For a very long time Blizzard has not allowed ordinary quests to be done in a raid group. When asked, they've always said that they feared everyone always joining large raids to steam roll content. In a lot of ways, it looks like FFXIV is proving this stance correct.
In the last patch, FFXIV introduced Hunts. Throughout the world, there are named monsters running around. The monsters have different difficulties: Rank B is roughly tuned for a 4-person group. Rank A is an 8-man group target, and Rank S are rare and require multiple groups.
However, SE did not include tagging with these mobs. Anyone who gets a few hits in gets credit for the kill and the reward.
So the etiquette that has developed is that if you find a Hunt mob, you announce it to the zone, wait for everyone to assemble, and then zerg it down. Doing this has made Hunts into the optimum method of getting endgame rewards, which has pushed even more people into doing them. You can actually see the effect on queues for instances and dungeons, as they are much longer than before.
Of course, since so many people are gathered in the zerg, there is no challenge. Interestingly enough, people who play late at night or early in the morning report that Hunts are a lot more fun when done in small groups, closer to how SE intended them to be done.
The obvious solution is to enforce tagging. Yet that might lead to uncooperative gameplay. I joined a guild group that was going after a Rank A in one zone a couple nights ago. We advertised in zone chat, and ended up with a full 8-man group and 2 others. It was nice that those two others could still participate and get rewards, rather than be left out.
SE could also greatly reduce the rewards. But then doing Hunts "as intended" is no longer a decent experience.
The other idea I've seen is to make Hunt rewards a "once a week" thing. You can only get rewards from a given named mob once per week. This is probably the best solution. It doesn't stop the zerg entirely, but it does thin it out.
All in all, FFXIV's Hunts are a cautionary tale for MMO devs looking to make world content for small groups.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
10 Years :: 10 Questions
Alternative Chat is running a survey in advance of WoW's upcoming 10th anniversary. Here are my answers.
1. Why did you start playing Warcraft?
I was always interested in the idea of MMOs, though I hadn't really started playing any. Since Blizzard made WoW, I decided to try it out. However, it was actually sold out in stores, so I didn't get it until a few months after launch.
2. What was the first ever character you rolled?
My university roommate and I rolled characters on a PvP server. I made a Male Undead Warrior, and he made a priest. He stopped playing after a few months, but I kept going. I remember being a terrible warrior, because I didn't really understand the concept of threat, and so had a very hard time tanking.
I made it to about level 42 with that warrior. Then Blizzard introduced the PvP honour system. At that time, you got honour points for killing enemy players within a certain range of your level. At 42ish, I was just in range of the level 50s. The next couple of weeks were a constant barrage of ganks from level 50s.
I deleted that warrior in a fit of rage. I then created Coriel, my Female Human Paladin, on a PvE server. I think I made her because I had recently read Elizabeth Moon's Paksennarion and was inspired by the best and most hardcore paladin in all of fantasy! She's been my main ever since.
3. Which factors determined your faction choice in game?
My friend wanted to play Horde, so that's where we started. My second character was Alliance to see the other side.
As well, I love the Alliance paladins and their lore, so that's why I've stuck with that faction.
4. What has been your most memorable moment in Warcraft and why?
Doing Scarlet Monastery for the first time with a group of complete newbies. We were utterly shocked by Whitemane's "Arise, my champion!"
5. What is your favourite aspect of the game and has this always been the case?
I like questing and large-group raiding. I like seeing all the stories that Blizzard comes up, and I generally prefer to have done every quest before starting on endgame.
For raiding, I much prefer the larger raids, the 20-40 man ones. I like having specific responsibilities for different parts of the fight, and then seeing the entire team come together to accomplish a goal.
6. Do you have an area in game that you always return to?
No, I tend to move with the flow of the game and the expansions.
7. How long have you /played and has that been continuous?
I'm not currently subscribed, so I don't know my /played. Until now, I've been subscribed pretty much since the beginning, maybe with lapses of one or two months. However, I unsubscribed at the end of 2013, and haven't resubscribed since then.
8. Admit it: do you read quest text or not?
I read quest text. In fact, when expansions came out, I would turn Scrolling Quest Text back on to prevent the temptation of skipping it. I rather miss that option.
9. Are there any regrets from your time in game?
Yes. No. Maybe.
I wonder about this question a lot. Perhaps there's a universe where I didn't play MMOs and did something useful instead. But in reality, I probably would have just ended up playing other games or watching TV.
10. What effect has Warcraft had on your life outside gaming?
In some ways, not a lot. I do have this blog, and I've really enjoyed writing and thinking about things in more detail.
However, I do think it has affected me politically and philosophically though. I think that I am a lot more conservative because of my experiences in WoW. WoW is, for the most part, a level playing field. You can be anyone, you can be anything. And yet so many of us choose to behave badly when the restraints of normal society are lifted. I have come to a far more Hobbesian view of the world since I started playing MMOs.
1. Why did you start playing Warcraft?
I was always interested in the idea of MMOs, though I hadn't really started playing any. Since Blizzard made WoW, I decided to try it out. However, it was actually sold out in stores, so I didn't get it until a few months after launch.
2. What was the first ever character you rolled?
My university roommate and I rolled characters on a PvP server. I made a Male Undead Warrior, and he made a priest. He stopped playing after a few months, but I kept going. I remember being a terrible warrior, because I didn't really understand the concept of threat, and so had a very hard time tanking.
I made it to about level 42 with that warrior. Then Blizzard introduced the PvP honour system. At that time, you got honour points for killing enemy players within a certain range of your level. At 42ish, I was just in range of the level 50s. The next couple of weeks were a constant barrage of ganks from level 50s.
I deleted that warrior in a fit of rage. I then created Coriel, my Female Human Paladin, on a PvE server. I think I made her because I had recently read Elizabeth Moon's Paksennarion and was inspired by the best and most hardcore paladin in all of fantasy! She's been my main ever since.
3. Which factors determined your faction choice in game?
My friend wanted to play Horde, so that's where we started. My second character was Alliance to see the other side.
As well, I love the Alliance paladins and their lore, so that's why I've stuck with that faction.
4. What has been your most memorable moment in Warcraft and why?
Doing Scarlet Monastery for the first time with a group of complete newbies. We were utterly shocked by Whitemane's "Arise, my champion!"
5. What is your favourite aspect of the game and has this always been the case?
I like questing and large-group raiding. I like seeing all the stories that Blizzard comes up, and I generally prefer to have done every quest before starting on endgame.
For raiding, I much prefer the larger raids, the 20-40 man ones. I like having specific responsibilities for different parts of the fight, and then seeing the entire team come together to accomplish a goal.
6. Do you have an area in game that you always return to?
No, I tend to move with the flow of the game and the expansions.
7. How long have you /played and has that been continuous?
I'm not currently subscribed, so I don't know my /played. Until now, I've been subscribed pretty much since the beginning, maybe with lapses of one or two months. However, I unsubscribed at the end of 2013, and haven't resubscribed since then.
8. Admit it: do you read quest text or not?
I read quest text. In fact, when expansions came out, I would turn Scrolling Quest Text back on to prevent the temptation of skipping it. I rather miss that option.
9. Are there any regrets from your time in game?
Yes. No. Maybe.
I wonder about this question a lot. Perhaps there's a universe where I didn't play MMOs and did something useful instead. But in reality, I probably would have just ended up playing other games or watching TV.
10. What effect has Warcraft had on your life outside gaming?
In some ways, not a lot. I do have this blog, and I've really enjoyed writing and thinking about things in more detail.
However, I do think it has affected me politically and philosophically though. I think that I am a lot more conservative because of my experiences in WoW. WoW is, for the most part, a level playing field. You can be anyone, you can be anything. And yet so many of us choose to behave badly when the restraints of normal society are lifted. I have come to a far more Hobbesian view of the world since I started playing MMOs.
Monday, July 21, 2014
Sandbox PvP: What to do with the Losers?
Last week, I posted a story from the Mittani detailing how Goonswarm beat Test, not specifically on the battlefield, but by breaking them as an institution.
While it's a clever and effective tactic, one has to wonder if it is a good tactic for the game at large. One thing I've noticed is that when a guild or group breaks from drama, a significant percentage of players just quit the game outright. I would imagine that something similar happens in Eve when a guild breaks because of meta-game tactics.
Even generally, though, what should a PvP sandbox do with the losers of a PvP war? For the sandbox to be meaningful, they must lose. But for the long term health of the game, they should not be pushed to quit.
Perhaps the winning side should have an incentive to absorb the losers. There's a lot to be said for this approach. For one thing, it pushes the winning side to be more "gentle" in their tactics. If you pursue warfare by any means necessary, the losers won't join you after the fight is done, and that weakens your long term position.
For example, maybe in Eve there could be something where every planet has a governor. Only one planet per account, and the governor has to continue to keep the planet in health. So if an alliance conquers more planets than it has members, it needs people to maintain those planets. Simply absorbing the current governors into the winning alliance structure gives you people.
For the losing side, well, you lost the war. But now you are on the winning side, so maybe you keep playing with new people.
Of course, the issue with this is that it's a case of the "rich getting richer". An alliance which wins a war due to superior numbers has even more numbers after the conflict finishes. That could set up a positive feedback loop which pushes the alliance to dominate the game.
While it's a clever and effective tactic, one has to wonder if it is a good tactic for the game at large. One thing I've noticed is that when a guild or group breaks from drama, a significant percentage of players just quit the game outright. I would imagine that something similar happens in Eve when a guild breaks because of meta-game tactics.
Even generally, though, what should a PvP sandbox do with the losers of a PvP war? For the sandbox to be meaningful, they must lose. But for the long term health of the game, they should not be pushed to quit.
Perhaps the winning side should have an incentive to absorb the losers. There's a lot to be said for this approach. For one thing, it pushes the winning side to be more "gentle" in their tactics. If you pursue warfare by any means necessary, the losers won't join you after the fight is done, and that weakens your long term position.
For example, maybe in Eve there could be something where every planet has a governor. Only one planet per account, and the governor has to continue to keep the planet in health. So if an alliance conquers more planets than it has members, it needs people to maintain those planets. Simply absorbing the current governors into the winning alliance structure gives you people.
For the losing side, well, you lost the war. But now you are on the winning side, so maybe you keep playing with new people.
Of course, the issue with this is that it's a case of the "rich getting richer". An alliance which wins a war due to superior numbers has even more numbers after the conflict finishes. That could set up a positive feedback loop which pushes the alliance to dominate the game.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Spycraft in Eve Online
I came across this story from the Mittani (leader of Goons in Eve):
THE WOES OF TEST RECON IN FOUNTAIN
Two interesting comments popped up on my Update Dance piece:
One of the greatest troubles TEST faced during the war was information overload. There was so much to organize and so many channels of communication were dead as people went afk.
Night after night it was a hairpull trying to find structures to bash. Just from alliance chat, we'd get 40-ish people in bombers with blops easy; getting someone in recon to provide the location of an SBU was the hard part.
Also:
I was in White Van during that war. The number of early mistakes the CFC made in not IHUBing captured systems, or letting me follow folks SBUing... After week three I gave up, my reports and scouting went nowhere... asked for jobs, got none.
This was because the GIA had compromised the spreadsheet that TEST Recon used to record all their scout information on. We wouldn't alter the spreadsheet in a flagrant way, just adding slight errors throughout it which were always written off as user error or incompetence. POS locations would remain on the right planet, but slip a moon or two to the left; key tower reinforcement timers would be adjusted by an hour too soon or too late. Because we were subtle, this 'incompetence' resulted in a ton of redundant and replicated work as the same targets had to be scanned and rescanned. Eventually the whole org collapsed under the strain, and without functional recon you cannot win - or even stay afloat - in a bloc war.
That's the kind of thing that happens in the first few weeks of a war with the CFC, when our enemies are usually yowling to anyone who will listen about how we're 'not winning fast enough' or otherwise completely stalemated: we assault the people and the institutions of a hostile org first, and the actual sov is an afterthought. Watching your foes tear each other apart as they blame one another for errors your agents seeded is an added bonus.
I don't know if this really happened, or if the Mittani is just sowing dissension and playing head games with his current enemies. The comments on the post seem to indicate that it really happened.
Sunday, July 06, 2014
DPS Feedback Idea - Historical Meter
As you know, I am of the opinion that the reason of lot of DPS players play badly is not because they don't care, or are innately bad. Instead it is because they lack the required feedback necessary to improve.
Currently, the best tool for feedback is DPS meters. But while DPS meters work, they are a very blunt instrument. They don't account for differences in gear, or fights, or even tell what number you should be aiming for.
I think a better DPS meter could be made, but it would probably require the game developers to implement.
Currently, DPS meters compare you to the other players in the current fight. It would be better if the DPS meter compared you to the overall historical performance of people with your item level.
Let's start by recording everyone's performance on individual boss fights. Note the boss, DPS done, and the item level of the player. Once you aggregate all the records, you can tell for a given boss and item level, what the top DPS was, or what the median DPS was.
That gives you a target number. If the top DPS on Boss A at i500 is 10k, you can tell the player after Boss A: "You did 6k damage. The top DPS was 10k." That is concrete feedback. The player can't blame her gear or the fight mechanics.
Of course, using the top DPS mark is probably bad, because it would be a very lucky parse and probably individuals doing something excessive to hit that mark. A better target number would be something like one standard deviation above the median. Or possibly target the range between the median and one standard deviation.
The advantage of using this mechanism, which looks back at the history of all the people doing the fight is that it nullifies variables and fight mechanics. Because the amount of data collected is large, a few lucky parses or exceptional players do not skew the results. It provides a viable target number that people know for a fact is within the capabilities of the class and gear.
As well, this doesn't necessarily involve the entire raid. You aren't being compared to other people you know, but to the entirety of the WoW community.
If feedback is vague, you can always make excuses as to why you don't need to improve. For the DPS to improve, they first need unequivocal proof that improvement is necessary. This Historical DPS Meter would provide that feedback.
Currently, the best tool for feedback is DPS meters. But while DPS meters work, they are a very blunt instrument. They don't account for differences in gear, or fights, or even tell what number you should be aiming for.
I think a better DPS meter could be made, but it would probably require the game developers to implement.
Currently, DPS meters compare you to the other players in the current fight. It would be better if the DPS meter compared you to the overall historical performance of people with your item level.
Let's start by recording everyone's performance on individual boss fights. Note the boss, DPS done, and the item level of the player. Once you aggregate all the records, you can tell for a given boss and item level, what the top DPS was, or what the median DPS was.
That gives you a target number. If the top DPS on Boss A at i500 is 10k, you can tell the player after Boss A: "You did 6k damage. The top DPS was 10k." That is concrete feedback. The player can't blame her gear or the fight mechanics.
Of course, using the top DPS mark is probably bad, because it would be a very lucky parse and probably individuals doing something excessive to hit that mark. A better target number would be something like one standard deviation above the median. Or possibly target the range between the median and one standard deviation.
The advantage of using this mechanism, which looks back at the history of all the people doing the fight is that it nullifies variables and fight mechanics. Because the amount of data collected is large, a few lucky parses or exceptional players do not skew the results. It provides a viable target number that people know for a fact is within the capabilities of the class and gear.
As well, this doesn't necessarily involve the entire raid. You aren't being compared to other people you know, but to the entirety of the WoW community.
If feedback is vague, you can always make excuses as to why you don't need to improve. For the DPS to improve, they first need unequivocal proof that improvement is necessary. This Historical DPS Meter would provide that feedback.
Monday, June 30, 2014
Subsystem Depth
I was thinking over how I currently play MMOs, and how I used to play MMOs. I noticed a small and unusual pattern.
Back in Vanilla, I used to PvP. Not a whole lot, and not with any great degree of skill. But I did battlegrounds and eventually got Knight-Captain rank in the old PvP system [1]. Then in later expansions, Blizzard expanded on PvP, adding ratings, PvP gear, arena teams, etc. PvP used to be pretty shallow, and Blizzard made it deeper. I tried the new system for a little bit, but ultimately my response was to stop playing PvP.
Before Mists, I used to collect minipets. Again, not hardcore, but I liked trying to get minipets and seeing my collection expand. Then Blizzard added Pet Battles, a deep system that greatly expanded gameplay around minipets. I tried Pet Battles for a little bit, but ultimately my response was to stop bothering with minipets.
In WoW, I used to craft a bit. I got my professions to max, and liked collecting recipes. FFXIV has a much deeper and more complex crafting system. I tried the FFXIV crafting system for a little bit, but ultimately my response is not to touch crafting at all.
I'm not sure if there are other examples (perhaps Challenge Mode dungeons, or maybe Galactic Starfighter in SWTOR). But in each case, the developers added depth to the subsystem, made it a more interesting and deeper experience. But my response to that increased depth was to stop bothering with that subsystem, even if I enjoyed it before.
Paradoxically, as more developer effort was put into all these different facets of the game, the "area" of the game that I participated in grew smaller and smaller.
I would say that adding depth also increased the barrier to participation at a decent level for these subsystems. My focus was on raiding and PvE, and I was perfectly happy to play with these other shallow subsytems. To PvP a little bit, to collect a few minipets, to craft a little bit. In the current game, all I do is the raiding and PvE, and that is a lesser experience than it was before.
Of course, the flip side is that for people who want to focus on PvP, or on Pet Battles, or on crafting, the new deep subsystems are a lot more fun for them.
Is it better for an MMO to have several equally deep facets, or is it better to have one or two deep facets and several shallow ones?
1. I maintain that I stopped at Knight-Captain because it was clearly the best named rank for paladins.
Back in Vanilla, I used to PvP. Not a whole lot, and not with any great degree of skill. But I did battlegrounds and eventually got Knight-Captain rank in the old PvP system [1]. Then in later expansions, Blizzard expanded on PvP, adding ratings, PvP gear, arena teams, etc. PvP used to be pretty shallow, and Blizzard made it deeper. I tried the new system for a little bit, but ultimately my response was to stop playing PvP.
Before Mists, I used to collect minipets. Again, not hardcore, but I liked trying to get minipets and seeing my collection expand. Then Blizzard added Pet Battles, a deep system that greatly expanded gameplay around minipets. I tried Pet Battles for a little bit, but ultimately my response was to stop bothering with minipets.
In WoW, I used to craft a bit. I got my professions to max, and liked collecting recipes. FFXIV has a much deeper and more complex crafting system. I tried the FFXIV crafting system for a little bit, but ultimately my response is not to touch crafting at all.
I'm not sure if there are other examples (perhaps Challenge Mode dungeons, or maybe Galactic Starfighter in SWTOR). But in each case, the developers added depth to the subsystem, made it a more interesting and deeper experience. But my response to that increased depth was to stop bothering with that subsystem, even if I enjoyed it before.
Paradoxically, as more developer effort was put into all these different facets of the game, the "area" of the game that I participated in grew smaller and smaller.
I would say that adding depth also increased the barrier to participation at a decent level for these subsystems. My focus was on raiding and PvE, and I was perfectly happy to play with these other shallow subsytems. To PvP a little bit, to collect a few minipets, to craft a little bit. In the current game, all I do is the raiding and PvE, and that is a lesser experience than it was before.
Of course, the flip side is that for people who want to focus on PvP, or on Pet Battles, or on crafting, the new deep subsystems are a lot more fun for them.
Is it better for an MMO to have several equally deep facets, or is it better to have one or two deep facets and several shallow ones?
1. I maintain that I stopped at Knight-Captain because it was clearly the best named rank for paladins.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
The Achilles Heel of MMOs
From Reddit:
We eat our young.
I'm not exactly sure what just happened
I'm fairly new to MMORPG's in general. FFXIV is the first time I've ever played one.
I'm level 15, and I was on a quest called 'It's Probably Pirates: Limsa Lominsa' It involves clearing out the dungeon 'Sastasha'.
For some reason I got a message right before we reached the last boss that said "You have been dismissed from both the party and the duty."
So now I'm sitting here upset at having wasted 40 minutes grinding away and wondering what happened. Did I do something wrong? I don't understand.
We eat our young.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Republic Trooper Done!
This post contains significant spoilers for the Republic Trooper storyline in Star Wars: The Old Republic.
I finished the Republic Trooper storyline a while back, but realized that I hadn't actually written a post on it. I played a Commando (ranged dps/heals) and went partially Dark Side.
Overall, the Trooper storyline is decent, but flawed. I'll break this into two lists, detailing the good and the bad.
The Good
I finished the Republic Trooper storyline a while back, but realized that I hadn't actually written a post on it. I played a Commando (ranged dps/heals) and went partially Dark Side.
Overall, the Trooper storyline is decent, but flawed. I'll break this into two lists, detailing the good and the bad.
The Good
- Your squad - Unlike some of the other stories, where your companions seem only matter to the main character, the Trooper squad acts more like a real squad. There are several instances where you assign different roles to different members, or switch companions as you move through the level.
- Chapter 1 - Chapter 1 is very good and very personal for your character. It's a very satisfying chapter, all in all, with excellent villains.
- General Garza - Garza is pretty awesome. A tough-as-nails, older woman who is in charge of Republic Special Forces. She's devoted to the cause, but very "ends justify the means". The most memorable NPC in the storyline.
- Dark Side - There are two different ways to play Dark Side. One is "ends justify the means" where you do things like sacrifice civilians in order to ensure a military victory. The other is just being a jerk and out for personal gain. The Trooper storyline does a very good job differentiating between the two.
- A-77 - The trooper contains the single best moral choice I have seen in any of the TOR stories so far. In Chapter 1, you're introduced to Sergeant Jaxo, a very likeable NPC who supports you on one of your missions. You meet up with her again a couple of times later in the game. In Chapter 3, she gets captured and taken to a top-secret Imperial prison on an asteroid where she's held with 300 high-ranking civilians. Jaxo breaks out of her cell and signals Republic Command with the location. Your team goes in to rescue her.
However, it's a trap, and Imperial Forces start bombarding the asteroid. You can either save the 300 civilians in the cells, or Jaxo in the communications section. The kicker is that Jaxo breaks, and begs you to save her.
Crazy hard choice. I had to quit out of the game and think about it for a long while before I finally decided to save Jaxo. Beautiful, beautiful choice.
The Bad
- General Rakton - The villain in Chapter 3 is not very memorable, or even much of a personal connection to you. Unlike the villains in the other stories, or even the villains from Chapter 1, Rakton is just not interesting.
- Chapter 3 locations - War has broken out, but your squad is sent to out of the way locations. I guess they didn't have much choice given that the planet order is fixed for all stories. However, it really feels like you should have been on the front lines instead. It picks up when you finally get to Corellia, and feels more like the war story it should have been.
Those are really the only two things wrong with the Trooper storyline, but they combine to make the last part of story dull and relatively uninteresting. Chapter 3 (aside from A-77) just didn't work, and that drags down the story as a whole.
On the whole, the Trooper story was decent. However, it started out very strong with Chapter One, and went downhill after that.
On the whole, the Trooper story was decent. However, it started out very strong with Chapter One, and went downhill after that.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Secondary Stat Attunement
In the latest alpha patch, WoW introduced a new gearing mechanic: Secondary Stat Attunement. Each specialization is "attuned" to a specific secondary stat, gaining 5% more of that stat.
I am doubtful that this will be a good idea.
First off, I'm not entirely certain what advantage this mechanic brings. It might spread out the secondary stats, so that different specs chase different stats and thus chase different gear. It is a bad situation if the same piece of gear is Best-in-Slot for every single class.
It may also help a new player who doesn't know which secondary stat to look for. If they at least make sure that they have their attuned stat, it gives them a small basis on which to compare gear.
The problem, though, will come if the attuned stat does not match the theorycraft. Essentially, the theorycrafters will end up ranking the secondary stats for each spec. Gear with the top two secondary stats will be Best-in-Slot. If the attuned stat is one of those top stats (preferably the top one), then things will work out.
However, if the attuned stat is 3rd or lower on the ranking, Secondary Stat Attunement turns into a massive trap for the new player. The heuristic, "My Attunement is Critical Strike, so I should look for Critical Strike gear", is not just wrong, but it will cause new players to discard better gear in favour of worse gear. The potential for misleading people seems very high. Not to mention that it might cause loot arguments where players insist that specs must take gear with an attuned stat.
As well, it does seem like the possibility of multiple builds will be lessened. Arguably the most interesting time to be a Holy Paladin was back in Cataclysm when we had the Mastery builds and the Spirit/Haste builds. Having an attuned stat seems like it will always push us towards one specific build.
Holy Paladins
A specific problem with Holy Paladins is that the current Attuned Stat is Critical Strike. It's a nod to Vanilla and TBC when we desired Critical Strike above everything else.
However, healers are generally not fond of Critical Strike, no matter what the math says. Critical Strike is unreliable in the short run, and healing is all about the short run. Back in the day we chased Crit because of Illumination and mana regen, and mana regen belongs to the long run, when the Law of Large Numbers kicks in. As a means to recover mana, Critical Strike was great. As an aid to healing, it's suspicious.
Healers far prefer stats which always work. Sometimes healing pushes you to be pessimistic. In the crunch, Critical Strike will let you down.
Now, if heals are much smaller than health pools, then it's not as bad. As well, it does synergize well with Mastery, so if Mastery is our other chase stat, then it will work out decently.
Conclusions
The probability of Secondary Stat Attunement going badly and causing issues is high. High enough that I think it outweighs the potential benefits. The game has been fine when letting the theorycrafters determine the best stats from the basic math. Forcing the different specializations to have different "best stats" through this mechanism is overly heavy-handed, and likely to backfire, in my opinion.
I am doubtful that this will be a good idea.
First off, I'm not entirely certain what advantage this mechanic brings. It might spread out the secondary stats, so that different specs chase different stats and thus chase different gear. It is a bad situation if the same piece of gear is Best-in-Slot for every single class.
It may also help a new player who doesn't know which secondary stat to look for. If they at least make sure that they have their attuned stat, it gives them a small basis on which to compare gear.
The problem, though, will come if the attuned stat does not match the theorycraft. Essentially, the theorycrafters will end up ranking the secondary stats for each spec. Gear with the top two secondary stats will be Best-in-Slot. If the attuned stat is one of those top stats (preferably the top one), then things will work out.
However, if the attuned stat is 3rd or lower on the ranking, Secondary Stat Attunement turns into a massive trap for the new player. The heuristic, "My Attunement is Critical Strike, so I should look for Critical Strike gear", is not just wrong, but it will cause new players to discard better gear in favour of worse gear. The potential for misleading people seems very high. Not to mention that it might cause loot arguments where players insist that specs must take gear with an attuned stat.
As well, it does seem like the possibility of multiple builds will be lessened. Arguably the most interesting time to be a Holy Paladin was back in Cataclysm when we had the Mastery builds and the Spirit/Haste builds. Having an attuned stat seems like it will always push us towards one specific build.
Holy Paladins
A specific problem with Holy Paladins is that the current Attuned Stat is Critical Strike. It's a nod to Vanilla and TBC when we desired Critical Strike above everything else.
However, healers are generally not fond of Critical Strike, no matter what the math says. Critical Strike is unreliable in the short run, and healing is all about the short run. Back in the day we chased Crit because of Illumination and mana regen, and mana regen belongs to the long run, when the Law of Large Numbers kicks in. As a means to recover mana, Critical Strike was great. As an aid to healing, it's suspicious.
Healers far prefer stats which always work. Sometimes healing pushes you to be pessimistic. In the crunch, Critical Strike will let you down.
Now, if heals are much smaller than health pools, then it's not as bad. As well, it does synergize well with Mastery, so if Mastery is our other chase stat, then it will work out decently.
Conclusions
The probability of Secondary Stat Attunement going badly and causing issues is high. High enough that I think it outweighs the potential benefits. The game has been fine when letting the theorycrafters determine the best stats from the basic math. Forcing the different specializations to have different "best stats" through this mechanism is overly heavy-handed, and likely to backfire, in my opinion.
Monday, June 02, 2014
Cosmetic Gear and Player Gender
This thought was inspired by a post by Njessi of Hawtpants of the Old Republic.
With the increasing amount of cosmetic gear and options like transmogrification in MMOs, has it become easier to guess at the gender of the player behind a character?
It's a total stereotype, but maybe women are more likely to put effort into making aesthetically pleasing costumes for their characters. Especially some of the more subtle outfits.
Certainly, the vast majority of female characters wearing bikinis and outfits that show a lot of skin are probably being played by men. So merely not wearing a bikini shifts the odds of a female character being played by a woman. And maybe men are more likely to wear "achievement" gear or martial gear, like items with a lot of spikes, or Sith armor. Or maybe not.
I just found this idea interesting because it doesn't appear before cosmetic gear. Before cosmetic gear, a character wears her most powerful gear. Gear at that point tells you more about what the character has achieved than anything about the player.
Cosmetic gear, on the other hand, is a window into the tastes of the player. Thus it says a lot about the player, and maybe more than some would want.
With the increasing amount of cosmetic gear and options like transmogrification in MMOs, has it become easier to guess at the gender of the player behind a character?
It's a total stereotype, but maybe women are more likely to put effort into making aesthetically pleasing costumes for their characters. Especially some of the more subtle outfits.
Certainly, the vast majority of female characters wearing bikinis and outfits that show a lot of skin are probably being played by men. So merely not wearing a bikini shifts the odds of a female character being played by a woman. And maybe men are more likely to wear "achievement" gear or martial gear, like items with a lot of spikes, or Sith armor. Or maybe not.
I just found this idea interesting because it doesn't appear before cosmetic gear. Before cosmetic gear, a character wears her most powerful gear. Gear at that point tells you more about what the character has achieved than anything about the player.
Cosmetic gear, on the other hand, is a window into the tastes of the player. Thus it says a lot about the player, and maybe more than some would want.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Malaise
I've been in a bit of a funk with games over the last couple of weeks. I just haven't felt like playing anything. Here's a bit of a round-up with what's going on in my videogame life.
Elder Scrolls Online
I gave up on ESO. I tried a dungeon and it was a terrible experience. Quasi-zerg, bad combat. No feeling of control or progress. I cancelled my subscription after that dungeon.
I do kind of regret not trying out PvP, but at the time everyone was talking about immortal vampires spewing bats and killing entire raids of people. That sounded pretty dumb to me, and I'm not really a PvP player at the best of times, so I just never got around to it.
The Old Republic
For some reason, I'm now the recruiting officer in our guild. About half our raid team decided to retire a couple months ago, so we're building back up. I'm trying to get a bench and rotation going. All in all, this is the main game I'm playing.
Final Fantasy XIV
I'm still subscribed, and I still kind of want to play it. I just never log in. In some ways, I feel like I got to the point where the game is too difficult for me. I'm not sure that's strictly true, it may have been entirely my experience with Titan HM. I just can't bring myself to attempt any of the new, more difficult, content.
Archeage
For some stupid reason, I bought into the alpha. I levelled a character up to 15 and then just stopped logging in. I really have no idea why. The game was rather interesting up to that point.
Diablo 3
I'm still playing D3 a bit. I got my Crusader up to 70 and up to about Torment II in difficulty. I occasionally play with a friend and he seems reluctant to move up difficulties, so we're farming Torment I and it is terribly easy and boring. I've been desultorily playing low level alts.
Transistor
A new game from the people who made Bastion. I reinstalled Steam just for this game. Then I ended up playing for 15 minutes on the Tuesday when it came out, and haven't touched it since. It looks like it will be an excellent game and those 15 minutes were a lot of fun. But I don't know, it's like I don't want to give it the time and effort that it deserves.
Wildstar
I haven't bought Wildstar. I tried it a few months ago in Closed Beta and did not like it. But the rest of the community seems very excited about it. I'm not sure if it would be worth trying again, or if I'll just end up disliking it for the same reasons as before.
Twitter
Technically not a game. I gave up on Twitter a few days ago and deactivated my account. Too much outrage, from every direction. It's like seeing a mob being whipped up in real time, and a new mob for a new outrage every day. The French Revolution wasn't that much fun the first time around, and I see no point in repeating it in a virtual space.
As well, I think Twitter really "misses the forest for the trees". Everything seems so focused on the micro, that there's little effort made to step back and look at the big picture.
Honestly, I've been without Twitter for several days now, and do not miss it in the least.
Summary
So that's what's been happening with me lately. My enthusiasm for games seems to have fallen off a cliff for some reason, and that's been reflected in the amount of blogging lately. Hopefully I will try to post more next week.
Elder Scrolls Online
I gave up on ESO. I tried a dungeon and it was a terrible experience. Quasi-zerg, bad combat. No feeling of control or progress. I cancelled my subscription after that dungeon.
I do kind of regret not trying out PvP, but at the time everyone was talking about immortal vampires spewing bats and killing entire raids of people. That sounded pretty dumb to me, and I'm not really a PvP player at the best of times, so I just never got around to it.
The Old Republic
For some reason, I'm now the recruiting officer in our guild. About half our raid team decided to retire a couple months ago, so we're building back up. I'm trying to get a bench and rotation going. All in all, this is the main game I'm playing.
Final Fantasy XIV
I'm still subscribed, and I still kind of want to play it. I just never log in. In some ways, I feel like I got to the point where the game is too difficult for me. I'm not sure that's strictly true, it may have been entirely my experience with Titan HM. I just can't bring myself to attempt any of the new, more difficult, content.
Archeage
For some stupid reason, I bought into the alpha. I levelled a character up to 15 and then just stopped logging in. I really have no idea why. The game was rather interesting up to that point.
Diablo 3
I'm still playing D3 a bit. I got my Crusader up to 70 and up to about Torment II in difficulty. I occasionally play with a friend and he seems reluctant to move up difficulties, so we're farming Torment I and it is terribly easy and boring. I've been desultorily playing low level alts.
Transistor
A new game from the people who made Bastion. I reinstalled Steam just for this game. Then I ended up playing for 15 minutes on the Tuesday when it came out, and haven't touched it since. It looks like it will be an excellent game and those 15 minutes were a lot of fun. But I don't know, it's like I don't want to give it the time and effort that it deserves.
Wildstar
I haven't bought Wildstar. I tried it a few months ago in Closed Beta and did not like it. But the rest of the community seems very excited about it. I'm not sure if it would be worth trying again, or if I'll just end up disliking it for the same reasons as before.
Technically not a game. I gave up on Twitter a few days ago and deactivated my account. Too much outrage, from every direction. It's like seeing a mob being whipped up in real time, and a new mob for a new outrage every day. The French Revolution wasn't that much fun the first time around, and I see no point in repeating it in a virtual space.
As well, I think Twitter really "misses the forest for the trees". Everything seems so focused on the micro, that there's little effort made to step back and look at the big picture.
Honestly, I've been without Twitter for several days now, and do not miss it in the least.
Summary
So that's what's been happening with me lately. My enthusiasm for games seems to have fallen off a cliff for some reason, and that's been reflected in the amount of blogging lately. Hopefully I will try to post more next week.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Alts and Challenge
Most games follow a pretty simple loop. The game presents a challenge, the player masters the challenge, and the game presents a harder challenge. Or if the game doesn't present a harder challenge, the player generally moves on. This idea is elaborated on in Raph Koster's Theory of Fun.
And most of MMOs work like this. As you level, the game presents harder and harder challenges for you to work on. Generally future raids and dungeons are more difficult that previous raids and dungeons.
But not when it comes to alts. Lately, it seems like most MMOs have your second or third character be an easier experience than your first character. Even before special effects, your first character involves you learning the game, and figuring out exactly how things work. So even if the difficulty was the exact same, you'd already have demonstrated mastery.
But modern MMOs are going further than that. They often give out effects that make leveling a second character less of a challenge than the first. For example, WoW has heirloom gear. The Old Republic makes your second character's companions more powerful.
But is this really a good idea? If you go back to the Theory of Fun presented above, this is the exact opposite of how a good game should act. The game should acknowledge the player's mastery, as evidenced by the first max-level character, and present a slightly harder challenge. Presenting an easier challenge will only lead to a player getting bored more easily.
Of course, this might be hard to implement in an MMO. Perhaps the best way would be a slider that increases the rate of XP gain, but also increases the amount of damage you take and decreases the amount of damage/healing you do. Of course this may have to be disabled in group content.
I think that the current approach to alts--giving the second character more advantages than the first--may be counter-productive in the long run, and may lead to players losing interest faster. The Theory of Fun implies that leveling the second character should be harder than leveling the first character, to keep the player interested and invested in demonstrating mastery over the new challenge.
And most of MMOs work like this. As you level, the game presents harder and harder challenges for you to work on. Generally future raids and dungeons are more difficult that previous raids and dungeons.
But not when it comes to alts. Lately, it seems like most MMOs have your second or third character be an easier experience than your first character. Even before special effects, your first character involves you learning the game, and figuring out exactly how things work. So even if the difficulty was the exact same, you'd already have demonstrated mastery.
But modern MMOs are going further than that. They often give out effects that make leveling a second character less of a challenge than the first. For example, WoW has heirloom gear. The Old Republic makes your second character's companions more powerful.
But is this really a good idea? If you go back to the Theory of Fun presented above, this is the exact opposite of how a good game should act. The game should acknowledge the player's mastery, as evidenced by the first max-level character, and present a slightly harder challenge. Presenting an easier challenge will only lead to a player getting bored more easily.
Of course, this might be hard to implement in an MMO. Perhaps the best way would be a slider that increases the rate of XP gain, but also increases the amount of damage you take and decreases the amount of damage/healing you do. Of course this may have to be disabled in group content.
I think that the current approach to alts--giving the second character more advantages than the first--may be counter-productive in the long run, and may lead to players losing interest faster. The Theory of Fun implies that leveling the second character should be harder than leveling the first character, to keep the player interested and invested in demonstrating mastery over the new challenge.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Useful on Day One
Wilhelm wrote an account of an Eve Online battle where a new player/account (only one-day old) contributed to a battle by "tackling" (preventing movement) of an enemy ship. Syncaine promptly seized on this as an example of why Eve is so amazing and all the theme parks suck.
I'd like to examine how Eve mechanics make this--a new player being useful to endgame players-- possible. There some obvious reasons, but also some subtle mechanics in play. I don't play Eve Online currently, so if I make a mistake with mechanics, please correct me in the comments.
I'd like to examine how Eve mechanics make this--a new player being useful to endgame players-- possible. There some obvious reasons, but also some subtle mechanics in play. I don't play Eve Online currently, so if I make a mistake with mechanics, please correct me in the comments.
1. No Maximum Group Size
The obvious mechanic is that Eve does not cap group size. You can take as many people as you want in your fleet. Thus taking a new player does not mean benching an experienced player. So you can take pretty much everyone to a battle.
2. Bounded Accuracy
In most theme parks, your chance to hit decreases as the level difference increases. Usually at a certain point, a low level character simply cannot hit the high level, and so is pretty much useless. In contrast, Eve pilots can always at least hit the enemy target most of the time. A new pilot might not do much damage, or be restricted to holding the enemy in place, but at least her abilities can connect.
3. Opposition Does Not Scale
The opposition in Eve does not scale. So bringing an extra player does not make the fight more difficult. It always makes it easier. If the opposition scaled, there would be a point below which bring lower level people would be a hindrance, would make the fight more difficult.
4. No Area-Of-Effect Attacks
This is the subtle mechanic, but in some ways it might be the key one. Eve is a single-target game with very few area attacks. I believe the few area attack weapons damage both friend and foe. The usual targeting mechanism is select a specific ship, lock on, and fire guns.
If you think about it in terms of global cooldowns, killing an enemy requires at least a GCD. That's one GCD not spent on attacking a different player. In PvP games, the priority targets are a function of the ones with the weakest defenses and highest damage. New pilots have very weak defenses, but very low damage. Most of the time, it is simply not worth the GCD to target a new pilot.
This allows new pilots to have pretty decent survivability, even in fights with much larger ships duking it out.
On the other hand, if ships had a decent AoE attack, a single AoE pulse might wipe out all the small enemy ships. Spending a GCD to kill several small ships at once might very well be a worthwhile tactic. If this was the case, there wouldn't be much point to bringing new pilots, as they would get AoE'd off the battlefield within the first few seconds of the fight.
Conclusions
Those are the four mechanics that I think allows Eve Online to have its new players be (theoretically) helpful in high level combat. In my mind, the first three are fairly obvious and could be implemented in theme parks in a straightforward manner if desired. The last one, though, is subtle, and has many ramifications. AoE is surprisingly important to Trinity gameplay.
Of course, I should note that just because Eve Online mechanics allow day-old pilots to participate in combat, that doesn't mean that most newbie pilots will ever see such a thing. From my experiences in Eve Online a while back, most corporations are so scared of getting scammed that they won't invite new pilots unless there is an existing out-of-game relationship to verify them.
It’s great that the mechanics allow this gameplay. Too bad the politics will make it inaccessible for most.
Friday, May 09, 2014
Blizzcon Ticket Sales
I didn't try to purchase tickets for Blizzcon, but by all accounts it was another fiasco. Effectively causing a self-inflicted Denial-Of-Service attack and then forcing people to luckily connect just doesn't seem like a good method of selling tickets. Blizzard should be able to do better.
The major problem, though, is one that most people are not going to be happy to hear: Blizzcon tickets are too cheap.
Yeah, I know, $200 USD isn't cheap. But more people are willing to pay that price than there are tickets available. That gap causes the rush and the bad problems. It also provides an opportunity for arbitrage, which adds scalpers to the mix, increasing the amount of issues. Blizzard tries to clamp down on ticket re-selling by authenticating tickets, but that has it's own flaws. Not to mention the possibilities of scams.
These types of problems are the issues that prices exist to solve. Raising prices would smooth out all these issues. Yes, it sucks that some fans won't be able to afford Blizzcon. But a lot of fans already can't afford it. Making the process smoother and taking the scalpers out of the mix would offset those issues. And at the end of the day, everyone who attends Blizzcon is a fan.
Here's how I would sell Blizzcon tickets:
1. Use a Dutch Auction
A Dutch Auction is an auction where a buyer puts in a bid for a quantity and the price she is willing to pay. When the auction ends, the price is lowered to the point where all items sell. Every buyer with a bid above that price gets the quantity of tickets they desire, and they all pay the lowest price.
For example, there are five tickets to be sold. Anna is willing to pay $1000 per ticket for 2 tickets. Betty is willing to pay $500 per ticket for 2 tickets. Charity is willing to pay $450 for 1 ticket. Daphne is willing to pay $400 per ticket for 2 tickets. Elsa is willing to pay $300 for a ticket. The five tickets are sold to Anna, Betty and Charity for $450 per ticket.
Essentially, this allows the prices to float, and the true price be "discovered". It drives scalpers out of the process, because there's no opportunity for arbitrage anymore. In the example above, if Charity is (ironically) a scalper , who is she going to sell her ticket to? Anna and Betty already have tickets. Daphne and Elsa are not willing pay enough to turn a profit.
You can set up a long period where people can log into Battle.net and place their bids. Depending on how credit card pre-authorization works, Blizzard might even be able to detect fraud earlier in the process.
It is a bit more complicated than normal rules for buying and selling, but we're all gamers. Learning the rules to new games is our raison d'etre.
2. Establish a Reserve Price and Donate the Excess Money to Charity.
Pick the price Blizzard needs to pay for the endeavor. Perhaps the current $200 dollars. That's the minimum price that tickets will sell for.
Then donate the amount over the reserve price to charity. So if the tickets sell for $450, $200 goes to Blizzard, and $250 goes to the charity.
What this does is mitigate concerns of unfairness, since BlizzCon is more public relations than profit. Yes, it is still disappointing for the people who couldn't afford tickets, but at least a lot of money went to a good cause. It's certainly far better than that money going to scalpers.
Final Thoughts
A Dutch Auction with excess profits going to charity is a far more sane way of selling tickets. We don't have to all spam the server within 10s of the start time. We remove the equipment failure factor from the process.
We remove the opportunity for arbitrage that attracts scalpers. This is pretty key by the way. Any solution that does not involve a price increase (a lottery, for example) will attract scalpers who will try to manipulate the situation. This in turn may make it easier for normal people to buy tickets.
Finally, some charitable cause will benefit, and that's always good, especially for a large public relations event.
Update: On Lotteries
A couple of comments have brought up lotteries. I posted this in response, but decided it's important enough to put it into the main post.
The thing about lotteries is that they run into the same arbitrage/scalper issue.
Let's say that you have 5 tickets, and 10 people want them. 50% chance of getting a ticket, right?
What will happen is an enterprising scalper will create 100 accounts and enter the lottery. The odds of you getting a ticket become drastically lower. The scalper wins the majority of tickets and resells them for profit.
Of course, Blizz can try for anti-scalper mechanisms, but those are hard to get right. Look at how much trouble we have with bots and RMT in the regular game. The scalpers--and the people who buy tickets from them--have more incentive than Blizzard.
The key point here is that floating prices work. When the fixed price does not match the "true" price, you always see weird behaviour. You see shortages, or hoarding, or complex arbitrage schemes. This applies to pretty much everything in real life.
The major problem, though, is one that most people are not going to be happy to hear: Blizzcon tickets are too cheap.
Yeah, I know, $200 USD isn't cheap. But more people are willing to pay that price than there are tickets available. That gap causes the rush and the bad problems. It also provides an opportunity for arbitrage, which adds scalpers to the mix, increasing the amount of issues. Blizzard tries to clamp down on ticket re-selling by authenticating tickets, but that has it's own flaws. Not to mention the possibilities of scams.
These types of problems are the issues that prices exist to solve. Raising prices would smooth out all these issues. Yes, it sucks that some fans won't be able to afford Blizzcon. But a lot of fans already can't afford it. Making the process smoother and taking the scalpers out of the mix would offset those issues. And at the end of the day, everyone who attends Blizzcon is a fan.
Here's how I would sell Blizzcon tickets:
1. Use a Dutch Auction
A Dutch Auction is an auction where a buyer puts in a bid for a quantity and the price she is willing to pay. When the auction ends, the price is lowered to the point where all items sell. Every buyer with a bid above that price gets the quantity of tickets they desire, and they all pay the lowest price.
For example, there are five tickets to be sold. Anna is willing to pay $1000 per ticket for 2 tickets. Betty is willing to pay $500 per ticket for 2 tickets. Charity is willing to pay $450 for 1 ticket. Daphne is willing to pay $400 per ticket for 2 tickets. Elsa is willing to pay $300 for a ticket. The five tickets are sold to Anna, Betty and Charity for $450 per ticket.
Essentially, this allows the prices to float, and the true price be "discovered". It drives scalpers out of the process, because there's no opportunity for arbitrage anymore. In the example above, if Charity is (ironically) a scalper , who is she going to sell her ticket to? Anna and Betty already have tickets. Daphne and Elsa are not willing pay enough to turn a profit.
You can set up a long period where people can log into Battle.net and place their bids. Depending on how credit card pre-authorization works, Blizzard might even be able to detect fraud earlier in the process.
It is a bit more complicated than normal rules for buying and selling, but we're all gamers. Learning the rules to new games is our raison d'etre.
2. Establish a Reserve Price and Donate the Excess Money to Charity.
Pick the price Blizzard needs to pay for the endeavor. Perhaps the current $200 dollars. That's the minimum price that tickets will sell for.
Then donate the amount over the reserve price to charity. So if the tickets sell for $450, $200 goes to Blizzard, and $250 goes to the charity.
What this does is mitigate concerns of unfairness, since BlizzCon is more public relations than profit. Yes, it is still disappointing for the people who couldn't afford tickets, but at least a lot of money went to a good cause. It's certainly far better than that money going to scalpers.
Final Thoughts
A Dutch Auction with excess profits going to charity is a far more sane way of selling tickets. We don't have to all spam the server within 10s of the start time. We remove the equipment failure factor from the process.
We remove the opportunity for arbitrage that attracts scalpers. This is pretty key by the way. Any solution that does not involve a price increase (a lottery, for example) will attract scalpers who will try to manipulate the situation. This in turn may make it easier for normal people to buy tickets.
Finally, some charitable cause will benefit, and that's always good, especially for a large public relations event.
Update: On Lotteries
A couple of comments have brought up lotteries. I posted this in response, but decided it's important enough to put it into the main post.
The thing about lotteries is that they run into the same arbitrage/scalper issue.
Let's say that you have 5 tickets, and 10 people want them. 50% chance of getting a ticket, right?
What will happen is an enterprising scalper will create 100 accounts and enter the lottery. The odds of you getting a ticket become drastically lower. The scalper wins the majority of tickets and resells them for profit.
Of course, Blizz can try for anti-scalper mechanisms, but those are hard to get right. Look at how much trouble we have with bots and RMT in the regular game. The scalpers--and the people who buy tickets from them--have more incentive than Blizzard.
The key point here is that floating prices work. When the fixed price does not match the "true" price, you always see weird behaviour. You see shortages, or hoarding, or complex arbitrage schemes. This applies to pretty much everything in real life.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
American vs Japanese Players
Here is a very interesting reddit post on the difference between Japanese and American players in FFXIV. A sample:
The post is interesting throughout. The comments are also worth reading. In particular, there's a comment from a Chinese player comparing the two sides:
I find it very intriguing that the "elite" NA players (at least from Reddit) are very envious of the Japanese playstyle, but the American experience is regarded as friendlier, even if it is more inconsistent.
However the biggest difference between JP player and EN player is that you seldom see what is known as shijichu (指示厨) from the Japanese players. Shijichu is NOT taken favorably at all. So what is “Shijichu” it’s a Japanese internet slang word, it doesn’t exist in proper Japanese. It basically mean “Being puerile (childish) and telling people what to do”. EN players like to give unsolicited advice like “Stop using cleric stance, Stop using this and stop doing that”. That is considered Shijichu.
JP players usually let you do what you want (even if you gimp the party DPS or heals). They don’t preemptively point out your choices or mistakes unless something goes wrong and the group wipes. Even if they do point out they do it just in 1 sentence and don’t harp on it, like EN players. There are cases (not the norm) where Japanese players haven been shijichu,to me but a swift “shijichu ka?” (are you being shijichu) from me often puts them in place.
The post is interesting throughout. The comments are also worth reading. In particular, there's a comment from a Chinese player comparing the two sides:
NA players are free style. They don't give you a constantly enjoyable gaming experience. But the diversity itself makes playing with them more fun. And they are more open mind and willing to share which makes it easier for a foreign player like me to make real friends in the game.
I find it very intriguing that the "elite" NA players (at least from Reddit) are very envious of the Japanese playstyle, but the American experience is regarded as friendlier, even if it is more inconsistent.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
PvP Battleground Rotation
There are a lot of battlegrounds these days. Eleven in total. And Warlords may bring more.
In Vanilla, there were only three. While that may have been slightly monotonous, it was very good for learning the battlegrounds. People learned the strategies and even counter-strategies. With so many battlegrounds now, it's a lot harder to learn the nuances of every single battleground.
Perhaps part of the reason for faction dominance of specific battlegrounds is that there isn't enough time for strategies to evolve. Instead each side sticks to using the very basic initial strategy, which favors one side.
I propose the battlegrounds be organized into a rotation. Each period will be composed of one Warfare BG, one Capture the Flag BG, and two Resource Race BGs. These four will be the only battlegrounds available for that period. The period will last for about two months, then new battlegrounds will rotate in.
Obviously people would not be allowed to blacklist battlegrounds. As well, Blizzard would probably have to stop doing the weekend special battlegrounds. They also have to ensure that seasonal events with battleground achievements line up with the rotation.
I think that this focus will serve players better. They can learn and understand a smaller set of battlegrounds. However, they won't be doing the same content forever. After a while new battlegrounds will come in and mix things up. This is especially true for newer players.
This will also make it easier to add new battlegrounds. Unlike PvE instances, battlegrounds hang around forever. But simply adding new battlegrounds into the rotation keeps the cognitive overhead low. You only need to know the strategies for 4 battlegrounds.
In Vanilla, there were only three. While that may have been slightly monotonous, it was very good for learning the battlegrounds. People learned the strategies and even counter-strategies. With so many battlegrounds now, it's a lot harder to learn the nuances of every single battleground.
Perhaps part of the reason for faction dominance of specific battlegrounds is that there isn't enough time for strategies to evolve. Instead each side sticks to using the very basic initial strategy, which favors one side.
I propose the battlegrounds be organized into a rotation. Each period will be composed of one Warfare BG, one Capture the Flag BG, and two Resource Race BGs. These four will be the only battlegrounds available for that period. The period will last for about two months, then new battlegrounds will rotate in.
Obviously people would not be allowed to blacklist battlegrounds. As well, Blizzard would probably have to stop doing the weekend special battlegrounds. They also have to ensure that seasonal events with battleground achievements line up with the rotation.
I think that this focus will serve players better. They can learn and understand a smaller set of battlegrounds. However, they won't be doing the same content forever. After a while new battlegrounds will come in and mix things up. This is especially true for newer players.
This will also make it easier to add new battlegrounds. Unlike PvE instances, battlegrounds hang around forever. But simply adding new battlegrounds into the rotation keeps the cognitive overhead low. You only need to know the strategies for 4 battlegrounds.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Founder Packs
Lately a number of games, especially F2P games, have started selling "Founder Packs". These packs give some goodies, but mainly give you access to the Alpha and Beta tests. Many people in the community see this as the game companies taking advantage of their players. However, I am generally okay with this practice. Here's my reasoning.
First, Founder Packs allow F2P games to sell time. Eventually they will open up the game for free. The Old Republic does something similar by giving subscribers early access to features. In my view, this is more or less the same as sales of regular games or hardcover books. A regular game is available for $60. In a couple of months, you might find it on sale for $40. In six months or more, it starts joining bundles and crazy Steam sales where you get for $10. Or consider books. A book is first released in hardcover for $40. A year or so later it comes out in paperback for $10. Or consider movies. You pay $15 to watch the movie in the theatre. If you wait 4 months, you can rent it for $5.
All these are roughly the same situation. The consumer chooses to pay to access the content earlier. If the consumer is willing to wait, she gets the content later, but cheaper. This is same thing for Founder Packs. If you wait three months, the content will be free.
Second, Founder Packs are strictly better than Pre-Orders. How many people have pre-ordered Warlords of Draenor? That isn't coming out for months. What's better: pay upfront and get immediate access to alpha or beta, or pay up front and not get any access at all?
Third, it's good for the game company. I think that Founder Packs give the company a more realistic idea of who is interested in the game. I'm drawn to the example of The Secret World, which had over a million people in the beta, but only 100,000 or so at launch. As well, the people who are willing to pay are your core audience, and it's better to get feedback from them rather than get feedback from people who just signed up for fun, and aren't planning to play at all.
Perhaps a thousand Founders who paid for Alpha access would have done more for The Secret World than the million who signed up for free.
Of course, this can go too far, in that the devs are listening to very small minority. But it's a small minority that's proven their willingness to pay. In an age where people expect everything to be free, this is not to be taken for granted.
Not to mention that the company gets a little bit of cash flow, which is always helpful for an industry that runs on the edge.
Fourth, wanting access to Alpha/Beta can be rational. A lot of people dismiss Alpha/Beta access as "paying for the privilege of testing". And there is some truth to that. But Alpha and Beta are also the times when the games can be changed. Once the game hits release, change becomes a lot slower. If you want influence in how the game develops, Alpha/Beta access is your best chance. You can test things out, and arguments drawn directly from in-game testing, which makes it more likely that the devs will listen to you. Without Alpha/Beta access, it's just armchair theorycrafting.
Ideally we expect to play these games for a long time. If you're considering spending the next three years in MMO X, paying for Alpha/Beta access so you push the game in your desired direction is a rational choice.
Ultimately, I think that most consumers are somewhat rational. If many of them are willing to pay for Alpha/Beta access, may as well let them. It's worth it to them. Those of us who are unwilling to pay can just wait for the game to be released.
First, Founder Packs allow F2P games to sell time. Eventually they will open up the game for free. The Old Republic does something similar by giving subscribers early access to features. In my view, this is more or less the same as sales of regular games or hardcover books. A regular game is available for $60. In a couple of months, you might find it on sale for $40. In six months or more, it starts joining bundles and crazy Steam sales where you get for $10. Or consider books. A book is first released in hardcover for $40. A year or so later it comes out in paperback for $10. Or consider movies. You pay $15 to watch the movie in the theatre. If you wait 4 months, you can rent it for $5.
All these are roughly the same situation. The consumer chooses to pay to access the content earlier. If the consumer is willing to wait, she gets the content later, but cheaper. This is same thing for Founder Packs. If you wait three months, the content will be free.
Second, Founder Packs are strictly better than Pre-Orders. How many people have pre-ordered Warlords of Draenor? That isn't coming out for months. What's better: pay upfront and get immediate access to alpha or beta, or pay up front and not get any access at all?
Third, it's good for the game company. I think that Founder Packs give the company a more realistic idea of who is interested in the game. I'm drawn to the example of The Secret World, which had over a million people in the beta, but only 100,000 or so at launch. As well, the people who are willing to pay are your core audience, and it's better to get feedback from them rather than get feedback from people who just signed up for fun, and aren't planning to play at all.
Perhaps a thousand Founders who paid for Alpha access would have done more for The Secret World than the million who signed up for free.
Of course, this can go too far, in that the devs are listening to very small minority. But it's a small minority that's proven their willingness to pay. In an age where people expect everything to be free, this is not to be taken for granted.
Not to mention that the company gets a little bit of cash flow, which is always helpful for an industry that runs on the edge.
Fourth, wanting access to Alpha/Beta can be rational. A lot of people dismiss Alpha/Beta access as "paying for the privilege of testing". And there is some truth to that. But Alpha and Beta are also the times when the games can be changed. Once the game hits release, change becomes a lot slower. If you want influence in how the game develops, Alpha/Beta access is your best chance. You can test things out, and arguments drawn directly from in-game testing, which makes it more likely that the devs will listen to you. Without Alpha/Beta access, it's just armchair theorycrafting.
Ideally we expect to play these games for a long time. If you're considering spending the next three years in MMO X, paying for Alpha/Beta access so you push the game in your desired direction is a rational choice.
Ultimately, I think that most consumers are somewhat rational. If many of them are willing to pay for Alpha/Beta access, may as well let them. It's worth it to them. Those of us who are unwilling to pay can just wait for the game to be released.
Monday, April 28, 2014
PvP Gear: A Problem Worth Solving?
This is the current plan, as described by Olivia Grace of Wowhead, of how PvP gear will work in Warlords:
Is it really important for PvE gear to be mechanically different from PvP gear?
The origins of the split comes from TBC. At that time, PvE was strict-progression, while PvP was seasonal. Thus as new PvP seasons appeared, it became easier for people to get gear from PvP, even if they were stuck on hard bosses in PvE.
But now PvE is seasonal, just like PvP. When a new raid comes out, everyone moves to the new raid and gets new gear. It is far less likely that someone will get "stuck" and have to resort to PvP to gear up.
There will be about 5 levels of PvE gear: LFR, Normal, Heroic, Mythic, Mythic-Warforged. Three levels of PvP gear, set at about LFR, Heroic, and Mythic-Warforged would be good, especially if the costs and requirements for that gear is set to match PvE.
With PvP and PvE gear being set at roughly the same level, people could more easily cross over and dip into both activities. I have very fond memories of working in Alterac Valley to get my [The Unstoppable Force], even though I was primarily a PvE player. However, since the gear-split, my desire and inclination to build multiple sets has really fallen.
Is it really so terrible that top PvP players have good enough gear to do high end PvE? Or vice-versa?
Really, the only items that caused significant imbalance were trinkets. Perhaps only trinkets would work differently in PvP and PvE. As for Best-In-Slot, the people who chase Best-In-Slot will always be crazy and go to extreme lengths. Is it really worth forcing the rest of us to navigate these complexities?
Basically, I just don't think it is worth jumping through hoops to maintain the PvP-PvE gear split any more. PvE has changed from progression to seasonal, matching PvP. Using the same gear for both activities would allow people to participate in both activities more easily. People could get away with maintaining one gear set per specialization.
The PvP-PvE gear split is complexity that we don't need anymore. As such, the game would be better off without it.
This is how PvP gear is going to work in Warlords of Draenor - it will have one lower item level for PvE content such as questing, dungeons or raids, as well as a higher item level for PvP. You can see that this piece's item level is 660 in PvE, and 690 in PvP.The PvP/PvE gear split is getting excessively complicated. At this point, maybe we should take a step back and ask ourselves: Is this a problem worth solving?
Is it really important for PvE gear to be mechanically different from PvP gear?
The origins of the split comes from TBC. At that time, PvE was strict-progression, while PvP was seasonal. Thus as new PvP seasons appeared, it became easier for people to get gear from PvP, even if they were stuck on hard bosses in PvE.
But now PvE is seasonal, just like PvP. When a new raid comes out, everyone moves to the new raid and gets new gear. It is far less likely that someone will get "stuck" and have to resort to PvP to gear up.
There will be about 5 levels of PvE gear: LFR, Normal, Heroic, Mythic, Mythic-Warforged. Three levels of PvP gear, set at about LFR, Heroic, and Mythic-Warforged would be good, especially if the costs and requirements for that gear is set to match PvE.
With PvP and PvE gear being set at roughly the same level, people could more easily cross over and dip into both activities. I have very fond memories of working in Alterac Valley to get my [The Unstoppable Force], even though I was primarily a PvE player. However, since the gear-split, my desire and inclination to build multiple sets has really fallen.
Is it really so terrible that top PvP players have good enough gear to do high end PvE? Or vice-versa?
Really, the only items that caused significant imbalance were trinkets. Perhaps only trinkets would work differently in PvP and PvE. As for Best-In-Slot, the people who chase Best-In-Slot will always be crazy and go to extreme lengths. Is it really worth forcing the rest of us to navigate these complexities?
Basically, I just don't think it is worth jumping through hoops to maintain the PvP-PvE gear split any more. PvE has changed from progression to seasonal, matching PvP. Using the same gear for both activities would allow people to participate in both activities more easily. People could get away with maintaining one gear set per specialization.
The PvP-PvE gear split is complexity that we don't need anymore. As such, the game would be better off without it.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
More Thoughts on the Elder Scrolls Online
Rarely does any game leave me as conflicted as ESO. I like the questing, I like the stories, I like the exploration, I like the skill system, I like the crafting. I really like hunting skyshards, especially how they are listed in the Achievements section, but each is listed with a clue, and you can use the clues to hunt them down. That was very clever, and leveraged the Achievement system beautifully.
Almost every system in system in the game is enjoyable, save one. Unfortunately that one system I dislike is the combat.
Combat is just--I don't really know how to describe it well-- "doughy". It's not crisp, it's not satisfying. Fights don't seem to flow, like they should. I often feel like I am flailing rather than in control of the fight, with wild swings in health and resources. I guess it kind of works, and it is serviceable. But I really do not look forward to combat in this game.
Very often, I'll start a new quest, enter an area with many enemies and lots of combat ahead. My first instinct on these occasions is to log out.
Now, maybe it's my class. I'm playing a Templar with a 2H weapon and heavy armor. A little fire magic and healing, along with big melee hits. Maybe another playstyle would work better. I also haven't tried group combat. Perhaps that stabilizes things.
In so many ways, ESO is the mirror image of Tera. I can't help but think that if they could have been combined in some fashion, it would have been an amazing game.
Almost every system in system in the game is enjoyable, save one. Unfortunately that one system I dislike is the combat.
Combat is just--I don't really know how to describe it well-- "doughy". It's not crisp, it's not satisfying. Fights don't seem to flow, like they should. I often feel like I am flailing rather than in control of the fight, with wild swings in health and resources. I guess it kind of works, and it is serviceable. But I really do not look forward to combat in this game.
Very often, I'll start a new quest, enter an area with many enemies and lots of combat ahead. My first instinct on these occasions is to log out.
Now, maybe it's my class. I'm playing a Templar with a 2H weapon and heavy armor. A little fire magic and healing, along with big melee hits. Maybe another playstyle would work better. I also haven't tried group combat. Perhaps that stabilizes things.
In so many ways, ESO is the mirror image of Tera. I can't help but think that if they could have been combined in some fashion, it would have been an amazing game.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Active Mana Regen for Healing
It's not in the patch notes, but the data-miners for Warlords of Draenor have discovered a plan to give all healers a form of active mana regen. For Holy Paladins, this means Divine Plea becomes a Holy Power finisher which returns mana:
Divine Plea
3 Holy Power
Instantly regain 4.5% of maximum mana.
Now I don't know if this is final, as it wasn't in the latest patch notes. But in my opinion, active mana regen is a bad idea for healers.
First, it is an extra button. Right now, healers may have 5-6 dedicated heal buttons, and we'll have to allocate another button for mana regen. When Blizzard is trying to cut down on ability bloat, adding more buttons is not a good idea.
Second, the presence of active mana regen will invariably make fights more deadly, leading to a less fun healing environment.
Essentially, from a healing perspective, a raid fight is divided into periods of heavy damage and light damage. During heavy damage, mana consumption goes up. During light damage, mana consumption is minimal. A properly designed fight ensures that the healer uses all their mana.
As a heavily simplified example, let's say a healer has 1000 mana. During heavy damage, she spends about 10 mana/second. During light damage, she spends about 5 mana/second. So a perfect fight might require 60 seconds of heavy damage and 80 seconds of light damage.
Now add in active mana regen. Active mana regen means that during the light damage periods, the healer spends even less mana, and may even have positive mana gain. Let's say the healer moves to 0 mana/second because she's hitting her active mana button. That means that, in order to challenge the healer, the fight must now have 100 seconds of heavy damage and 40 seconds of light damage. Or alternatively, heavy damage must be more extreme, in order to make the healer spend more mana.
Both paths lead to deadlier fights, fights where mistakes are more likely to result in a death.
The history of WoW healing has been that whenever mana regen increases, throughput increases, and damage skyrockets to balance, and the healing environment becomes less forgiving, more spammy, and less fun. Adding active mana regen is just to trigger that cycle faster, and put another skill barrier between those who are the best at squeezing in regen abilities, and those who are not as good.
In my opinion, the best healing environments have resulted whenever "overheal" becomes important. When healers are focused on reducing their overheal and becoming more efficient, incoming damage is at a reasonable level and fights are simply more fun because people aren't getting destroyed in two or three global cooldowns. Whenever efficiency gets thrown out the window in favor of throughput, healing becomes less strategic and more frantic, and just less fun.
Divine Plea
3 Holy Power
Instantly regain 4.5% of maximum mana.
Now I don't know if this is final, as it wasn't in the latest patch notes. But in my opinion, active mana regen is a bad idea for healers.
First, it is an extra button. Right now, healers may have 5-6 dedicated heal buttons, and we'll have to allocate another button for mana regen. When Blizzard is trying to cut down on ability bloat, adding more buttons is not a good idea.
Second, the presence of active mana regen will invariably make fights more deadly, leading to a less fun healing environment.
Essentially, from a healing perspective, a raid fight is divided into periods of heavy damage and light damage. During heavy damage, mana consumption goes up. During light damage, mana consumption is minimal. A properly designed fight ensures that the healer uses all their mana.
As a heavily simplified example, let's say a healer has 1000 mana. During heavy damage, she spends about 10 mana/second. During light damage, she spends about 5 mana/second. So a perfect fight might require 60 seconds of heavy damage and 80 seconds of light damage.
Now add in active mana regen. Active mana regen means that during the light damage periods, the healer spends even less mana, and may even have positive mana gain. Let's say the healer moves to 0 mana/second because she's hitting her active mana button. That means that, in order to challenge the healer, the fight must now have 100 seconds of heavy damage and 40 seconds of light damage. Or alternatively, heavy damage must be more extreme, in order to make the healer spend more mana.
Both paths lead to deadlier fights, fights where mistakes are more likely to result in a death.
The history of WoW healing has been that whenever mana regen increases, throughput increases, and damage skyrockets to balance, and the healing environment becomes less forgiving, more spammy, and less fun. Adding active mana regen is just to trigger that cycle faster, and put another skill barrier between those who are the best at squeezing in regen abilities, and those who are not as good.
In my opinion, the best healing environments have resulted whenever "overheal" becomes important. When healers are focused on reducing their overheal and becoming more efficient, incoming damage is at a reasonable level and fights are simply more fun because people aren't getting destroyed in two or three global cooldowns. Whenever efficiency gets thrown out the window in favor of throughput, healing becomes less strategic and more frantic, and just less fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)