slightly less efficiently. It's generally taken as a given that healing classes, in addition to being the rarest, are the ones which burn out fastest. Keeping healers from burning out, at the cost of one or two dps epics going to a healer, improves the raid.
As well, people do other things than raids. They quest, farm and PvP. By making a rational decision to improve some of these other areas, they benefit the guild. As a personal example, I'm currently working on farming for my Hide of the Wild. I'm specced for raiding (30/21/0 - raid gets Blessing of Sanctuary), and thus farming is painfully slow. A good epic weapon would make farming easier, leading to a better healing cape which would improve the raid. In fact, farming is so painful--and I have to farm for some other enchants--that I am considering to switching to 20/0/31, which means no more Blessing of Sanctuary and worse healing on raids.
In the end, people are most productive when they are improving their character as they see fit. A raiding guild should think long and hard before abandoning the wisdom of Adam Smith.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Wishlist Loot System
In a post on the WoW Raid and Dungeon forums, Coracus of Infliction (Dragonmaw server) outlines his guild's rather unique loot system:
I find this is a very interesting endgame loot system. For one thing, I believe it is the first endgame system I've seen which is memory-less. I didn't think that this was possible or even desirable.
Secondly, it forces you to think about loot differently. Narrowing down to six items makes you think ahead, and think in terms of the larger picture. Also, you are no longer competing against everyone who can use an item, but only those who value it enough to be in the wishlist.
As well, everyone's wishlists are public, which means that you see the larger picture and goals of the entire guild. People's lists being public also allow you to meta-game, and choose items which are in less demand.
The overhead of this system is also extremely low. Tracking DKP for an entire guild can be time-consuming. This system is very easy on the officers. Additionally, wishlists are posted in advance, which allows officers some measure of time to detect and head off problems.
Of course, the system does have its flaws. For one thing, you cannot guarantee winning an item. It is entirely possible that someone will constantly lose rolls on a specific item, which may lead to feelings of unfairness. And it is probable that a raider with less time spent will occasionally beat a raider who raids a lot.
However, I think that overall this system is a very good one. For one thing, I think it promotes a healthier attitude towards loot and progression, and forces players to decide what is really valuable to them. The low overhead is a serious benefit, allowing officers to concentrate on more important things. I commend Infliction on their innovative system.
Wish list system:
Each person gets to put their most wanted 6 items on their wish list. You cannot change the wish list once you have made it. Items on the wish list can only be changed once either A) The item drops and you don't get it, or B) the item drops and you do get it.
The order of roll allowance goes as follows:
1. Wishlist (X class/DPS/Healers) please roll:
2. Need Guild Members please roll:
3. If no one Needs, then Shard
If the person on the wish list decides to pass it, then can give up their roll to another person on the wish list. They cannot just pass it to any person, you can only give up a roll. Meaning it goes to open roll if no one has it on their wish list.
I find this system works very well with a close group of raiders. It's been much more enjoyable than DKP, and we've used it right through Nefarian.
Why I dislike DKP, is it adds to that feeling we constantly have about "Grinding". You have to grind dkp just to bid on items. In our guild, we all know the loot will come as long as everyone shows up on time and raids. The wishlist system lets you concentrate on having a good time and knowing you always have a chance to roll on the items you want,instead of thinking "well every other person has X dkp, so ill never get anything".
I find this is a very interesting endgame loot system. For one thing, I believe it is the first endgame system I've seen which is memory-less. I didn't think that this was possible or even desirable.
Secondly, it forces you to think about loot differently. Narrowing down to six items makes you think ahead, and think in terms of the larger picture. Also, you are no longer competing against everyone who can use an item, but only those who value it enough to be in the wishlist.
As well, everyone's wishlists are public, which means that you see the larger picture and goals of the entire guild. People's lists being public also allow you to meta-game, and choose items which are in less demand.
The overhead of this system is also extremely low. Tracking DKP for an entire guild can be time-consuming. This system is very easy on the officers. Additionally, wishlists are posted in advance, which allows officers some measure of time to detect and head off problems.
Of course, the system does have its flaws. For one thing, you cannot guarantee winning an item. It is entirely possible that someone will constantly lose rolls on a specific item, which may lead to feelings of unfairness. And it is probable that a raider with less time spent will occasionally beat a raider who raids a lot.
However, I think that overall this system is a very good one. For one thing, I think it promotes a healthier attitude towards loot and progression, and forces players to decide what is really valuable to them. The low overhead is a serious benefit, allowing officers to concentrate on more important things. I commend Infliction on their innovative system.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
People Afraid To Try
There's one type of person in Wow who really get on my nerves. Basically, these are the types of people who actively speak out against trying something if the raid or group doesn't have the 'optimum' makeup.
For example, our guild was at Garr in Molten Core the other night. Garr has 8 adds. The 'normal' strategy is to tank four of the adds and Banish the other four. However, we only had 2 warlocks to banish. We did have 6 or 7 warriors and a strong amount of healing, so the fight was possible with a change of strategy. However, one player spoke up and declared that the fight was 'impossible' without the extra warlocks, and we shouldn't even try.
This timidity is the one thing that really bugs me in WoW. Why not try? The worst that happens is we wipe, and we count that as a lesson learned.
The next week, we had enough warlocks to do the fight normally, and we killed Garr. Thinking about continuing on to Baron Geddon, that same player says that we don't have enough Fire Resistance in the raid to continue. Argh! [1]
If we tried, wiped, and then came to the conclusion that we needed more Fire Resistance, that would one thing. But to be unwilling to even try?
You see this even in lower instances. People who won't do anything if the group makeup is not exactly correct according to perceived wisdom. Or maybe certain people have the wrong talents (Feral vs Resto druids, Shadow vs Holy priests, etc.).
It's odd, but whenever I've grouped with people from the very elite, cutting-edge guilds, they don't seem to adhere to this 'common wisdom'. Maybe it's because what I'm working on is trivial to them, but they seem to be more willing to try less conventional solutions.
[1] I do have to say that the player in question is a very good, solid player. I just wish he'd be a bit more willing or enthusiastic about taking risks.
For example, our guild was at Garr in Molten Core the other night. Garr has 8 adds. The 'normal' strategy is to tank four of the adds and Banish the other four. However, we only had 2 warlocks to banish. We did have 6 or 7 warriors and a strong amount of healing, so the fight was possible with a change of strategy. However, one player spoke up and declared that the fight was 'impossible' without the extra warlocks, and we shouldn't even try.
This timidity is the one thing that really bugs me in WoW. Why not try? The worst that happens is we wipe, and we count that as a lesson learned.
The next week, we had enough warlocks to do the fight normally, and we killed Garr. Thinking about continuing on to Baron Geddon, that same player says that we don't have enough Fire Resistance in the raid to continue. Argh! [1]
If we tried, wiped, and then came to the conclusion that we needed more Fire Resistance, that would one thing. But to be unwilling to even try?
You see this even in lower instances. People who won't do anything if the group makeup is not exactly correct according to perceived wisdom. Or maybe certain people have the wrong talents (Feral vs Resto druids, Shadow vs Holy priests, etc.).
It's odd, but whenever I've grouped with people from the very elite, cutting-edge guilds, they don't seem to adhere to this 'common wisdom'. Maybe it's because what I'm working on is trivial to them, but they seem to be more willing to try less conventional solutions.
[1] I do have to say that the player in question is a very good, solid player. I just wish he'd be a bit more willing or enthusiastic about taking risks.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
The 'Men In Tights' Problem
If you wander across the blogs of MMO game devs, you see a lot of reference to the 'men in tights' problem. The vast majority of MMOs are fantasy games. SirBruce, of www.mmogchart.com, estimates that 89% of all MMOs are fantasy-based. So it's a pressing question (for game devs, anyway) of why this is so, and does a non-fantasy game have a chance of succeeding.
There are a lot of explanations proposed, from the fact that our culture is steeped in the past, or that the first MMOs were fantasy, so that's the way it is. I think there is a different reason that most games are fantasy. The fundamental conceit of rpgs is that:
As I do stuff, I become harder to defeat.
In fantasy games, you have all sorts of explanations for this, from magical healing, to better armor, to better skill with weapons, to just being physically tougher than the other guy. Levelling up represents becoming tougher and better skilled. In a swordfight, we expect the more skilled fighter to come out alive. And a lot of the attraction of RPGs relies on this: our working on a character and slowly making them more and more powerful.
However, as you introduce technology, it becomes a lot harder to justify this basic idea. The entire point of technology, in a lot of ways, is to replace skill. There is an old saying, popular in the eighteenth century, that "God made all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." This saying perfectly encapsulates the point that technology makes the unskilled deadlier. Non-fantasy games need to be able to account for this. If you have a game where a character can get shot with a gun at point-blank range and almost always survive, that's really hard to take.
Now, that's not to say that non-fantasy games can't do this. Take Eve Online. Eve Online is pretty much as non-fantasy as you get. Eve Online, however, replaces "I" with "my ship". It makes sense that a better, more expensive and technologically advanced ship is harder to defeat. That fits in with our worldview. And thus Eve works as an MMO, where "levelling" involves improving your ship.
However, it's easier for a fantasy game to account for this. And this is the main reason, I think, that fantasy is the most popular genre. The levelling idea, of character improvement making survival more likely, fits fantasy better than any other genre.
There are a lot of explanations proposed, from the fact that our culture is steeped in the past, or that the first MMOs were fantasy, so that's the way it is. I think there is a different reason that most games are fantasy. The fundamental conceit of rpgs is that:
As I do stuff, I become harder to defeat.
In fantasy games, you have all sorts of explanations for this, from magical healing, to better armor, to better skill with weapons, to just being physically tougher than the other guy. Levelling up represents becoming tougher and better skilled. In a swordfight, we expect the more skilled fighter to come out alive. And a lot of the attraction of RPGs relies on this: our working on a character and slowly making them more and more powerful.
However, as you introduce technology, it becomes a lot harder to justify this basic idea. The entire point of technology, in a lot of ways, is to replace skill. There is an old saying, popular in the eighteenth century, that "God made all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." This saying perfectly encapsulates the point that technology makes the unskilled deadlier. Non-fantasy games need to be able to account for this. If you have a game where a character can get shot with a gun at point-blank range and almost always survive, that's really hard to take.
Now, that's not to say that non-fantasy games can't do this. Take Eve Online. Eve Online is pretty much as non-fantasy as you get. Eve Online, however, replaces "I" with "my ship". It makes sense that a better, more expensive and technologically advanced ship is harder to defeat. That fits in with our worldview. And thus Eve works as an MMO, where "levelling" involves improving your ship.
However, it's easier for a fantasy game to account for this. And this is the main reason, I think, that fantasy is the most popular genre. The levelling idea, of character improvement making survival more likely, fits fantasy better than any other genre.
Team and Individual Skill in PvP
In the comments to my last post on PvP, Thoma writes:
This isn't quite what I'm assuming (though if you amend it to *average* player skill, it is correct). I'm assuming that team skill is equal to the sum of the individual players skills.
Is this a good assumption for WoW Battlegrounds? I think it is. For example, if Alice and Beth beat Joe and Harry, but Beth and Carol lose to Joe and Harry, we can infer that Alice is more skilled than Carol. That seems like a reasonable result to me.
Now, there are other games where this assumption does not hold. For example, you could have a game where team skill is equal to the skill of the worst player. Is this a good model for BGs? I do not think so, because it implies that a team with 14 people will always lose to a team of 15 people. (The missing person is essentially a player with zero skill.) And this is not true for BGs. A team with 14 people is at a disadvantage, but the skill of the remaining players can make up for it. So this model is not good.
How about the opposite model? Is team skill equal to the skill of the best player in the Battleground? Again, I don't think this model holds, because it would imply that in a 1v15 match, if the one person was slightly better than each player on the 15-man team, she would win. And I don't think this is true in BGs. The most likely result is that the one person is going to lose, regardless of her skill.
So I think it's pretty clear that team skill in BGs is some combination of the skills of the individual players. And that means that we can infer individual skill by looking at how different teams with that individual perform. Which is what a system like TrueSkill™ does.
Is this model 100% accurate? No. For one thing we occasionally see teams which are greater or less than the sum of their individual parts. A classic example is the 2004 USA Olympic Men's Basketball Team. But for the most part, the model is pretty accurate, especially when players change teams reasonably often, as is the case with WoW Battlegrounds.
As an aside, I think a more accurate model of team skill would be to say that each pair of players on a team has a bond, and that bond may have some skill, positive or negative, associated with it. Two players may play especially well with each other, or two players may play poorly with each other. Then team skill becomes the sum of the skill of the individual players plus the sum of the skill of all bonds formed. In graph theory terms, under the first model only the vertices in a team have weights, but in the second model, some of the weight of the vertices shifts to the edges in the graph.
And individual skill in my first model is not just individual skill, but individual skill plus the sum of the skills in all bonds with that player multiplied by the probability of each bond occurring. But the first model, where only the vertices have weight, is a *lot* easier to deal with, and is probably accurate enough for the purpose of PvP ranks.
Again, it all comes down to you assuming that team skill/number of players = player skill.
This isn't quite what I'm assuming (though if you amend it to *average* player skill, it is correct). I'm assuming that team skill is equal to the sum of the individual players skills.
Is this a good assumption for WoW Battlegrounds? I think it is. For example, if Alice and Beth beat Joe and Harry, but Beth and Carol lose to Joe and Harry, we can infer that Alice is more skilled than Carol. That seems like a reasonable result to me.
Now, there are other games where this assumption does not hold. For example, you could have a game where team skill is equal to the skill of the worst player. Is this a good model for BGs? I do not think so, because it implies that a team with 14 people will always lose to a team of 15 people. (The missing person is essentially a player with zero skill.) And this is not true for BGs. A team with 14 people is at a disadvantage, but the skill of the remaining players can make up for it. So this model is not good.
How about the opposite model? Is team skill equal to the skill of the best player in the Battleground? Again, I don't think this model holds, because it would imply that in a 1v15 match, if the one person was slightly better than each player on the 15-man team, she would win. And I don't think this is true in BGs. The most likely result is that the one person is going to lose, regardless of her skill.
So I think it's pretty clear that team skill in BGs is some combination of the skills of the individual players. And that means that we can infer individual skill by looking at how different teams with that individual perform. Which is what a system like TrueSkill™ does.
Is this model 100% accurate? No. For one thing we occasionally see teams which are greater or less than the sum of their individual parts. A classic example is the 2004 USA Olympic Men's Basketball Team. But for the most part, the model is pretty accurate, especially when players change teams reasonably often, as is the case with WoW Battlegrounds.
As an aside, I think a more accurate model of team skill would be to say that each pair of players on a team has a bond, and that bond may have some skill, positive or negative, associated with it. Two players may play especially well with each other, or two players may play poorly with each other. Then team skill becomes the sum of the skill of the individual players plus the sum of the skill of all bonds formed. In graph theory terms, under the first model only the vertices in a team have weights, but in the second model, some of the weight of the vertices shifts to the edges in the graph.
And individual skill in my first model is not just individual skill, but individual skill plus the sum of the skills in all bonds with that player multiplied by the probability of each bond occurring. But the first model, where only the vertices have weight, is a *lot* easier to deal with, and is probably accurate enough for the purpose of PvP ranks.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Don't Anger the Kodo!
I'm thinking about some of Thoma's points in the PvP thread, and hopefully will post a response soon. But in the meantime, here's a fun World PvP story that happened today:
My Forsaken warlock alt was questing in Desolace. At one point, I run into a Nightelf hunter and a Human mage, both of them around my level. I didn't really want to fight, especially outnumbered, as I just wanted to get to the town and hand in a quest before logging off. So I wave to them, hoping they'll let me go.
No such luck. They back up and start attacking. My succubus Seduces the hunter, and I start casting spells at the mage. I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose the fight eventually, when the mage runs in and starts casting Arcane Explosions.
Unfortunately for him, his Arcane Explosion hits a nearby herd of kodo. Enraged, the kodo charge over and promptly stomp him. Then they go and crush his hunter buddy, before wandering off.
So, the moral of the story:
My Forsaken warlock alt was questing in Desolace. At one point, I run into a Nightelf hunter and a Human mage, both of them around my level. I didn't really want to fight, especially outnumbered, as I just wanted to get to the town and hand in a quest before logging off. So I wave to them, hoping they'll let me go.
No such luck. They back up and start attacking. My succubus Seduces the hunter, and I start casting spells at the mage. I'm pretty sure I'm going to lose the fight eventually, when the mage runs in and starts casting Arcane Explosions.
Unfortunately for him, his Arcane Explosion hits a nearby herd of kodo. Enraged, the kodo charge over and promptly stomp him. Then they go and crush his hunter buddy, before wandering off.
So, the moral of the story:
- Focus Fire.
- Don't Anger the Kodo!
Monday, April 17, 2006
Comments on PvP System
Thoma points out some issues with my proposed system, and I've decided to make my responses into a full post, to expand upon my idea.
No, because a loss means your rating goes down. That's the difference between now and then. When you go afk, you basically have a 50% chance to go up and down, which becomes less than 50% because your team is effectively outnumbered.
To go afk and gain in rating implies you were on a succession of teams that consistantly won, even though they were a man down. That seems improbable, at the very least. If it was an organized team, the leader should recognize that you aren't contributing and boot you.
The reason botting works now is that there is no risk to just sitting and collecting HKs. In the current system, if you spend the entire match fishing, you will end up better than you started. Guaranteed.
Perhaps. It won't be a gank fest though. It will return world PvP to the same state as before the honor system (and to be honest, roughly the same state it is now, at least from my latest experiences on a PvP server). As well, each goal would only be achieveable once per week, hopefully minimizing the disruption.
The real gankfest was when we had the Honor system but no BGs. That was a terrible time. I was in the high 40s on a PvP server, within range of the 60s. It was supremely unfun. It's why I have a character on a PvE server now.
My system has no rewards for killing individual players, only for achieving goals, so people will only gank for the old reasons of boredom, opportunity, malice, and fun.
Yeah, to be able to separate in skill implies sufficient numbers. This is probably not possible for most servers at the moment. However, Blizzard is working on cross-server BGs, and it would be a good solution then.
As to high ranks, the players closest in rating play each other. If there were only two teams, they would play each other, even if there was a great difference in average rating. However, the better team would only increase rating by a tiny amount if they won, and the losing team would only lose a tiny amount. However, if the weaker team won, there would be a larger gain/loss.
It's basically the same system--in principle--as the ELO chess rating system, or Microsoft's Trueskill™ system.
1. Skill isn't rewarded, just wins/losses. Being AFK is even more rewarded under your system then the current system. Since all honor gained is win/loss rather then a mix of win/loss/HKs then you just turn AV into a bot farm.
No, because a loss means your rating goes down. That's the difference between now and then. When you go afk, you basically have a 50% chance to go up and down, which becomes less than 50% because your team is effectively outnumbered.
To go afk and gain in rating implies you were on a succession of teams that consistantly won, even though they were a man down. That seems improbable, at the very least. If it was an organized team, the leader should recognize that you aren't contributing and boot you.
The reason botting works now is that there is no risk to just sitting and collecting HKs. In the current system, if you spend the entire match fishing, you will end up better than you started. Guaranteed.
2. The stake to the heart you propose world pvp is going to really marginalize the PVP servers. It just makes it into Gank fests that don't end due to diminishing returns.
Perhaps. It won't be a gank fest though. It will return world PvP to the same state as before the honor system (and to be honest, roughly the same state it is now, at least from my latest experiences on a PvP server). As well, each goal would only be achieveable once per week, hopefully minimizing the disruption.
The real gankfest was when we had the Honor system but no BGs. That was a terrible time. I was in the high 40s on a PvP server, within range of the 60s. It was supremely unfun. It's why I have a character on a PvE server now.
My system has no rewards for killing individual players, only for achieving goals, so people will only gank for the old reasons of boredom, opportunity, malice, and fun.
3. You assume that all servers have enough PVP to make seperating out "skill groups" worth while. And what happens to the Grand Marshals? Do they only face each other? Or do you have to wait for 40 of each groups high ranks get together for an AV?
Yeah, to be able to separate in skill implies sufficient numbers. This is probably not possible for most servers at the moment. However, Blizzard is working on cross-server BGs, and it would be a good solution then.
As to high ranks, the players closest in rating play each other. If there were only two teams, they would play each other, even if there was a great difference in average rating. However, the better team would only increase rating by a tiny amount if they won, and the losing team would only lose a tiny amount. However, if the weaker team won, there would be a larger gain/loss.
It's basically the same system--in principle--as the ELO chess rating system, or Microsoft's Trueskill™ system.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
PvP, Skill, and the Honor System, Part II
Before we get to my idea for the honor system that rewards skill instead of time, we should define what skill is. In my view:
Skill is the ability to defeat an opponent in a fair fight.
Seems logical. If two characters fight each other, the more skilled player should win most of the time (all other things being equal).
The hard part, in World of Warcraft, comes with finding a fair fight. If a level 50 is attacked by a level 60, is that a fair fight? If a level 60 is attacked by 2 level 55s, is that a fair fight? What about if a character is fighting a mob, and another character jumps him? What if the character fighting the mob is higher level than the attacker?
Also, when does a fight end? In the zerg at Tarren Mill, how do you tell when one side wins? Is each individual death the end of a fight, or does it matter if one side pushes the other side back?
If you look at all the possibilities, it seems very hard to actually determine if a fight was fair or not, especially in world PvP. However, if we can see that Battlegrounds are reasonably fair. Both sides start with roughly equal numbers, level, and position. There is no interference from outside. There is a defined starting point and ending point. For the most part, the team that wins the Battleground is more skilled than the side that loses.
So my proposal is to make honor dependent on performance in Battlegrounds.
The basic idea is that each character has a PvP rating, like a chess rating. When a character's team wins a Battleground, her rating goes up proportional to the combined rating of the opposing team. If she win a victory against a good team, her rating increases more. If she loses, her rating goes down.
Then rating determines how fast you progress through the ranks, and what the maximum rank you can attain is. Each week, during Tuesday maintence, your increase in rank based on rating is applied. You would need to play a certain number of matches in the week (say 3) to be eligible for a change in rank. A person who has an average rating might only be able to reach Rank 5 (and take 8 weeks to get there). A person one standard deviation higher might reach Rank 8 in the same time. Rank 14 would need a *very* high rating (three or four standard deviations, probably).
There are a lot of benefits to this proposal. First, ratings are an intuitively simple idea. Everyone understands them. If a Grand Marshal is someone who wins all the time, that just makes sense. Second, since your rating changes with each game, you don't need to play a great many games. However, you need to win in the games you do play.
Third, since ratings depends on victory rather than kills, it also rewards players who play for the victory. People who heal, who play defense, who use strategy and tactics. Leadership becomes a valuable asset, as leadership leads to victory. Right now, I find that a lot of Rank 13/14s aren't really leaders, but loners who just rack up kills.
Fourth, since you now have ratings, you could match players by skill level. The game could match players of equal skill level. Higher rated players get to play other higher rated players.
Now, there are some negatives to this proposal. People who solo and join pickup groups will be at a disadvantage compared to people who run in teams. Matching using rating could moderate this a bit.
The biggest downside though, is that it will completely kill world PvP. World PvP just does not fit into the rating system. You simply cannot guarantee the "fair fight" that the rating system depends on.
The only idea I have to encourage world PvP is to have faction-wide goals. For example, if one of the six Race leaders (Thrall, Magni, etc.) is killed, everyone in the enemy faction gains an extra quarter-rank on Tuesday, and everyone in the friendly faction loses a quarter-rank. By making the gain or loss faction-wide, there is extreme incentive on both sides to help. Otherwise, how would you know which defenders to penalize? Making it zero-sum ensures that people don't simply trade leaders. As well, it may promote larger strategies like having one raid feint at one leader while another raid goes after a different leader.
Perhaps there could be other goals. Maybe each small town (Southshore, Tarren Mill, etc.) could have a flag like the nodes in Arathi Basin. If a flag is held by the opposing side for a full 24 hours, the town is declared "defeated" for the week and everyone gains and loses 10% of a rank on Tuesday. (Nothing changes in town other than the flag, all npcs and quests would stay the same.)
However, even if something like the world goals is not implemented, I think that performance in the Battlegrounds should be the primary determiner of skill and rank. It is as close to a fair fight as you will find in WoW, and is a much better and simpler measure of skill than the current system.
Skill is the ability to defeat an opponent in a fair fight.
Seems logical. If two characters fight each other, the more skilled player should win most of the time (all other things being equal).
The hard part, in World of Warcraft, comes with finding a fair fight. If a level 50 is attacked by a level 60, is that a fair fight? If a level 60 is attacked by 2 level 55s, is that a fair fight? What about if a character is fighting a mob, and another character jumps him? What if the character fighting the mob is higher level than the attacker?
Also, when does a fight end? In the zerg at Tarren Mill, how do you tell when one side wins? Is each individual death the end of a fight, or does it matter if one side pushes the other side back?
If you look at all the possibilities, it seems very hard to actually determine if a fight was fair or not, especially in world PvP. However, if we can see that Battlegrounds are reasonably fair. Both sides start with roughly equal numbers, level, and position. There is no interference from outside. There is a defined starting point and ending point. For the most part, the team that wins the Battleground is more skilled than the side that loses.
So my proposal is to make honor dependent on performance in Battlegrounds.
The basic idea is that each character has a PvP rating, like a chess rating. When a character's team wins a Battleground, her rating goes up proportional to the combined rating of the opposing team. If she win a victory against a good team, her rating increases more. If she loses, her rating goes down.
Then rating determines how fast you progress through the ranks, and what the maximum rank you can attain is. Each week, during Tuesday maintence, your increase in rank based on rating is applied. You would need to play a certain number of matches in the week (say 3) to be eligible for a change in rank. A person who has an average rating might only be able to reach Rank 5 (and take 8 weeks to get there). A person one standard deviation higher might reach Rank 8 in the same time. Rank 14 would need a *very* high rating (three or four standard deviations, probably).
There are a lot of benefits to this proposal. First, ratings are an intuitively simple idea. Everyone understands them. If a Grand Marshal is someone who wins all the time, that just makes sense. Second, since your rating changes with each game, you don't need to play a great many games. However, you need to win in the games you do play.
Third, since ratings depends on victory rather than kills, it also rewards players who play for the victory. People who heal, who play defense, who use strategy and tactics. Leadership becomes a valuable asset, as leadership leads to victory. Right now, I find that a lot of Rank 13/14s aren't really leaders, but loners who just rack up kills.
Fourth, since you now have ratings, you could match players by skill level. The game could match players of equal skill level. Higher rated players get to play other higher rated players.
Now, there are some negatives to this proposal. People who solo and join pickup groups will be at a disadvantage compared to people who run in teams. Matching using rating could moderate this a bit.
The biggest downside though, is that it will completely kill world PvP. World PvP just does not fit into the rating system. You simply cannot guarantee the "fair fight" that the rating system depends on.
The only idea I have to encourage world PvP is to have faction-wide goals. For example, if one of the six Race leaders (Thrall, Magni, etc.) is killed, everyone in the enemy faction gains an extra quarter-rank on Tuesday, and everyone in the friendly faction loses a quarter-rank. By making the gain or loss faction-wide, there is extreme incentive on both sides to help. Otherwise, how would you know which defenders to penalize? Making it zero-sum ensures that people don't simply trade leaders. As well, it may promote larger strategies like having one raid feint at one leader while another raid goes after a different leader.
Perhaps there could be other goals. Maybe each small town (Southshore, Tarren Mill, etc.) could have a flag like the nodes in Arathi Basin. If a flag is held by the opposing side for a full 24 hours, the town is declared "defeated" for the week and everyone gains and loses 10% of a rank on Tuesday. (Nothing changes in town other than the flag, all npcs and quests would stay the same.)
However, even if something like the world goals is not implemented, I think that performance in the Battlegrounds should be the primary determiner of skill and rank. It is as close to a fair fight as you will find in WoW, and is a much better and simpler measure of skill than the current system.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
PvP, Skill, and the Honor System, Part I
The Honor System in World of Warcraft is fundamentally flawed. Most people expect the Honor system to measure skill in PvP, and it really does not. A Grand Marshal or High Warlord should be the most skilled fighters on the server, and often they are not. The flaw in the Honor System can be summed up as follows (Coriel's First Law of Skill):
If the metric used to measure skill cannot decrease, you are not measuring skill, but time.
Intuitively, this idea is pretty clear. In most other games, your skill metric can go down as easily as it goes up. Consider poker, where you can measure skill with money won. A good player wins more money than an bad player. In fact, a bad player often loses money. And this possibility to win or lose money occurs on every hand. If you could never lose money in poker, the person with the most money would be the person who could play the longest.
Another example is the batting average in baseball. You get a hit, your batting average goes up. You strike out, your batting average goes down. Or how about chess? You win a match, your rating goes up. You lose a match, your rating goes down.
Pretty much every game other than WoW gets this. Yet in WoW's PvP system, your honor total cannot decrease. If you go into a Battleground, or attack another player, you will never end up worse than when you started. And so the people who gain rank are the ones who play the most, not necessarily the most skilled players.
Now, there are all sorts of potential ways to change the metric so it more truely measures skill. For example, you could do Kills minus Deaths. Or Kills per Death. Or Kills per unit time played. Or some sort of rating system, where if you are defeated, your rating goes down proportionally to the rating of the one who killed you. The important thing is that each PvP encounter must be a risk, that your honor should have the potential to decrease as well as simply increase.
Of course, being a random anonymous internet pundit, I have a preferred alternative to the current Honor System. That will be the subject of Part II.
If the metric used to measure skill cannot decrease, you are not measuring skill, but time.
Intuitively, this idea is pretty clear. In most other games, your skill metric can go down as easily as it goes up. Consider poker, where you can measure skill with money won. A good player wins more money than an bad player. In fact, a bad player often loses money. And this possibility to win or lose money occurs on every hand. If you could never lose money in poker, the person with the most money would be the person who could play the longest.
Another example is the batting average in baseball. You get a hit, your batting average goes up. You strike out, your batting average goes down. Or how about chess? You win a match, your rating goes up. You lose a match, your rating goes down.
Pretty much every game other than WoW gets this. Yet in WoW's PvP system, your honor total cannot decrease. If you go into a Battleground, or attack another player, you will never end up worse than when you started. And so the people who gain rank are the ones who play the most, not necessarily the most skilled players.
Now, there are all sorts of potential ways to change the metric so it more truely measures skill. For example, you could do Kills minus Deaths. Or Kills per Death. Or Kills per unit time played. Or some sort of rating system, where if you are defeated, your rating goes down proportionally to the rating of the one who killed you. The important thing is that each PvP encounter must be a risk, that your honor should have the potential to decrease as well as simply increase.
Of course, being a random anonymous internet pundit, I have a preferred alternative to the current Honor System. That will be the subject of Part II.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Epic Charger!
At long last, I finished the paladin epic charger quest. I've had this quest for so long, and failed it so many times. After a while, I just stopped attempting it.
Today I joined a guild group trying the quest and we rocked Scholomance. We had one heart-stopping moment during the 3rd wave of spirits when three people died. Luckily we got some space and were able to resurrect them.
Then we faced Death Knight Darkreaver. I used my Holy Mightstone, which I had been saving for this day for months, and we just destroyed him!
Awesome, awesome day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)