Jack Emmert Responds to Your Questions

A while back we passed on some your questions to City of Heroes Lead Designer Jack Emmert. He has responded with details on the upcoming CoH expansion, the future of MMOGs, and commentary on some of the decisions that led to City of Heroes in the first place. Read on for his responses. 1.) When will City of Villains be rolled up with CoH? by S810

I was curious when City of Villains will be rolled up with City of Heros?
It would be very kewl to be able to choose, at time of character creation, either a Hero or a Villain.
Please let us know if, and when, this should happen.

Jack Emmert:
We have not yet made any final decisions about how City of Villains and City of Heroes will interact, but here is the direction we're leaning:

City of Villains is a stand alone game - which means that you can purchase City of Villains without City of Heroes. But you will only be able to play a villain and never a hero. If a player already has a City of Heroes account, then City of Villains is an expansion. In other words, it opens up content in addition to what the player already has access to. He can play either a hero or a villain on a server.

2.)How do you plan to get me back? by bugnuts

Jack, I played COH for a while, and am still very impressed by it. You should be proud of your remarkable achievement of finding the right niche. But after playing a couple months and doing several story arcs, I fell into the level-grind abyss. Things stopped being fun. The distance to my next power was seen in terms of xp, not in terms of heroic adventure.

So, what is going to happen to get me back? How can you significantly reduce the "level grind" (even if it's just the feeling of grinding levels) to get casual players like myself back?

Jack:
The first step, I think, is to make missions less repetitive. Every single expansion we release includes significant mission customization. This means that we go back into pre-existing missions and add new art & features. For instance, the infamous 'rave' mission now has an actual rave going on (as opposed to NPC's standing around in a warehouse).

The second step is adding new gameplay. In Expansion 2, we introduced badges which reward explorers and achievers. Certain combinations of badges open up Accolades - which are permanent powers! The next major new feature is our skills system, which will answer the question, 'what do heroes do besides fight?'

The third step is to create more benchmarks in the game; 'carrots' that players strive for. For instance, a player can get a cape at level 20. At level 30, a player can add ongoing special f/x to his avatar. We're adding two more important landmarks with Expansion 3. At level 40, a player can begin selecting Epic Powers that increase his characters' abilities outside the normal Archetype restrictions. And at the highest level, 50, players open up two Epic Archetypes, which are dramatically different than anything else in the game.

3.) I hate subjects for asking questions :p by DragonPup

Is Geko still nerfing accuracy? Kidding, kidding.

Real question: Looking back at CoH's development, if there was one thing you wished you did differently, what would it be and why?

Jack:
I think I would approach Archetype balance differently. We relied heavily on some time tested MMP tactics. In other words, one Archetype attracts aggro, another deals heavy melee damage, while the long range Archetypes sit back and help. In addition, all Archetypes become more powerful at the same rate. If I had an unlimited development time, I would have loved to create a different system of balance between the Archetypes so that the urban, low powered vigilante could fight alongside the cosmic powered champion - and each would have something to contribute to combat.

4.) Boring Games by rlandrum

I've played MMO's, and I haven't been impressed. I think some of the lingo speaks for itself ('grinding'). The last game I got into was Star Wars Galaxies. While technically the game was very nice, and the gameplay was decent, the game became extremely boring after only a few hours of gameplay.

I've also played games like Zelda, Ocarina of Time (a classic), and the newer Zelda, Wind Waker. Both games contained a series of puzzles that needed to be solved before allowing the story to progress. It was this sense of achievement that made the games fun to play.

In MMO's, I have no sense of achievement. Obtaining the next skill level doesn't get me anywhere, it only makes me more powerful.

How will MMO's of the future fill this sense of achievement? Or do you see games progressing more towards the "Life simulator", like the Sims?

Jack:
The popular answer would be 'user generated content.' As someone plays the game more, they can create more content of their own. Traditionally, this had taken the shape of crafting or housing, though one can certainly imagine a player generating missions or quests for other players.

But, to be honest, some game mechanics are entertaining for some, but not others. I personally loathe puzzles, riddles and jump games. I would avoid any game that had these features, even if it was an MMP. It sounds to me that the current crop of MMP's don't appeal to you - that's no crime - and I'm sure eventually MMP's will start incorporating other tried and true game systems. Planetside, for instance, was the first mass market MMP to capture the feel of a FPS. Recently Star Wars Galaxies added twitch combat in their Jump to Lightspeed expansion.

5.) Death penalty? by claytongulick

I understand that without some risk, death in a MMORPG would lose a lot of the "tension" that game designers feel that players need in order to stay "hooked". As a player, I can tell you that the exp penalty of dying is usually what ends up getting me to cancel an account. When I see all that debt/exp loss/penalty I start thinking "Why am I wasting my time here? Its a nice day outside..." Even the illusion of "exp debt" that CoH has still amounts to the same thing: total playing time added to make up for dying. Since death is frequently not a player's fault (lag, imbalance, etc...) I can tell you that I am very attracted the the approach that WoW is taking with having no death penalty other than travelling as a ghost back to your corpse. My question is this: What goes into the decision for death penalties? Has anyone actually asked the players if this is what they want?

Jack:
If players lose nothing by being defeated then naturally the players won't see death as an issue. Players will begin to look at their characters like those in FPS games such as Counterstrike or Battlefield 1942. In other words, the player's avatar is perceived as disposable.

The key, however, to a successful MMP is to create a connection between the player and his character. If the player feels that he can dispose of his character at any time, then the player inevitably doesn't care very much about his character. This works in a short term FPS model, but not so much in a game which is depending upon long term commitment.

By making death a penalty, players now have a goal to strive for: survival. Some players will inevitably be better than others, but players want things to distinguish themselves from others. So the players who aren't killed often level quicker, and thus are demonstrably 'better' in terms of the level difference. This is no different than one person earning a special piece of armor by going on a hard, long quest, and another one who chooses not to go on that quest. The former then gets the recognition for his effort.

6.) MMO Competition by servognome

With several highly anticipated MMOs launching this year and next year (WoW, EQ2, Matrix Online), what is your perception of competition in the MMO industry, has it become too crowded? Do you believe new games can be supported by drawing new players into the genre, or will these games pull mostly from the existing player base?

Jack:
I think the MMP market is growing quite nicely. City of Heroes hit 180,000 in just a couple of months; as far as I know, the existing MMP's did not suffer an equivalent 180,000 drop in subscriptions. Certainly, some fans of the other MMP's kept their old accounts and played City of Heroes, but I doubt that a significant percentage of players has more than a single account with a MMP. In other words, I think City of Heroes brought 100,000+ new faces to the MMP market.

7.) Demo / Trial? by InfinityWpi

As a gamer geek but also a new father and a victim of the economy, I have to be very careful with my 'entertainment' money. I've heard good things about CoH, but I can't justify buying the game if I'm only going to be playing it for a month (I can really only justify that with $15 bargain-bin titles). Will CoH have a one-week (or, better, two-week) trial available in the near future?

Second question, if I may: Everyone talks about how MMORPGs are different from 'traditional' RPGs mainly due to the lack of a strong, world-changing storyline. Granted, comics aren't always world-changing except for the occasional crossover, but you never see Superman's secret identity being revealed to the world in the pages of, say, JLA. Comics have a definite 'solo' vs 'group' theme going. Is it possible to really have a single-character-changing experience in CoH, or is it all mainly "Nothing major will happen; this isn't his book" vibe?

Jack:
Currently, the basic City of Heroes game is available for $39.99 and comes with a free month. I don't know when or if other price discounts will occur; but I do know that we've discussed internally a short free trial period, but nothing is imminent.

Your second point, world changing events, is something we're aiming for in City of Villains. The activities of even a single player (hero or villain) can have a noticeable effect in the world.

8.) Biggest surprise after launch? by DevNova

Since the official launch, can you think of something that really, really surprised you about the game? Did the players start to do things you didn't expect, or did some game mechanics/results turn out far differently than you thought it would (for better or worse)?

Jack:
I never foresaw how many characters each player would create. It seems that having a dozen or more 'alts' (alternate characters) is the norm, rather than the extreme. People love making lots of different heroes - and lots of costumes.

9.) A more general question... by Gothic_Walrus

My question is simple, but I think we need at least one question that's not related to the game or to Mr. Emmert directly.

What do you think of the MMOG market as a whole? Over the past few years, we've seen a flood of games released. We've seen sequels to established games - Everquest II, for example. We've seen games based on licenses, such as Star Wars Galaxies. We've seen high-profile titles such as Mythica cancelled. We've seen completely unique ideas, like A Tale in the Desert. Obviously, the market is completely different than it was even a year ago today.

Put simply, what do you think of the market in its current state, and what future do you see for it? Will you be a part of that future?

The question might not seem very exciting, but I believe that Mr. Emmert is in a very unique position to answer it...

Jack:
What the MMP medium has NOT had is the breakout hit that defines it. Duke Nukem and Doom, for instance, were so popular that they created the FPS explosion that continues to this day. In the RTS medium, every game is still compared to Warcraft and Starcraft. Successful MMP's have sold hundreds of thousands of copies, but nothing has yet sold the millions to match what these other games have. Eventually, there will be one. Of course, it's impossible to predict something like that until it already happens.

10.) Developer made content vs user made content? by Gldm

Recently I started a thread on the COH suggestion forums [cityofheroes.com] that got a high rating about wanting a new ski area zone after having seen how ice worked in one of the missions I played. I also mentioned in a later post if there was a map editing tool I'd probably make it myself.

Do you think most future MMORPGs are going to stay with the developer-based content model like COH and Everquest, or do you think we'll begin seeing more user-based content such as in Second Life [secondlife.com]?

Do you think Cryptic will ever release some kind of content editor (aside from the already incredible character creator) to the users?

Jack:
I think user based content - where the player creates nearly all the material from preset building blocks - is a red herring for game development. The problem is that most player created generated content isn't very good. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone; good level designers, for instance, spend hours and hours on creating good fun play experiences. It's no surprise that someone creating levels in their spare time isn't as good. Naturally, game design requires talent and experience, so that the really good novices will produce cool stuff.

But if that content is regulated in some way - either by the tools or some sort of player feedback - then I think I agree that user generated content is the wave of the future. For example, our City of Villains product (target release for 2005) includes super group bases. Players will be able to lay out their rooms and hallways according to a basic template.

11.) RPG "light" by Hays

I'm an active COH player and an ex-everquest player. I must first give you kudos for making a really polished, fun game. It's really a great take on the MMORPG.

The game has a bus-load of fun ideas. The badge system is great. The costume system and character creation are amazing. Technically, the game is top notch-great mapmaking, great animation, etc...

One of the best ideas is simplicity. Starting players don't have to worry about complicated inventory systems. They just go out there and start kicking butt. Kicking butt is not too difficult, because the player is quite a bit stronger versus the environment compared to previous MMORPGs.

But that simplicity becomes a drag in the later game. I've got 3 characters approaching the high end (mid 30s) and I'm starting to dislike the slow experience grind, with nothing to look forward to but a new ability every 3 levels.

Missions are fun, but they get a bit formulaic. With one huge exception, they offer uninteresting rewards and have cookie cutter goals. (The exception being the wonderful respec mission.)

I'm sure it was a conscious design decision to have no inventory system, no armor, no weapons. And I think that's a great idea, at first. But by the time you're level 30 and you've played the game for a couple of months, you really start to want MORE. The enhancement system doesn't cut it. That's just a trip to the store every 5 levels. I'd like to get a cool piece of (origin specific) armor when I complete a task force.

Even baby steps in this direction would great. A way to distinguish myself (other than aesthetically) from other players would be nice. This could also give origins a chance to actually matter.

So the question in all of this is- why the aversion to traditional RPG elements, even at high levels? Is this going to change?

Jack:
Yes, we eschewed many of the typical elements of fantasy MMP's such as body slots and crafting, but that was more to do with the choice of genre than anything else. If we had something akin to body slots, and a player equipped his character with armor, the game certainly wouldn't feel like a modern day hero game. And if someone doesn't feel like a hero, he won't feel immersed in the game. And if that happens, the player won't feel committed to play, because that player bought City of Heroes to be a super powered hero!

But what we've started doing is adding more mid and high level content. Currently, there are badges to collect. There's missions to earn capes or other visual rewards. Coming soon, we have a skills system. And then there's the Epic Archetypes which a player obtains by reaching a certain level or completing a particular Task Force. In the future, we hope to add such things as power customization. And with the release of City of Villains, there will be the ongoing war between good and evil.

Comments

Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[FatPaulie]

As an experienced gamer, but one who's about to take my first plunge into the MMORPG realm, I think that a valid point is raised about the free trial being needed for MMORPGs.

With a normal HL2 or D3 type game, I know what my $50 is getting me. There is a beginning, a middle, and an end to the game. When I shell out the same cash for a MMORPG, I'm basically getting a 1-month teaser, but then being asked to put forth more money to continue. It's like Gauntlet in the arcade, or a long distance phone call.

If not for being invited into the closed beta for World of Warcraft, I most certainly wouldn't be picking up the game next Tuesday.

I think if more MMORPGs offer a free trial, or invite more non MMORPGers into their beta tests, they'll end up with more paying customers in the long run.

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[calibanDNS]

Even if they never offer a free trial, I for would love to be able to download a demo that would allow me to design my character. I understand that the character design options in CoH are supposed to be huge, but I'd really like to play around with it a bit before I drop $40 on the game.

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[twbecker]

I agree completely. I've had friends that play MMOs (EQ, SWG, etc), and I just was never able to get into them. I never bought one, or even played much, because they just looked about as exciting as watching paint dry. I'm a huge Blizzard fan though, so I jumped on the open beta for WoW, and now I'm hooked. Was it because WoW is a terrific game (which it is), or just because they let me test drive it before I spent my money?? $15 a month isn't pocket change for a computer game that still costs you $50 up front. I don't think a trial is too much to ask for before making that kind of committment.

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[Tyndmyr]

The ten day guest pass included with WoW collectors edition is nice, but ten days is generally a rather short time to test something for those less than fanatical players(Don't look at me, I got a lev 24 druid and six other somewhat smaller chars over stress test and open eta) and its not included with the regular version, let alone offered for those who don't have friends who play.

A two week trial would entice me to play CoH, a game I certainly wouldnt buy otherwise. With MMORPGs, a bit demo risk, that people will simply keep playing the demo, is almost entirely removed as well, since who really enjoys repeating the process of hitting lev 10, ad nauseum?

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[k_187]

yeah, I agree. I played the open beta of WOW and now I need a new computer so I can run it and get more than 5 fps if there's more than 2 PCs on the screen. There's no way I'd drop 50 bucks on it as is, but after getting a week of playing in, I'm starting to save for a whole new computer for the damn thing. Stupid addictive personality.

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[NaugaHunter]

The economics against a free trial are a lot higher for MMORPGS. First of all, it's not trivial but relatively simple to release a demo of a standard game that is simply short on content. The best you could do with a MMORPG is limit it to level 10 or something.

But that's not the big issue. The $15 monthly goes to server support and maintenance, including things like electricity and bandwidth. There were 500,000 applicants accepted into WoW's Open Beta; who knows how many applied. If a standard MMORPG allowed a free trial they would see thousands of non-paying players using their resources for free. And either they run the risk of having the free players disrupt a standing server with no real repercussions, or they have to maintain trial servers for free.

Everyone understands the 'more likely to buy if allowed to try' principle. It's the 'hey it's free and I can do what I want' principle that gets in the way.

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[Gooba42]

I played CoH on someone else's account for awhile and finally did get a copy of the game for myself when I finally got hired.

I was really dismayed to find out that the "free" one month trial in the box was actually a "subscribe and we'll give you another month free". It was *not* a "Play for a month and pay us if you want to keep playing" *trial*.

I was really looking forward to being able to collect *a* paycheck before being forced to subscribe but wound up having my brother pay for a month so I could get my free month while I establish my own income. In all I owe him just the $15 but even that hassle could have been avoided with a *real* trial rather than simple bait.

I don't mean to imply it's a CoH only thing either. None of the MMOs out there will let you play their free month without signing up for a subscription up front. It really ought to just be labeled "Buy one month, get another month free!" rather than a trial.

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[tukkayoot]

EverQuest (the original) has offered free trials in the past (with a free download or by including an installation CD in magazine advertisements), so it's apparently it's viable in some form. I think they let you play your trial on a "newbie only" server and the trial was relatively short (14 days or something). It could give you a taste for the game and at least give you an idea if you consider the game a "must buy" or a "must avoid".

Also, I don't see why an offline demo/tutorial for an MMO couldn't work. EQ originally offered a rudimentry offline tutorial that was helpful in introducing the nevigation of the user interface and basic interface, and did a good job of whetting my appetite to play the actual game.

These days, EQ actually includes a superior online tutorial (where you are essentially introduced to the basics of navigating, quests, combat, spellcasting, communication and tradeskills) and can level your character to a point, earn a few items and a limited amount of money before leaving. Other new players/new characters play with you in this small "tutorial world". When you reach a certain level, or when you decide you've had enough of the tutorial, your character is transferred, along with all of their possessions, to the "real world".

It's really great way just to educate new players, and that alone justifies the resources devoted to developing it, but with just a few small tweaks, it could also serve as a "free trial zone" for prospective players. Just don't let players leave the tutorial zones until they pony up the cash for a copy of the game itself. The extremely limited amount of content leads me to believe that the strain on their servers that would be produced by offering such a trial wouldn't be in any way unmanagable.

There are just too many MMOs out there right now for me to make drop $50 on a game that I may end up hating right off the bat. Back when it was just EQ and UO, not offering a free trial was fine. However, now it would be nice if there were some way to size up the different games and make a decision about which one is the best fit for you. The only way I'll start playing a new MMO now is if I have at least a couple friends who share similar tastes with me who are playing and enjoying that MMO.

Unfortunately, a limited demo/tutorial, or even a full 30 day unrestricted trial only tells you so much about an MMO. The real long term flaws and strengthes usually don't become apparent until after a few months of play. However, if you drop $50 on a game (and maybe $25-30 on subscription fees) and it gives you 3 months of solid entertainment, that's not such a bad deal, even if you eventually decide the game isn't for you.

It would be nice if more MMOs dropped the price for the game itself from the standard $50 to something like $30 or less. Maybe they could offer a "free" trial, at the end of which you could either pay the standard monthly rate for the trial you just played, and start a regular subscription, or you could say "no thanks" and not be charged anything beyond the $30. If you choose to keep playing, you end up paying $43 or so dollars compared to the $50 you would have paid for the game + trial. If you stop playing, then the $30 you paid for the game should easily cover the expense for any load you placed on the game servers, customer service staff, ect.

The older MMOs have an advantage here, actually. They don't cost $50, because they don't include all of the expansions. You can buy the EverQuest "Trilogy" (original game plus the first two expansions) for $10, or the EQ "Platinum", which includes the original and all expansions (7 of them) except the most recent one for $30. The latest expansion costs $30.

This very reasonable, and with some adaptation, they could probably do pretty much the same thing with newer games. Just sell a "basic" (crippled) version of the game for $15-20, with certain features disabled, features which any long term player is bound to want... and sell a "deluxe" version for $40-

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[freakmn]

Actually, there were 500,000 or so into the closed beta. The open beta was just that, open to all. I have one brother accepted into the closed beta, and one who was not, and later downloaded the client for the open beta. Personally, I avoid those games like the plague, as I can't handle the time commitment, with 3 part-time jobs, full-time school, and a girlfriend. I can barely squeeze in time for an occasional FPS.

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[NaugaHunter]

No, there were less then 10,000 through the Closed Beta. Before the stress tests they only had 3 servers tops, and I never saw more than 2 or 3 thousand on one at a given time. The Stress Tests had 100,000 each. The Open Beta was open to all applicants, but they cut it off after 500,000 as they were only planning on testing about 40 servers for it.

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[Anonymous Coward]

Fairyland does this. The problem is that they tend to lose a lot of players when the open beta closes. Nobody wants to pay for it when they have been getting it for free for months.

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[Verbigerator]

Yes, you need to sign up for an account, and that involves a credit/debit card. They didn't charge me until my 32nd day. If I'd cancelled before day 30, I'd have still been able to play until the renewal date rolled around. It isn't try-one-get-one-free.

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[freakmn]

I guess I'm wrong. I was under the opinion that there were an unlimited number of spots for the open beta. Thanks for the info.

Re:Open Beta a MMORPG "Free Trials"

[DrWho520]

Huge me too on this. I would like to get some feel for the game. The character creation engines is puportedly the best standalone component of the game. Allowing people to freely create a character would be pure marketting genius.

Interesting, but...

[kjones692]

While I have a lot of respect for his work, some of his responses to basic questions struck me as plain silly. How is getting a cape supposed to make a big difference in the tedium of leveling? Sure, it's something to move towards, but so is pretty much everything else.

The problem here is larger. Doing stuff over and over and over again is tedious, no matter the game... hell, leveling in Pokemon is downright tedious too. The solution, methinks, lies in making things new and fresh, and making quests interesting and original.

I think he hit upon this in his interview when discussing user-created content. Within the massive user bases that these games have lies a lot of creativity and talent. Granted, most user-created stuff will suck, but there will be a LOT of stuff that is fresh, new, original, and fun to do.

If a game could integrate user-created content into the ongoing quest system, I think it could avoid the tedium of the level grind.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is getting a cape supposed to make a big difference in the tedium of leveling?

Because MMORPG players are junkies. It's another hit, man. A new item. A new thing! It doesn't have to be useful, but it's a new item!

You should see some of the crap these people brag about. "I got level 50 cooking! I can now create Apple Pies!" Uh, good for you. I got a stove and some ingredients. I can create real apple pies.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

User-generated content sounds good at first, but how would it work? How can you let users create content, and keep the game balanced and high-quality? It sounds like a mess to me.

Re:Interesting, but...

[ZaMoose]

Besides, capes are a bad thing, as anyone who has seen The Incredibles knows. They just lead to untimely superhero deaths.

Re:Interesting, but...

[ghostlibrary]

> How can you let users create content, and keep the game balanced and high-quality?

1) A /.-like moderation scheme, coupled with:

2) Max Exp limits for user-made content.

So anyone can toss in a new module or area, but the Exp anyone can gain is capped (to prevent abuse, i.e. 'enter my quick level-up lair!').

Caps can get removed by the game staff, who, thanks to the moderation scheme, need just browse the "+5" levels that players actually liked.

To organize it, start with a few theme zones, for example, a 'Murderworld' kind of place where it makes sense to have a bunch of random, disassociated challenges.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Slowping]

First, watching any episodes or reading comics of superheroes, their lives are pretty repetetive. Save the world. Save the world. Save the world. Did you expect the game to be any different?

Second, playing a MMRPG from a single-player perspective is definitely going to get boring. The key is to have a system where capes, badges, and insignia plays a social role with other players and NPCs. In effect, you want them to give a "non-functional" quality to the game.

And finally... dude, it's a game. For real dynamic, fun, and interactive experiences... leave the computer and do some real human activities.

Re:Interesting, but...

[SuperRob]

I have to agree here. I stopped playing COH precisely because the supposed "carrots" are just not big enough to warrant paying for.

Re:Interesting, but...

[snuf23]

Sure it's easy to say MMORPGers are junkies. Because its so much worse to be spending hours leveling a character than it is to be playing an FPS every night.
As a gamer I have avoided MMORPGs because they seemed too time demanding and too complicated. I really DON'T want to be involved in the politics of the nation of Geldorard or whether Peldopar the Wizaaard should be chancelor. Or overly complicated crafting and player based economies. I know these are features that some people love but that's not me.
COH was the first MMO I played and I like that its stripped down a bit. Yes level grinding does occur, but really the real fun is in playing with friends in a group setting. Trying different tactics and alternate characters is much easier with a helpful group.
That being said - as a working parent I only get a couple of hours a day to play a game. Its nice to be able to log on, hook up with some friends for a little baddie bashing. Perhaps because I'm not spending 10 hours in a stretch I don't feel that level grind as much. A carefully built character can also significantly reduce the grind by enabling you to fight baddies several levels above you.
So where I used to play an FPS like Battlefield or UT, now I play a COH.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Rhys]

It's okay, capes in CoH don't actually exist as "physical" objects (in the virtual world). Your hair, armor, and cape happily intersect and move through each other.

Given that, we can infer that capes don't have any real physics in the game. On your machine, they may, but they don't on the servers, which means they can't check for cape jet engine collisions.

Besides, in CoH aircraft would be point-sources just like cars. You'd just get shoved to the side.

Re:Interesting, but...

[MikeBabcock]

I think you hit the proverbial nail on its head -- a good MMORPG should have its rewards revolve around team-play or inter-person play.

If it doesn't, its just a single-player game.

I've played several MMORPGs that were just cheasy levelling single player games with other people playing the same plot. That sucks.

One of the things is to not allow multiple people to complete the same quest simultaneously and know about it. "Hey, I'm carrying that purse back to the same lady!" kills the suspension of disbelief. Its hard to role-play when your role gets usurped.

There are lots of thoughts that go with that, and non-static teams should be part of it. Ever played Ogre Battle 64? If you put two mages together in the back row of a combat group, they each do their own thing for a while. If you leave them working together for a few rounds (many rounds), the get to know each other and start to do combined magic that is much more powerful.

If I cooperate with another player lots, or another *type* of character even?, then we should each start getting benefits in the game of knowing each other, even if no formal arrangement is made (adding to buddy list, team, mentor list, etc.)

I want to go to grab an arrow and have it lit on fire by the mage I hang out with without the mage or I having thought of it. Just a cool "hey, look what happened" effect.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Tyndmyr]

The main problem is that most user content just really does suck. If I could get my hands on any major way of getting decent user content, I'd be a happy programmer. Hell, Id be releasing games constantly if all I had to do was code a bit. If anyone does feel motivated, feel free to email me a model or two(any popular format). Then, I'll tell you why its unusable in a game. In the unlikely event that I can actually use it, you'll get credit. :-)

Re:Interesting, but...

[Sage Gaspar]

Believe it or not, getting a cape does make a pretty big difference in the tedium of levelling. The most exciting content in CoH are called Trials, and they're The Cape mission isn't a trial, but it is still very neat. The storyline (originally used very creatively to cover up the absence of capes in a superhero game) is that Paragon City issued a moratorium on cape-wearing in honor of the sacrifice of its premier heroes in stemming the tides of the first alien invasion, which is the major plotline in the game. The city is now lifting the moratorium, but wants the new generation of heroes to gain a little respect for the fallen heroes, so they send you to a vault in which the heroes made a time capsule before they left so you can pay your respects. Of course, it's under attack, you have to save it, etc. The point is that it's at those moments that you feel like you're really part of the city, and that you've earned your right to wear a cape. So, I think the cape mission in CoH is a very good example of the kind of content MMOs need more of. First, it's very immersive, and fits in with the global storyline. Second, it's a reward that you have to pass a test for, not just go forth and slaughter the weenie hordes. Finally, the reward itself is very nice, even though it's not directly combat related.

Re:Interesting, but...

[ghostlibrary]

Hi,

> The main problem is that most user content just really does suck.

I agree. That's why I browse /. at +5.

There's a bunch of games that have heaps of mods... say, oh, Doom. Utterly useless unless you find an index where the indexer actually _reviews_ and describes the mods, or (best) ranks them.

RtCW, Unreal, and Serious Sam all had good communities in terms of commented/annoted mods, and there were one or 2 Doom sites that gave useful information.

I never have seen a moderated system, though, for distributing mods. They've either been 1 lone indexer's opinion, or a useless stat like "# of times downloaded", which says nothing of whether people _liked_ it.

So that's why I think the /. mod scheme would be a neat filter for user-created content.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Lord_Dweomer]

In regards to the carrot bit, he basically answered by saying "we're going to give you another hit of crack from the Skinner Box at some additional points in the game to keep you hooked".

Which brings me to MY question of "what is CoH doing to get itself out of the Skinner Box model that all MMORPGs today currently fit into? The closest thing I've seen to a MMORPG stepping away from that is Second Life and ATiTD.

That's really whats turned me off from every single MMORPG out there though. I start playing, think its cool, enjoy the new game, but then realize that its the same damn skinner box model, and in the end the purpose is the same, level up your guy, gain new abilities and equipment by spending additional time in the came pushing the same damn lever over and over again.

Re:Interesting, but...

[droleary]

User-generated content sounds good at first, but how would it work?

The short answer is that you have to create an economy. Most online games do a piss-poor job of that (items/creatures spawn out of nowhere), and many actually go after users who create an out-of-world economy (e.g., selling EQ items on eBay). User created content is as simple as me wanting something in the game and the game providing multiple routes to that goal, including trading with another player who already has it. And that creates the economy, because if that player wants something you don't have, they've potentially set up a pseduo-quest for you to get item A for them in exchange for item B.

Unfortunately, I think it all boils down to the question: Why does anybody want anything in the game? That is, a totally closed virtual economy is a dead end. A game must have a way of creating value to its players outside the game, and the company cannot constantly being trying to crush it. I don't even mean they have to allow selling on eBay. It could simply be a mechanism whereby a user who creates "sufficiently interesting" play doesn't have to pay for a month. As it stands, too many games take the approach that their virtual world isn't touched by the real world, and so they try to cut off the game economy completely from the fact that people are participating in an external economy simply to play the game.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

First, watching any episodes or reading comics of superheroes, their lives are pretty repetetive. Save the world. Save the world. Save the world. Did you expect the game to be any different?

Superhero lives are generally pretty repetetive. That's why I want my characters to have secret identities and advance my secret ID character in different ways. Perhaps the next big expansion after City of Villains could be "Average Joe" that includes ways of creating secret IDs for your heroes and villains and advancing them in perhaps a more comic book soap operatic fashion.

Still waiting on a MMOFPS

[CrazyJim1]

Customize Vehicles-Use a designer to build your own depending on cost, slap in seating/engines(conventional and jet)/fueltanks/armor/weapons/acesssories like radar or a snow plow in front.

Customize Fortress-Pay for all sorts of wall and floor pieces, gun turrets, fortifications, special buildings, etc. Design so players can really spend time making big castles.

Basically power sources would appear in the wild, and all the clans would have to compete for them. So teams would secure as many power sources as they can, but some would become hot zones where players fight over. Some basic rules to keep clan power in check, and you're set. You could even add alien invasions down the line.

Re:Still waiting on a MMOFPS

[calibanDNS]

I don't subscripe to CoH, so can someone with some in game experience let us know if the game supports vehicles and lairs?

This idea would be excellent. Every good super-hero needs an awesome ride and a comfy place to hang his cape.

Re:Still waiting on a MMOFPS

[Anonymous Coward]

As an avid FPS player, and related to a avid MMOG player - my mom is a Sims, Star Wars Galaxies nut - i'm also waiting on the MMOFPS. In my POV it's a FPS, but it's a world i join, that has other players doing the same thing, reaching a common goal, or fighting against each other. MMOWW2? I would definetely buy that, and pay monthly.

But I don't see the value in paying monthy for what is out now. (I did just put 60 down on my HL2 though)
It's just a matter of preference. I prefer the twitch games to levelling up, and finding items, etc. (I did just put 60 down on my HL2 though)

Re:Still waiting on a MMOFPS

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks for idea sucker... I'll be off to the patent office now...

let's see MMO game that entails custom vehicles. and....

Re:Still waiting on a MMOFPS

[Elsebet]

The game did not have vehicles when I cancelled and I didn't see plans for them mentioned. Heroes have a number of travel powers to choose from (super speed, flight, and super jumping).

By lairs, do you mean enemy lairs to invade/conquer? CoH does have static missions and places on the world maps in which certain enemy types spawn. There are no player "lairs" (housing) right now but per the article it seems super groups (guilds) will be getting access to those in the expansion.

Re:Still waiting on a MMOFPS

[BinaryOpty]

There's already an MMOFPS: Sony's Planetside. But unfortunately it's not that good of a game as the tedium/fun is directly connected to how many people are on (as in the game is not fun unless others are on: there's no NPCs in the world whatsoever).

Re:Still waiting on a MMOFPS

[CrazyJim1]

Planetside has a pretty good array of vehicles, but obtaining them is too easy.

Getting a vehicle together should require a base , and resource obtaining.

Leveling in PlanetSide was simple and almost a pointless advancement system

There are no long term things to do in PlanetSide to make a name for yourself, like making a clan or a fortress. I used to go on sprees where I'd single handedly take out 50 people with my tank, I used to rock at Planetside, but the game was not long term viable. For a game to have long term viability, you need something to be striving for(RPG). At the same time it should be fun to play while striving(FPS).

Planetside did make a nice large scale FPS, but it didn't have enough RPG elements to make it last. Theres quite a few more reasons why PlanetSide didn't do as well as it could have too.

So very wrong about Multiple Accounts

[Anonymous Coward]

"....but I doubt that a significant percentage of players has more than a single account with a MMP. In other words, I think City of Heroes brought 100,000+ new faces to the MMP market."

That is so wrong as to be laughable, and quite worrisome that he does not know his own market. In Asheron's Call, many players have multiple accounts...and I see no reason why AC would be unique among MMORPG's.

-- Alpha Swift of FF

Re:So very wrong about Multiple Accounts

[zabieru]

Um, multiple accounts as in more than one MMO game at a time. I don't know many people who play AC and EQ at the same time. Usually they drop one to take up another. So his 180k means people who, by and large, aren't still playing DAoC, they either quit (but then, other games didn't lose players) or are new to the genre.

Re:So very wrong about Multiple Accounts

[klocwerk]

many, if not most of the hardcore players have multiple accounts, but there are lots of casual players who don't have known names, don't join groups/guilds, and just generally aren't on the radar of the hardcore players.
These are the majority in most MMO games.

Re:So very wrong about Multiple Accounts

[Tyndmyr]

I believe original post, and grandparent were referring to multiple accounts being of different MMORPGs. IE, a SWG accnt, and a WoW accnt, kind of like my current, temporary situation. Sorry, SWG, but you just got boring after umpteenillion credits, and a collection of all the cool items. Ebay for you...

Re:So very wrong about Multiple Accounts

[snuf23]

I am sure many COH players have accounts on other games. Some diehard players may have more than one account but I doubt very many do. Since each account allows you 8 characters per server about the only reason to have more than one is if you want to use one character to power level another. Since you can usually find a Super Group that will help with leveling alternate characters - this isn't really necessary.

Re:So very wrong about Multiple Accounts

[Kesh]

... which is exactly what the interviewee said. They aren't "taking away" players from other games. They're drawing new players, or picking up folks who already quit playing other games.

Re:So very wrong about Multiple Accounts

[deinol]

they either quit (but then, other games didn't lose players) or are new to the genre.

I actually suspect that the number of "new" players is actually lower than they think. While I believe a significant number of people are playing CoH as their first MMO game, I am betting most of the people they attracted were people who had already quit the existing ones. EQ has been out for a very long time. Many people have tried it, and then got tired of it. There wasn't a drop in subscription to other games because the people who wanted something different had already left and probably played other games in the meantime (Morrowind, etc)

Levelling pace != skill

[Elsebet]

By making death a penalty, players now have a goal to strive for: survival. Some players will inevitably be better than others, but players want things to distinguish themselves from others. So the players who aren't killed often level quicker, and thus are demonstrably 'better' in terms of the level difference.

Levelling pace in an MMORPG has little to do with how much "better" a player is but more with how much time said player has to invest. An experience debt/loss penalty hurts a person who has 1-2 hours to play a night far, far worse in the short term than one who has the ability to play for 8-10 hours at a time. This is one reason a casual player could get upset and quit after amassing a large amount of loss/debt from an unfortunate death or series of deaths in an MMORPG.

Yes, I do realize knowing how to maximize xp gain can be considered a "skill" (a challenge measured by how hard it is to google that info) but for the most part my previous point stands.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Babbster]

No, it really doesn't hurt the short-time player that much worse since the time spent paying off the debt, expressed as a percentage of time played, should be the same.

As someone who has played MMOGs both casually and obsessively, the commonly proposed idea that there should be some crutch for people who play less than others is just ridiculous. Someone who plays less has access to the same content as someone who plays all the time - it just takes longer to get to it. Should someone who has only an hour a day to play Final Fantasy X be able to finish the game in the same two days that the person who plays straight through might?

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[MikeBabcock]

I would be interested in a game that rewarded how much you accomplished versus the time you spent doing it.

There are some balancing issues to that thought alone, but its an idea.

My other thought has been as a result of playing Morrowind with its practice-makes-perfect skill system and other related game styles. I'd like to see unused skills atrophy.

I know for myself, I often chalk up enough points in each skill I want to be uber-good and then lay waste to stuff, frequently not using my jump skill till I need it, for example. But what if I went to jump high and, having not practiced lately, couldn't jump as high anymore? Or if it took more of my energy to accomplish?

This would keep players within a smaller range of skill -- you may develop your CQC skills for a few levels then decide to move into ranged weapons. After 10 levels of doing that, your hand-to-hand skills are down from where they had been.

1) Skills should increase with practice, with limits
2) The ability to progress further should be taught by higher-level players or NPCs, but that shouldn't grant you the skill levels -- just uncap you somewhat
3) Your skills should *very* slowly atrophy with disuse; infrequent practice should keep things level.
4) Atrophied skills should remember where they'd got to, and reach that point again with a lot less effort than the first time

Just my $0.02

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[snuf23]

Debt in COH is very connected to play style and risks taken. I know some players who die very often and get angry about it. I've also watched them play and its more often than not their (lack of) tactics that is getting them killed. Doing melee attacks with a Blaster? Good way to get killed. Using your Blaster's nuke attack on a too high level group? Here comes the debt. Your scrapper wants to be a tank? Debt.
Yes the occasional lag death occurs but it's rare.
Also maximizing XP in the game IS about being a better player. Having a good well-rounded group of players will help you to level faster. Making good choices in your powers and then figuring out the best way to use them will get you XP faster. My second character caught up with my first level wise in half the time do to my better knowledge of how to play the game not through abusing exploits.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also the matter of groups. I tend to solo (no friends), but I spent a month in FFXI. As most people know, forming parties is a requirement of the game. I don't think I actually hooked up with the same person twice, ever, which meant finding random people to play with every night. When they were good, we did well. If we couldn't find a healer, we died a lot. If someone didn't know their role, they got other people killed.

So while my skill didn't vary (whether it was good or bad), some days I did great and others I died 4-5 times. Should I be penalized for not knowing anyone online today?

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you're forgetting the other thing:

Final Fantasy XI sucks. Don't judge other MMORPGs based on it.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Minna Kirai]

Levelling pace in an MMORPG has little to do with how much "better" a player is but more with how much time said player has to invest.

Obtuse much? If I told you my Ferrari was faster than your Honda, how would you reply?

Movement rate on roads has little to do with how much "faster" a car is but more with how much time each car has been driving.

Both statments are true. Both are also irrelevant, miss the obvious point, and attack things that weren't even implied in the original.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Sentry21]

I concur wholeheartedly. Playing Final Fantasy as a level 41 character got pretty tough when life started to take more of my time. I would log on, spend 2 hours tooling around making money until I found a party, get killed twice in 10 minutes right off the bat because the puller couldn't dodge aggro. Play for an hour, die a few more times before giving up on the idiots, and then I would have to log off and go somewhere. XP gain? None. After spending 3 hours losing 1500 xp (if I was lucky), I would realize again that I can't just take the first party that manages to come together, even if it does take 2 hours, and that I just don't have the time to spend getting a party together.

World of Warcraft, on the other hand, has a monetary loss. You don't lose XP but your equipment gets damaged and you have to pay to repair it. Bad, yes, but money is amazingly easy to get in WoW (I'll go from poor to rich in an hour, blow it all on badass armor, then do it again and get a good weapon).

If I log on to WoW, die in 30 seconds, then have to leave, I'm only out maybe 10 minutes of recovery time, whereas in FFXI, I'd be looking at 20 minutes of time in a good party, which would take 4 hours to get together. I actually noticed that my character got to level 30 fairly fast, go to level 40 very slowly, got to level 41 in a month, then got back to level 40 in another month.

If you want casual MMORPGing, go to WoW.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Coltman]

Not to say that your wrong. That the game should move ahead as much as you are playing it. Only MMPOGs have a monthly fee associated. The person who only plays casually will end up paying more for the same content that the person who plays obsessively will. That somehow doesn't seem right to me.

A Person who plays FF and plays to the end in two days or two years will still end up paying the same amount of money. (of course assuming that they both bought the game at the same price.) No matter what the cost of the game, the same content isn't going to be in the hundreds of dollars difference.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Anonymous Coward]

"Someone who plays less has access to the same content as someone who plays all the time - it just takes longer to get to it"
Thats all fine and good but a person who plays for 8 hours a day is getting more content for the dollar than the 2 hour per day player.

When are we going to start paying for time played instead of a flat monthly fee?

Some of these games encourage exploration of huge worlds that are easy to get lost in making it hard for a person who plays for 2 hours a day to get anywhere. these things just discourage casual play / encourage long continuous play time.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Darth]

Thats all fine and good but a person who plays for 8 hours a day is getting more content for the dollar than the 2 hour per day player.

When are we going to start paying for time played instead of a flat monthly fee?


your dollars are not providing you with the content. they are providing you with the availability of the content. A person who plays for 8 hours a day is getting the same availability of content as a person who plays for 2 hours a day. The difference is in how much the individual chooses to exercise that availability.

Personally, i dont want a pay by the hour system. I want a flat fee. (and no, i dont play 8 hours a day)

a person who plays 2 hours a day 5 days a week (i'm assuming there will be some days he doesnt play for whatever reason) puts in 40 hours a month on the game. He's being charged $15 a month, so that comes out to about $.38 an hour.

I personally feel i get at least $.38 worth of enjoyment out of an hour's playtime.

Sure the guy playing 8 hours a day is getting out with about $.10 an hour, but who cares.

Is this about getting your money's worth, or is this about sticking it to people with excessive amounts of free time on their hands?

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Babbster]

And I think the question of value is an easy one to answer and demonstrates pretty damn well that MMOGs are a good deal (if, of course, you enjoy them).

215 Here's my example: Let's take an MMOG that costs $50 up front including 30 days and $15/month thereafter. Even if you can only average a half-hour per day per month over a year's time, that's about $1.20/hour. If you're having fun during those hours, I'd say the cost was worth it. If you hate it, of course, you're out the $50, just as you would be if you bought Doom 3 and hated it (though mods could improve the fun/price ratio).

Now, if gaining experience points is the only measure of fun, then, yeah, the ultra-casual player would pay a lot more per experience point. That, however, I find to be a pretty boring way to play these games and the mentality that causes the droning on about "level grinding."

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Darth]

you arent paying a monthly fee for content. you are paying a monthly fee for availability of content. How much you use the availability is your decision and shouldn't affect the fee.

For example, I pay $40 a month for digital cable. My friend also pays $40 a month for digital cable. He watches tv constantly and i tend to only watch Monster Garage and the Daily Show.
However, the tv channels are available to me and their content is available to me whenever i want.
(or course, barring tivo, the television doesnt guarantee me the content i want when i want it, like a game does)

Same thing applies to your internet connection. Do you really want these services to be metered?

My feeling (and i dont have any non-anecdotal evidence to back it up so take it as the unsupported hypothesis it is) is that people dont want metered services.
People want a cell phone plan with a flat rate. They want a flat rate for home phone service. They want a flat rate for cable.
They want a flat rate ISP.

And if they got metered service for their MMO, they'd quickly find they want a flat rate for that too.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Coltman]

I disagree, with Cable television I have the choice to upgrade the monthly subscription to a higher level. If I want more channels (More content) then I can pay a higher fee. Cause I would watch more television. MMPOGs don't offer that or any options at all. If you have Digital cable you can opt out of getting movies on PPV channels or you can order them. You can down grade your channels for a smaller package. You can opt out of many things. Its not a flat only $40. Its a package that if you pay the $40 you get the same as your buddy. But if you change that $40 to say get regular cable (non digital) and some PPV when you want it. thats the difference.

But If I only watch a little tv then I can have the choice to not pay at all.(Rabbit ears - which I have). I don't mind much paying a monthly fee for things I use. But when I only use it a little bit I want the option to do things cheaper than the guy that goes hard and does it all the time. Or at least compensation. (some way to gain the content the same as the other guy).

BTW vcrs have been around for many moons and have been able to bring the content that I want when I want. If there were some way that you could replicate that into an MMPOG then sure that would help too.

Bottom line - Casual gamers pay hundreds more for a game that has the same content as a hardcore gamer. If MMPOGs what that business then they have to compensate for that difference.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Coltman]

Maybe an emphasis on what casual means to me. Casual is when I get to play a game or two, maybe a couple of days a week. That means 1 - 2 hrs a week. $50 bucks up front, and 8 hrs of game play a month. ~2 dollars an hr ( alittle high but as the months wear on so does the game play). then lets say I play for 6 months. 48hrs of game play for $146 And somehow thats worth it for a gamer to pay?? Then compare that a hardcore gamer has paid $50 for the game and gotten the same amount of hours in the first week, and is now complaining about "level grinding".

I like the games its that theres just not enough to them or incentive when I can play GTA San Andreas for $50 and keep playing whenever I feel like. Even a couple of years down the road when everyone else has given up on the game. mmmmm Diablo. Tetris, Civ... you get the idea. Really I'm not talkin cost per experience point. I'm talking cost per content. If you bought GTA SA and played it to the end it may take you a month. If I bought GTA SA and played it to the end it might take me a year. But we both paid the same amount for the same content. and thats what I'm talkin bout.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Babbster]

What you're describing would be a tiny subset of the gaming population, and one to which it would be of little to no use to market. If a person is playing 1-2 hours per week, particularly if that person enjoyed RPGs, how many games would s/he be likely to buy in a year? In FIVE YEARS? That kind of gamer would be the sort to buy and enjoy Tetris or solitaire, a very low-margin customer.

No, you've crossed the line into being ridiculous. There is no good reason to market a massively multiplayer game that catered to someone who plays video games 1-2 hours a week because that type of person would be the absolutely LEAST likely to pay ANY monthly fee. Good God, at that rate one game of Civilization would take 4-12 friggin' weeks! That's great if you're playing by e-mail, but it's certainly not worth a publisher making special design decisions in order to tap that market.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Anonymous Coward]

My other thought has been as a result of playing Morrowind with its practice-makes-perfect skill system and other related game styles.

Yeah, but do any Morrowind players actually raise skills by practicing? I know I always just steal a bunch of valuable stuff (that easy-to-break-into Redoran vault in Vivec's a good start), nip over to the mudcrab, then pay for the skills I want. Life's too short to spend a month failing to pick a lock when five minutes clicking "train" will get me the same result.

Presumably your ideal world would remove trainers and force me to waste hours with a lockpick instead. Thanks, but I prefer to play games, not work simulators.

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Darth]

I disagree, with Cable television I have the choice to upgrade the monthly subscription to a higher level. If I want more channels (More content) then I can pay a higher fee. Cause I would watch more television. MMPOGs don't offer that or any options at all. If you have Digital cable you can opt out of getting movies on PPV channels or you can order them. You can down grade your channels for a smaller package. You can opt out of many things. Its not a flat only $40. Its a package that if you pay the $40 you get the same as your buddy. But if you change that $40 to say get regular cable (non digital) and some PPV when you want it. thats the difference.

to my mind, all of these options are changing the amount of content available to you and dont really translate to being the same as the MMO situation. In the MMO situation, the content available is the same for you and the hardcore gamer, subject to leveling restrictions (which i associate more with broadcast time restrictions than with being additional content).

It seems to me that the situation you are talking about here would be more akin to charging people more by their level instead of my the time spent. Since new zones open up as you level and content that would lay waste to you becomes playable, you would have to pay more, regardless of how much time you spent getting to that level.
(this idea i dont think is feasible as people would go ballistic over it, play there characters to lvl 20 and stop playing them, and probably abandon the game)

But If I only watch a little tv then I can have the choice to not pay at all.(Rabbit ears - which I have).

But using Rabbit ears gets you only the basic broadcast channels. Even the most basic cable subscription comes with several other channels. You are opting to not use cable at all, but you are also opting to not have any of that content available to you.


BTW vcrs have been around for many moons and have been able to bring the content that I want when I want. If there were some way that you could replicate that into an MMPOG then sure that would help too.

until Tivo forced them to, the cable companies themselves didnt offer the service that a VCR did. In one sense, i would say this service is already offered in the game by a third party. There are lots of people who will power level characters into the high levels and make that content available very quickly. It's not quite the same thing as the VCR analogy, but it does have a similar effect. With the exemplaring system, you can even still do the low level content.
(the drawback to this is that you cannot do this by yourself. it does require you to rely on some other player to power level you)


Bottom line - Casual gamers pay hundreds more for a game that has the same content as a hardcore gamer. If MMPOGs what that business then they have to compensate for that difference.


Casual gamers pay hundreds more for the same content to be available to them for a significantly longer amount of time.

I would also say (and i dont have anything at hand to support this) that they already have the business of casual gamers. I think the majority of the 200k subscribers are casual gamers.

Being a casual gamer myself, i'm content with the $15/month. I get enough enjoyment out of the game to feel the price is worth it and view the content i cannot get to yet as a goal. To me, the fact that hardcore gamers have already gotten to that content just means it'll be debugged and working flawlessly when i get there ;).

out of curiosity, how much do you feel an hour should cost?

Re:Levelling pace != skill

[Coltman]

For the record I bought 10 games in the last year, and I now have 2 consoles, with 2 computers. And thats about average. I want the games just I never have a chance to play them. And with a single player game my last Civ game took 3 weeks. All in all you are right. It isn't cost effective yet to produce a MMPOG for my class. Not yet. Hopefully some day it will be. Because I spend money on games.

Thanks...

[Zugot]

Thanks for the interesting answers Jack.

I played CoH for a couple of months, but the same thing always seems to happen: You get sucked in, and you lose of alot of real life time trying to push your character higher.

Someone needs to create a MMORPG with a fast track, so someone who has a real job, and a family commitment can reap the benefits of the game that they pay for every month.

The funny thing is, that even though I haven't played in a couple of months, I still can't force myself to cancel my account.

Re:Thanks...

[Jerf]

I posted this before but it seems relevant again: (I've been karma capped since the day karma caps were created so don't worry about that...)

The levelling treadmill is a fundamental result of trying to apply the levelling system to MMORPGs. Anything that tries to apply the idea of levelling runs into two fundamentally conflicting forces:

• 10% of your customer base accounts for 90% of the logged in time, and
• 90% of your customer base (and by extension, income) doesn't do that.

You need to make the game fun for both groups, because the first one is loud (and will impact whether anyone buys the game at all disproportionately), and because the second one accounts for the majority of your cash flow.

Any system that rewards the player for spending time in the game, or, equivalently, requires significant time in the game to advance in skills, will always have the same flaws modern "levelling treadmills" do. Until you do away with the level idea as the central organization of the game, MMORPGs will not advance significantly over what they are now. (I'm not saying they have to go away completely, but they can't be the central number used in every RNG computation.)

It's not something that can be designed around, it's fundamental to the genre and the technique. Fortunatley, all hope is not lost. I know of at least two systems that eschew the levelling treadmill: Puzzle Pirates, which uses head-to-head puzzle competition as its combat technique, and Planetside, which I've heard is more FPS then level-based. (Could be wrong. I haven't played either.) Until these alternate techniques go mainstream, MMORPGs are going to be stuck in the same rut they've been stuck in since Ultima Online.

(PS: Half a year after I posted this and I still see no reason to believe this is wrong. The D&D mechanics are still too strong in modern MMO games, and they do not work. It is a testament to the power of MMORPG's draw that people are playing them in spite of this flaw.)

Re:Thanks...

[psychokitten]

World of Warcraft. It's possible to max your level out at 60 with very little actual effort at all whatsoever - especially if you avoid grouping and play solo. Unfortunately, you're also doing the exact same things over and over, and even if you do it only a few hours a night it gets tedious REALLY quickly.

Re:Thanks...

[Kesh]

Perhaps the solution is as simple as some other RPGs use: your experience points are used to purchase new abilities/powers/items/etc.

Using that method, one could still set arbitrary 'levels' for making sure challenges are appropriately powered. However, it allows players to gain abilities at their own leisure, picking up lots of small ones or saving for that expensive one. It rewards those who play a lot with faster 'levelling', and those who play less can gain less expensive abilities as often as they want.

Re:Thanks...

[ptbarnett]

It's not something that can be designed around, it's fundamental to the genre and the technique. Fortunatley, all hope is not lost. I know of at least two systems that eschew the levelling treadmill: Puzzle Pirates, which uses head-to-head puzzle competition as its combat technique, and Planetside, which I've heard is more FPS then level-based. (Could be wrong. I haven't played either.) Until these alternate techniques go mainstream, MMORPGs are going to be stuck in the same rut they've been stuck in since Ultima Online.

PlanetSide is primarily FPS. However, there is something similar to levels: they call them Battle Ranks. Each new battle rank gives you additional certification points, which are used to purchase the "ability" to use certain weapons or vehicles.

You increase your battle rank by getting battle experience points. There are a number of ways to get them: killing an enemy is one, but the amount varies based on how long that incarnation of the enemy has been "alive". For many people, their largest percentage of points come from participating in the capture of an enemy base.

The battle ranks top out at BR20. You don't have enough certification points at BR20 to purchase every certification, but you can swap them at any time (subject to limits on how often). But, even the most expensive certifications are available to the lower ranks.

There is some true "leveling": Command Rank, which tops out at CR5. You get command experience points for leading a squad to successfully capture and hold bases. Each CR gives the holder additional capabilities. Getting that last CR can be a real grind.

The big difference in PlanetSide is there are no NPCs (non-player characters). Every character you see is controlled by another human. There are some robotic defenses that are easily destroyed, but you don't get any points for that.

Re:Thanks...

[Anonymous Coward]

A very successful alternative to the "leveling treadmill" that many players experiences was Multiplayer Battletech 3025.

In that now long dead game (and still to this day bemoaned demise) where the gameplay itself was directly tied to skill, but better equipment could be gained by _either_ great skill _or_ time put into the game.

This meant that good players could quickly level up through the ranks and play with the bigger and "better" mechs, or worse players could keep working at it and also get there (just took more time). And as you got to see/pick who you were fighting against and what level of mech they were using, you could directly enable your enjoyment level.

A good player might start dropping against "heavies" (level 3) in his "light" (level 1) mech, which in most cases were _extremely_ outmatched on a mech level, but the skill made for a much more even match and enjoyable for both sides.

So a model whereby skill is the greatest enabler, in my mind, will always satisfy all players as long as there are things to do that are on level with your skill. The "leveling" provides an extra incentive to do better but should not be the main focus.

Re:Yet again, western devs are short sighted...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Also funny, because NCSoft is in charge of both CoH and the lineage games.

The reason Lineage sold so well was because everybody in Korea has a copy.

Death Penalty Question

[ggeezz]

I believe he hit the nail on the head with the death penalty question. Sure it's frustrating when you die and lose experience (and thus time). But shouldn't death be at the very least frustrating. If it isn't then why do I care about protecting my character.

I do, however, think there is a happy medium. Games such as Nethack, where death is permanent and final, scare me into not putting too much commitment into a character because the next key I hit could berieve me of my character. While this does make every choice I make intense, I don't want my games to be like real life where death actually causes pain (because you put so much effort into a character only to lose it). I think the experience penalty is good compromise.

Re:Death Penalty Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean 'bereave'.

Re:Death Penalty Question

[pthisis]

Games such as Nethack, where death is permanent and final, scare me into not putting too much commitment into a character because the next key I hit could berieve me of my character.

I'm personally partial to the Nethack way, but I'd rather see a compromise that made more sense--e.g. if your 14th level character dies, you have to wait 5 minutes and can roll up a new character, but the new character starts just a level or two lower than the old one (and with some okay equipment for whatever level that character is).

Kind of like an experience penalty, but makes sense (you're DEAD) and gives you a nifty bonus: you can now try out a 12th level character in some other class, so you at least get some variety. And it's severe enough to make you think.

Re:Death Penalty Question

[DJerman]

Hm, I think death penalties are pretty meaningless. Yah, it takes me twice as long to level, but I play to have fun where I am, not to get to the end.

If you get to the end, you're Done, in a MMORPG.

In city of heroes, the death penalty cuts experience in half for a certain amount of experience to earn. But not money. So one way to be a rich hero is to stay in debt.

Re:Yet again, western devs are short sighted...

[Cyclone_TBW]

Well Jack, I guess no one had the balls to step-up and ask the BIG question: What does Cryptic Plan to do with this looming lawsuit from Marvel even when they plan to release there own MMORPG? *still waiting*

Missing question

[Anonymous Coward]

How will the EA class action lawsuit going to affect the subscription system, and online games in general? For example, will I have a mandatory maximum of 3-5 hours of play per day, because NCSoft can't afford to pay admins to monitor the servers 24/7?

Up for a laugh? COH Dress like your Hero Contest!

[DoorFrame]

If you're in the mood for a chuckle, check out this contest that City of Heroes had for people to dress up like their hero. Some of them are actually pretty good. Who would have thought?

what about Shadowbane?

[Anonymous Coward]

i never hear anyone talk about Shadowbane by Ubi/Wolfpack. i think its a cool game, but it is kind of old now. has something replaced it?

(obviously im not a very hip gamer geek)

Re:what about Shadowbane?

[kashani]

Because it sucked.

1. Pitifully slow on a machine that plays CoH flawlessly.
2. Charged you for more content in the form of expansions.
3. UI was one of the worst.
4. Unstable clients and servers.

kashani

Re:what about Shadowbane?

[Southwick]

Shadowbane technically sucked; graphics, lag, server issues. Gameplay was bar none some of the best I have seen. It actually had good PVP. Character creation was far more interesting than any other game on the market. As for the future mmo's need to evolve because they have 1 fatal flaw. There is no adventure. The games just dont give you the sense of purpose that a traditional Role Playing game, dice or computer. The ideas and adventures that make Dungeons and Dragons great are not reflected in these games due to the lack of an epic quest. What I would like to see is an MMO have a game like this that is an epic quest. Dont ask me how they would do it, I have no idea. When players can have an adventure like that of Lord of the Rings, a game you can play for 2 years on a giant adventure with your friends. You can beat the game, interact with hundreds of users, and after beating the game, get the expansion and have your next epic quest.

Capes as a reward

[dglo]

For instance, a player can get a cape at level 20.

Somebody hasn't seen "The Incredibles"...

The big title in MMO's

[Ignignot]

What the MMP medium has NOT had is the breakout hit that defines it.

From this guy's numbers, CoH has about 200k people playing it. World of warcraft had 500k in the public beta, and I would expect a whole lot more people to play the full game. 2x? 2.5x? 3x? Who knows. But from what I've seen so far, it does an amazing job of putting together things that already existed in MMO's but hadn't really been used correctly, and certainly not all at once. I think this is going to be the breakout title of MMO's. This isn't fanboy enthusiasm, I really think that Blizzard has a very polished and fun product on their hands, and they have a history of producing breakthrough titles - warcraft, starcraft, and diablo.

Re:The big title in MMO's

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd really be surprised if they hit anywhere near 500k when they release (or even given until the first of the year to allow for christmas time). The European WoW is still in closed beta, so a lot of European players were playing in the American open. There are also a lot of players that won't be back. Either people that signed up and never finished the download (took forever even on a T1) or that just played because it was free.

Re:The big title in MMO's

[Miaowara_Tomokato]

World of warcraft had 500k in the public beta, and I would expect a whole lot more people to play the full game.

I would probably expect half of that to play the full game, and that's a liberal estimate. A public beta is going to attract a few different varieties of customer:

*People who've already decided they're going to buy it and wants to get in as early as possible to enjoy the game- close to 100% of these will probably end up subscribing
*People who play some MMO's already and want to see what the 'new kid' has in store. Maybe they're bored with their current one(s), or looking to add another. Maybe a quarter of these people would choose to pay for the game.
*People who are fans of Warcraft/Starcraft that have heard the buzz, but not played MMO's, but join to see what the fuss is. Who knows how many of these stick.
*Freeloaders - Public Beta means a free game! this population will dry up instantly on the game's release and seek out newer greener freer pastures.

Public beta numbers are a shaky foundation to build estimates of subscription on.

Re:The big title in MMO's

[fitten]

From everything I've seen and heard (I have several friends who have been in WoW since the first beta), WoW is a great game. However, in all the descriptions, it sounds like a single player game that you must connect to a server to play. Once you finish the quests (which are really, really good) and then maybe do the quests for one or two other races, what will it have to keep you around? It sounds like if you don't like PvP then there is no end game for you, it's just a single player game. When the quests run out, I expect lots of folks to quit playing.

There are EQ players who have played for 5 years. I played for 4 years myself before I had to quit because of time constraints. The *main* reason I kept playing was because of the folks in the guild I was in. We had fun tackling encounters and stuff, but the grouping and guilding (basically the online relationships) is what keeps many people in EQ. WoW doesn't seem to have much, if any, grouping or guilding and what grouping it does have is just to complete some quest, at which point the people who grouped seperate and go about their own business, probably to never see each other again.

Our EQ guild had a number of get-togethers over the years that didn't necessarily coincide with the FanFairs that SOE ran. Will WoW have this type of following?

I'm by far not the only one who has done this, but I met a girl playing EQ who was a member of the guild I was in at one of our guild get-togethers about 3 years ago. This past August we got married after dating for about a year but being friends for several years prior (we were friends in game before the get-together). Would you expect to see these type things in WoW?

Re:The big title in MMO's

[DigitalDemon617]

WoW had 500k in just the North American beta. They had similar numbers in Korea I believe. I expect the European beta to have similar numbers. WoW probably has the best shot to be that genre defining title that Emmert said MMO's don't have yet.

Re:The big title in MMO's

[jhutch2000]

Actually, I expect the opposite in WoW's launch... Remember, open beta was free. Everybody and their brother grabbed an account (some people, multiple accounts). Not all of them will get the final game.

While I think WoW will set some records on player totals at launch, it will be significantly BELOW 500,000 accounts during launch.

*NOTE: I define the launch period as the first month after initial launch.

Re:The big title in MMO's

[twbecker]

I tend to take the opposite view. Sure, 500k people signed up to play the game *for free*, but how many of those are going to dish out the $50 +15/mo? By contrast, how many people that intend to purchase the game wouldn't have signed up for the open beta? WoW is gonna be huge no doubt, but 1.5 - 2 million huge? I don't think so.

Re:The big title in MMO's

[Kesh]

I'm wondering if D&D Online might be able to do it. Pull the video game geeks together with the pen-and-paper geeks to make a massive online geek fest.

Geeks of the world, unite! :)

Re:The big title in MMO's

[SuperRob]

Good question. I think it's more than you think ... I played open beta for all of THREE DAYS, and I immediately went out and pre-ordered the game when the open beta ended. Calling WOW the breakout hit of the MMO genre isn't that much of a stretch ... given Blizzard's track record, if anyone can do it, they can.

Re:The big title in MMO's

[Killer_Rabbit]

One thing you have to remember is that 500k people signed up in TWO DAYS. They decided to cap the number of sign ups at 500k. So, they probably could have 1-2 million (or more) sign ups had they not capped them at 500k.

Re:The big title in MMO's

[@madeus]

What you've said is true but I'd bear in mind that they had to cancel the signup after the servers were /.'d due to over subscription so we don't know what the number would have been if they had let it run.

That and it was a 2.5 GB download and the closed beta was only for a short period, with a client of that size a lot (but not all certainly) of freeloaders would be put off the lengthy download.

I think the large delay in the release outside the US will reduce the initial number of subscribers for a bit. ( This is because for the first time in a large MMO, users outside the US won't simply be able to play online on the US servers as players will need a US billing address).

I do agree with the parent poster though, WoW is just such a stunning example of how to get it right I think it's going to be genre defining (which would be a real coup for Blizzard). I don't think the hard core powerlevellers from EQ/SWG/L2 will like it as much, I think everyone else will love it. Like CoH, I think people who don't play a MMOG will love it in particular (though I think it will have wider appeal that CoH, not least because of the recent LOTR films, which it draws on for 'inspiration' noticeably).

I'd note I came across it as very skeptical at first but was won over by the game and genuine level of immersion and the fact that everything - from questing, to crafting to dying was pure fun from start to finish. I know quite a lot of people who think that dying should severly punish users, I think this is a big poke in the eye to that concept and it's about time people released everything in a game should be as fun as possible, no part of the fundamental game mechanics should be tedious or harshly punative.

NO CAPES

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh, you'd think that recently released documentary would teach people...

give away the razor

[lubricated]

Really even $40 is way to much to pay for a game that requires a subscription. They should just give away the game or sell it for 15. Alot more people would jump on just to try it and more would end up staying on.

Re:give away the razor

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

This is a good plan, but how do you get stores to stock a "free" or "almost-free" game on the shelves?

The other problem with free trials is the opportunity for abuse. For example, in Asheron's Call you could build up prestige and rank by getting people to agree to swear allegience to you, and it took X number of people to obtain the next rank. Once you achieved a high enough rank (usually due to having several hundred followers) you were eligible to buy a guild mansion.

At one point they started handing out free 1 week trials to AC and TONS of people created one-week throw away accounts, filled up every character slot and had them all swear to their chosen leader thus grossly increasing their "allegience numbers" and allowing a small group of people to obtain one of the all too few guild mansions for themselves and potentially blocking a real guild from purchasing one.

That's just one example.

Re:give away the razor

[Babbster]

I don't buy into this at all. First off, the vast majority of the MMOGs available give 30 days "free" with the purchase price. This gives more than enough time to figure out if the game is enjoyable enough to continue into the next month when the subscription fees kick in. Second, I think that the expectations for MMOGs are ridiculously high. People don't seem to bat an eye at blowing $50 for less than a day's worth of eye candy with weak gameplay (hi, Doom 3) even knowing IN ADVANCE the length of the game. This being the case, $50 seems like a small price to pay for a month in a game where you know up front that you're not going to finish the content before that month is up.

In short, I think the perceived value and the actual value of these games have been disconnected to a ridiculous degree.

Re:give away the razor

[Carnildo]

That's easy to solve: a trial account isn't able to enter into any permanent relation with paying accounts -- you can't swear allegience, if you join a guild, you aren't counted in the membership numbers unless you convert to a paying account, etc.

Re:give away the razor

[cowscows]

I may spend $50 on Doom 3, and not find it all that fun, but it's still a better investment than an MMOG. Maybe the game wasn't that great, but a month later, I can still run it, I'll be able to play around with whatever mods have been created for it, I can even hack at some mods myself if I want to. Or I can sell it or trade it with a friend or something.

If I get bored of World of Warcraft after a couple weeks, then what am I stuck with? A game that'll be useless in a month. If a year from now I'm bored on a rainy day and I find it while cleaning out my desk, I can't even throw it into the CD tray and play with it for a couple hours without subscribing again. There aren't going to be any mods to it, because only Blizzard hosts the servers (as well as other reasons). I'm not sure what their policy is in regards to me selling/trading/giving away my copy of the game. Is that possible?

Overall, an MMOG with a subscription isn't a bad idea. $15 per month is an excellent deal if you get a lot of enjoyment out of it. But a $50 retail price with a "free month" really just means that you're paying fifty buck for the first month. I don't care about an instruction booklet, or some physical CDs. I downloaded the WoW beta, it went through a bittorrent client. Blizzard didn't even pay for the bandwidth. Why can't I get the actual game like that? I'm not paying them that much money up front just for the right to give them another 50 cents each day.

Re:give away the razor

[n0nsensical]

Stores don't have to stock them at all: the download model works perfectly for MMOs. But a number of stores did and probably still do stock $10 EQ classic anyway.

Capes?

[SuperKendall]

I can't see why anyone would *strive* for a cape after watching this!

I wonder if there's anything that he could say

[Steeltalon]

about the impending Marvel bul... er, lawsuit. I feel really bad for the CoH team. They put together a fun game and they're getting sued for giving players options.

Totally disagree on the death penalties

[Synn]

If the player feels that he can dispose of his character at any time, then the player inevitably doesn't care very much about his character. This works in a short term FPS model, but not so much in a game which is depending upon long term commitment.

First off many FPS games have been around as long as or longer than MMORPGs, so that arguement right there doesn't hold up. But players stick around in MMORPGs not because death penalties somehow give their characters depth, but because of the player community and because of the long term achievement goals.

I can't wait until World of Warcraft blows this myth out of the water.

Re:Totally disagree on the death penalties

[wbm6k]

I think you are misunderstanding his point. He is not referring to the genre of FPS as short term, but rather the play style: FPS games are generally quick, with matches certainly less than an hour, and the character itself is disposable - you can always just reload from the last checkpoint (in single player) or wait for the round to end (counterstrike, SOCOMM), or just respawn immediately (Unreal Tournament).
The character does not change or grow over time, just your own skills as a player.

He contrasts this with a traditional MMORPG play style, where the skills of the character (which change over time) are as important as the skills of the player. Here, the game relies on a long commitment (hours for the first bit of growth, weeks or months to achieve full powers) to a single character to unlock all its capabilities.
Since it takes a lot of game play to get the most out of the character, the player needs to care about the character and its growth.

Once you understand his point, then we can start talking about whether death penalties help or hinder the player's concern for the character. Certainly, a player will be more careful with a high level character in a permadeath game (e.g. Nethack) than with a low level character that can just be recreated without much effort.
Still, I think you are right about the death penalty being a side issue, not the most important factor for making players stick around and care about their characters.

Re:Totally disagree on the death penalties

[Eris13]

First off MMORPGS are basicly MUDS and they as a genre have been around longer than FPS games by a long, LONG while. You can also generalise that they share the same philosphy on death penalties that modern MMORPGS do. Your counter argument itself doesnt hold up.

Nethack is a great example as so many people have pointed out of a RPG style game with a hideous death penalty. But it's got a loyal following thats not based on community.

While WoW is a great game, the people that will play it wont be choosing to do so soley because of it's death penalty. If anything it's relaxed death penalty model will encourage the bad player to keep on playing and making life hell for everyone else.

WoW death penalty

[yeoua]

Note that in WoW (I was able to get into the open beta before it closed) the "penalty" is not quite a penalty, which is quite good.

In WoW, you lose no experience, no gold, no equipment... infact, your character comes back intact. What you do lose is time... and a lot of it. And you can also lose your place in the game.

Basically you spawn as a ghost at some graveyard, and now you can either hike to your body or pay the penalty of 10 minutes with a curse on your stats (a major curse) and all armor on you and your inventory takes a hit on durability. This basically puts you out of the game for 10 minutes, loss of potentially a substantial amount of gold, and you spawn fresh at the grave site which could be many minutes away from where you were. That's a decently big penalty of basically... you have to wait 10 minutes before you can attempt what ever you tried again, which could have taken half an hour.

If you attempted to walk back as a ghost, you have to walk back for potentially 10 minutes (Barrens comes to mind), and when you get there you have a chance of not having a safe spawn point in which case you could just die again and repeat this process.

So yes there is no character based penalty... but with the potential of needing to basically start a segment of your quest from scratch (especially where its instanced since you have to start at the start... and enemies respawn at some rate) after a relatively long run back to perhaps a hostile spawn area (and you spawn without buffs at that)... or a choice to take 10 minutes of ability drain and gold sacrifice...

WoW is not without its penalties. But the penalties are not your character... the penalties are on you the player.

Re:WoW death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

A few corrections for those interested: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/basics/death.h tml

I never felt majorly upset after dying as the penalty (compared to EQ) is relatively light. Some argue, however, that a heavy death penalty makes the game more exciting. Currently it is a decent balance IMHO although a 50% durability reduction would probably been a better punishment.

Re:WoW death penalty

[Samrobb]

Why not allow the player to select their death penalty at character creation time? The idea would be to make it so that the characters who are more likely to suffer when they die are also the ones more likely to advance...

For example:

A casual player could take the the minimum death penalty - something like WoW, where there's a time delay only before you respawn somewhere (relatively) safe. In return, they get normal experience from the game.

A more dedicated player could take a medium death penalty - item deterioration/theft, stat deterioration, etc. In return, they would get an experience bonus - say, 25% extra experience. They're risking more, so they're earning more as well.

A hardcore player could take the "he's dead, Jim" level of death penalty: you die, that's it. But they'd earn 50% extra experience when compared to their less-adventuresome brethren.

Hmm. Now that I think of it, you could adapt this idea to solve the 2 hours a night vs. 12 hours a day player problem, too. Keep track of how many hours a player has been online in a particular day. Players online for more than, say, 4 hours, get nada. Players online for less time get a sliding percentage of some standard experience award at the end of the day, so that the player who's playing casually (1-2 hours every couple of days) can "keep up" with the hardcore players. Maybe not even with them - where a hardcore player might be pulling down 8000 xp from 8 hours of play, for example, someone who plays 1 hour might get a bonus award of 3000 xp. Enough so that they're not completely outstripped, but not enough that the hardcore player feels like the casual Joe has the better deal.

Re:WoW death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine telling a player with over a year and $200 in monthly fees that their character is permanently gone after lagging out in a battle.

Can't see it happening.

Re:WoW death penalty

[kwerle]

You now have a gold penalty in the form of equipment wear when you die (at least that's how I read it in the forums). Not that it's much, mind you, but it's not nothing.

Re:WoW death penalty

[SuperRob]

This changed late in open beta. Death now results in a 10% reduction in the durability of all items (which have durability ratings to begin with). If you choose to use the Spirit Healer, you are resurrected without finding your body, but you get a 25% reduction in durability. This basically costs you a little money in addition to the curse, which isn't that bad a deal. The death penalty in WOW is very minor compared to a lot of games.

Re:WoW death penalty

[tachi_]

what you dont realize is... all mmorpg death penalty is ultimately a hit on players time. the gold/xp lost upon death can all be gained back w/ players time. before wow went public beta the choice upon death was between taking an xp loss or retrieve your body. and sometimes taking the xp loss and using the time you saved to gain back the lost xp was LESS than the time you spent traveling back to retrive your body. most players dont realize this tho, wow did a good job "hiding" the death penality as most players have an easier time accepting the time loss "travling" vs killing mobs for xp. ultimately the death slowed down your chars progression and maked you the player spend more time playing the game.

Re:WoW death penalty

[NaugaHunter]

I'm going to address your second point, and say WoW already has a rest system for this. If you are at 'Rested' instead of 'Normal', you get 200% of XP for kills. The longer you are logged out between playing, the longer you will be at Rested while playing. It went through many forms to get to that point, and in the end pretty much all Beta players agreed it was a reasonable amount.

As for death penalties, if you have choice you would just open yourself for headaches for your choices from support requests. Request type one would be players who chose A, but are now in a guild with B's and want to change because they keep falling behind. And virtually every C will claim they were killed by lag and want to be resurrected. It's much simpler if you pick one that people will accept, even if they would prefer more or less.

There were numerous suggestions during Beta for a "Hardcore" (type C) server. When others replied "Just delete your character when you die and own your experience", they would whine that if everyone didn't have the same penalty it wasn't fair. So I don't think having the 3 choices on one server would work, and having different servers with different rules still be troublesome from a support point of view.

Re:WoW death penalty

[Samrobb]

I'm not a MMOG player, so I can't really comment :-/ Still - there are players who think that this kind of thing is how games *should* be played. If they want to be ub3r-l33t and play hardcore, then why not let them? Yah, if they lag, or something else happens, the admins can bring them back... that's not the kind of death I'm talking about. Heck, you could probably come up with a rough first-cut mechanism for figuring out if death should be permanent or not... say, if a character "dies", you send the player's machine a message. If it responds, you send the "permanent death announcement", and the character is permanently dead, barring outside intervention (admin or friendly companions). If the player's machine looks dead or overwhelmingly lagged, then you fall back to respawning the character with some measure of stat/equipment loss, etc.

If nothing else, this makes the usual "in-game" devices, spells, etc. that deal explictly with death-avoidance much more interesting and valuable.

Re:WoW death penalty

[lubricated]

then your anti death cheat becomes pull the ethernet cord right before you die.

Re:WoW death penalty

[Samrobb]

Interesting comment about WoW's rest system - I'm not really into MMOGs, but it seems like a reasonable way to account for the online/offline dichotomy. I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to figure out something like this.

I was thinking that there would be additional differentiators aside from death penalties - ie, if it wasn't just experience; perhaps some quests would only be open to hardcore players, or open up at lower levels, etc. Though I understand your comment about players complaining about lag deaths. You hear the same whining in 1PS games :-/

Re:WoW death penalty

[The Evil Couch]

I rather liked the death penalties in Horizons. You couldn't just rack up death points, but if you took a couple deaths a night, it wasn't a big deal.

Here's how they worked for those of you unfamiliar:
Dying gives you a Death Point.
Death Points go away after 8 hours of real time, whether or not you're online.
Eating a variety of foods can reduce the time until the next DP goes away by about 5 minutes, on average. Eating the same foods repetatively has a significantly reduced effect.

1st DP: No ill effects
2nd DP: ~5% penalty for all skills for ~5 minutes
3rd DP: ~10% penalty for all skills for ~10
and so on. I think the percentage capped off at around 30-50%. I'm not sure how long the penalties would stay in effect for if you had a crapload of DPs.

I personally never had more than 8, though I know some guildies that got the crap kicked out of them during raids against the Avatar of Pain (shameless plug: Click here for a video of my personal war agaisnt the AoP) and got around 30.

So long as you took care to stay alive, you never really had a big penalty against you, but if you got careless, you'd pay the price, which is basically how I think it ought to be.

Re:WoW death penalty

[NaugaHunter]

They were probably planning on it from the beginning, but waited until a good ways into the Beta to implement it at all so they could get a base line of normal XP/leveling speed/etc. The first version they implemented was actually completely sliding, where if you were online for quite a while without resting you would progress through Tired stages that netted 50% or even 25%XP. Boy, the stink that went up over that. I'm sure it made sense in meetings, but players did not want to be punished for playing. In the end you still had idiots arguing that because some players were getting a 'bonus' it was as if they were getting 'punished', but they slowly died down as the system got tweaked.

There are quests in WoW that require hours on end, and there are apparently large high-end raids that require a lot of planning. It is possible to go to the cap of 60 in 3 or 4 hour increments on a casual basis, but dedicated players will get there faster and have unique items from certain quests as well.

In other words, it's not that certain quests are open to hardcore players, more that casual players probably just won't do them. All in all it works out well enough.

The Problem with CoH

[Ratphace]

I have played CoH in beta to the present and as the game slowly matures (and I use that term loosely, it still has a LONG way to go) it becomes more and more unbalanced. If you play anything besides a tanker or scrapper you are destined to die quite often and quite easily as opposed to those other 2 AT's I mentioned. It really comes down to having a couple badly overpowered classes that as you get closer to the high end (40-50 range) the gap of ability vs survivability is huge. Most blasters, controllers and defenders die very, very easily. Once they realize the imbalances they are creating and address them, I think this game has a lot of potential to be one of the more successful games. Just my 2 cents...

Re:The Problem with CoH

[Shadwhawk]

Well, the Epic power pools may curb the squishy nature of non-defensive ATs in the 30+ game. All of the Blaster Epic sets seem to have at least one Tanker-like defense power.
Defenders and Controllers may be similarly squishy, but a good Defender or Controller either won't be drawing lots of aggro or will be locking down the mobs one way or another. The Controller who runs around not paying attention to what his Pets are doing deserves to get pasted.
Blasters really get the short end of the stick in high-end. They draw aggro by default, they have little to no ability to mez the mobs, and they will die in two hits from a boss, period (to say nothing of attacks from AVs or Monsters--The Psychic Clockwork King plastered me in one attack for about 2000 damage with its Psychic Nova).

When I see a L36 SR Scrapper friend surrounded by a pack of mixed +2s, and not getting hit, while I have to be careful about taking on two +0 LTs...I really hope the Epic pools bring me some worthwhile defense.

Re:The Problem with CoH

[nycbrujah]

*laughs*
I have a broadsword/invulnerability scrapper and the psychic clockwork king took me down in two hits. And that's only because my healer (empathy/rad defender) actually got Absorb Pain and Heal Other off on me.

But then..Invuln has no defense/resistances to psychic attacks. Which honestly sucks because every other mob above 40 has a psychic attack. Ah well!

I routinely jump into large mobs of +3 and live too. *kisses invincibility*

There's no purpose other than to tell you the psychic clockwork king took out my scrapper without adding another wrinkle to that brain of his.

Re:The Problem with CoH

[DevNova]

I don't think it is nearly as unbalanced as you make it out to be. The survivability of defenders, blasters and controllers really comes down to how well the team is put together and how good your strategy is. When I team with my supergroup and our tanker who is a master strategist IMO, my controller can survive very large opponents. When in a pickup team who doesn't really know what they are doing or how strategies can affect the attacks, I die much more frequently.

I'd revisit your playstyle if your blasters, controllers and defenders are dying a lot. They don't have to.

ADitD

[SeanDuggan]

A Day in the Desert also eliminated some of the levelling. You had a multitude of different directions you could go with your skills and some of the "grinding," repeating a task over and over again, could be automated to be run while you were gone. (I think... I only played for a short while before life intervened, so most of this is based upon my brother's experience, him having spent much time on the original and its sequel.)

Free month indeed.

[Stalin]

I can't believe people accept that if they pay $39.99 for the game they are getting to play it "free for one month." /me knocks on the fools head "Hello in there. You just paid over twice the monthly fee for your 'free month'." I wish MMOs would adopt the business model that Vendetta Online is using. You can go to the store, buy the box which comes with goodies like a map and a plastic disc, and get your "free month." Or, you can go to the website, download the installer, and then play for a free eight hours. What is so wrong with that that games like CoH can't do that? "Free month" indeed.

Re:Free month indeed.

[trisight]

I will say this much about purchasing the game itself. It costs lots of money to develop these games. Imagine if you only financed a game for a year and had to pay all the developers salary alone.. imagine what that costs that's not counting all the building, machinary, and misc costs not to mention graphics designers, midi and wav composers, etc. Reallly, game development is expensive, it would take a lot longer to comp just the loss of revenue put in (in advance I might add) on $10 a month per player. You also have to consider that that money also goes to pay for the fees that it costs to run the server itself (manpower, maintenance, T1s (or whatever they use), etc).

Really.. this kinda stuff costs money to perform and no one is going to do all of this without pulling down some kinda profit.

Re:Free month indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

TINSTAAFL

Re:Free month indeed.

[Stalin]

I understand that the games cost money to develop. I also understand that a portion of the monthly fees goes toward maintaining the game and such. But, not all of it does; I will even venture to say that a majority of the monthly fee is nothing but pure profit. I am talking about the combined monthly fees they are getting from the 100,000+ subscribers. At some point the fees stop paying the bills and start lining the corporate wallets.

Sure, offer all the goodies in the box for the people that want them (most just throw everything except the cd, and cdkey, away) but, offer up the goods online (really for free) for the people willing to download the content and pay the fee.

Coming to the Mac?

[davco9200]

Any one know if this is coming to the mac? I just ordered WOW and I am not sure what the economics are, but it does seem like there is a blossoming market for multi-player games, but there are so few available for the mac.

Re:Coming to the Mac?

[NetNifty]

Yup. Mac client available at launch.

no death penalty != disposable !!!

[Paolomania]

Jack:
If players lose nothing by being defeated then naturally the players won't see death as an issue. Players will begin to look at their characters like those in FPS games such as Counterstrike or Battlefield 1942. In other words, the player's avatar is perceived as disposable.

This fallacy is very popular amongst MMOG devs. Avatars are disposable only if the player considers the cumulative time that they have put into developing their character as worthless. I believe that most people value their time, and therefore value their developed avatars with or without some penalty for dying that equates to hours of game time.

Re:Yet again, western devs are short sighted...

[NetNifty]

Nobody asked that question because the "Ask City of Heroes Lead Designer Jack Emmert" story was posted before the Marvel lawsuit story.

Rip-Offs

[LilMikey]

I bought into these for a while. I was a member of Galaxies. Beta member of WoW. Beta member of CoH. SecondLife member. I can't fathom how these people can charge $50+ for the game then an additional $15 a month and people actually pay it. You want to get your product out there... free download then pay the monthly fee.

If I pay $50 for a game that sucks and then after a month it's no use to me, I would feel completely screwed. Give me a free download and a $15 first month... then if it sucks I'm out $15. (and unfortunately, a lot of MMORPGs suck... bad). Better yet, use the SecondLife model. $10 for life and then you only pay for the game resources you use.

Re:Rip-Offs

[twbecker]

The problem is that if they lose the revenue from initial sales, that fee will be more like $20 a month. Or did you think you were paying for the packaging? But I definitely agree that free trials are essential for mass MMO adoption. WoW got it right, download and play for free, then if you want to continue, buy a retail box and pay the monthly fee.

Re:Rip-Offs

[trisight]

Or there could be a happy medium. For instance offer a free two week trial where the software is downloadable and you have to pay say $10 for the two week access. Then if the user likes it they could purchase it, if not they are out the time it took to d/load and the $5.

Re:Rip-Offs

[mikelu]

I'm sure they would love to offer the client for free (or cheap) and only charge a subscription fee...but the publishers would have a fit.

Just look at what's happening with Valve/HL2 right now...that's why the box costs fifty dollars.

Re:Rip-Offs

[lune tns]

f I pay $50 for a game that sucks and then after a month it's no use to me, I would feel completely screwed. Give me a free download and a $15 first month... then if it sucks I'm out $15. (and unfortunately, a lot of MMORPGs suck... bad).
I believe that is the whole point.

Since most MMORPGs do suck, the devs/publisher needs to provide some kind of initial hook - in this case, your $50 box copy.

You don't want to throw away your $50 investment, because that would just make you feel stupid, so you keep playing, even though it isn't fun.

For the first few hours/days of play, your character will level fast, and things will be close together - they know you don't have the patience for the big timesinks yet and that you'll quite playing if it isn't fun. Within the first month, you've gotten to where you're forced to start grouping, and things are starting to take a lot more of your time. At the end of that first month, you're probably thinking "This isn't very much fun, but it's fun playing with those people/friends I've met." So you stay on with your subscription.

If you're only loss is the few minutes it took you to find the downloadable client and start it, then you have no initial incentive to stay in this kind of game, and you probably will never reach the deeper psychological hooks.

MMORPGs are a dirty business.

Re:Rip-Offs

[lune tns]

And I apologize for those typos. I just woke up ;)

...ahhh, the life of a geek.

Wrong "short term"

[SeanDuggan]

First off many FPS games have been around as long as or longer than MMORPGs, so that arguement right there doesn't hold up.
I suspect that what he means is the short-term experience with the session you're playing. While I've been playing games of Eradicator for over 5 years, it hasn't been the same session that I've been playing. In comparison, in an MMORPG, you may have been building your character for years. *shrug*

MMORPG masochism

[WombatDeath]

A couple of things:

"So the players who aren't killed often level quicker, and thus are demonstrably 'better' in terms of the level difference."

Really now, this is frothing idiocy. I haven't yet seen a MMORPG where skill and strategy isn't entirely overwhelmed by the time invested in playing - a high-level character is simply demonstrably 'older'.

"This is no different than one person earning a special piece of armor by going on a hard, long quest, and another one who chooses not to go on that quest. The former then gets the recognition for his effort."

This is the main problem with this sort of game, I think. You go on a hard, long, arduous quest. It takes effort. It's a struggle. It's not fun! And if you're anything like me, perhaps you'll grit your teeth and force yourself through it to get the reward at the end. Or you might decide that it's not worth the effort.

The MMORPG watershed he speaks of will, I think, come when someone manages to create a game where the grind is replaced by something consistently entertaining, rather than something which must be endured. Ask a typical player if they'd do the typical levelling activities without getting items or experience and they'd laugh in your face. That's the key; a game which simultaneously rewards and entertains will change the industry.

Re:MMORPG masochism

[Minna Kirai]

Really now, this is frothing idiocy.

It's rare for a poster to give such an honest self-critique.

Or can't you pick up on obvious inferences? Must everything be spelled out for you using 5 times the word-count?

If I told you that faster vehicles travel further, would you get all confused because I elided "in equal time"?

Re:MMORPG masochism

[WombatDeath]

Let's try this again, shall we?

"Some players will inevitably be better than others, but players want things to distinguish themselves from others. So the players who aren't killed often level quicker, and thus are demonstrably 'better' in terms of the level difference."

So, players want something which demonstrates their skill at playing the game. Emmert implies that this distinction is indicated by a high-level character. I assert that this is nonsense.

You're level 100! Well done! But, let's face it, so are loads of other people. Who says you're any better at this than the little level 20 whacking goblins?

Oh, so you got to level 100 in 419 hours online. And it took me 552, so you must be better at this than I am. Except...how much of your time was spent chatting, crafting, exploring, questing, fighting other players? Did you actually do the work, or did you get your friends to power-level you? Hmmm.

Perhaps it would help if, using as many obvious implications as you can lay your hands on, you would be good enough to explain how levelling provides any useful and demonstrable distinction between one player and another.

Re:MMORPG masochism

[Minna Kirai]

Oh, so you got to level 100 in 419 hours online. And it took me 552, so you must be better at this than I am.

That's not nonsense. That's the truth. If I earned $100 in 80% of the time it took you, I'd be a better worker (according to the principles of capitalism).

Except...how much of your time was spent chatting, crafting, exploring, questing, fighting other players?

Many hobbies, from bicycling to basketweaving to RPGs, derive a great portion (majority?) of their enjoyability by peripheral activities like the pleasure of chatting with friends.

But, outside of the Special Olympics, there are other measures of ability beyond how much fun you had trying. We can conduct simple contests to tell who is the best player at a game. For PVP games (including reallife things such as football) a simple head-to-head contest is all that's needed. For a PVE game (including real quasi-sports like track&field) you set some metric of achievement and see who scores the highest. As Jack already explained, the best availble metric to quantify MMORPG ability is XP/hour.

you would be good enough to explain how levelling provides any useful and demonstrable distinction between one player and another.

When people play the game, what are they trying to do? (Aside from the worthlessly abstract "Have fun"). They want to either defeat computer challenges, view content, or collect power... all of which comes down to levelling. If the game weren't a level-grind like all other popular MMORPGs, then it would be valid to use another standard. But as long as the gameplay is about leveling, the fastest levellers will be the best players, by definition.

Consider if you were asked to objectively pick which of a set of players of a solo game (like Doom 3) was the best. You'd have to count how long it takes them to complete the game, or how many times they loaded a save, or something else quantifiable with a hard linkage to skill. The amount of time they spend admiring the scenary or toying with physics doesn't make them better players, even though they may be having more fun, which is the ostensible objective of games.

Re:MMORPG masochism

[mwmcmahon]

But as long as the gameplay is about leveling, the fastest levellers will be the best players, by definition.

The folks who level the fastest will be those who gain the biggest reward for the least amount of risk. (Just like capitalism.) It has nothing to do with being "the best player". Or, more accurately phrased, being the best player has so much more to do with "everything else" than it does with how fast you've leveled.

Reaching level 40 in record time because your level 50 buddy, "The Babysitter", kept you buffed and at full health through every level since Outbreak does not make you a good player. (And neither does earning top dollar in your father's research lab make you a good scientist.)

As Jack already explained, the best availble metric to quantify MMORPG ability is XP/hour.

If you want to find the best player's in CoH, find the ones that have the most mission-related badges. These players are going to be much stronger overall because the Task Force and Trial missions tend to be incredibly challenging and will require competent players to succeed. (Just like those with the most reputable certifications, awards, and accomplishments will most often be the best workers.)

And since all of the Task Force and Trial missions have min/max level requirements, you can be pretty sure that if The Babysitter was tagging along, he did it on equal footing with the rest of the team. (It's much more difficult for daddy to buy you the Nobel prize.)

Guild Wars

[Jugalator]

I'm personally very interested in Guild Wars. Not really a MMORPG except for some aspects, but very little grind, no monthly fees, a lot of content and even more to be released in expansions that *you* decide when to buy and not absolutely necessary to play with those who have the expansions, excellent graphics (see website), Player vs Environment areas, Guild vs Guild areas, Player vs Player arenas, and questing and a decent storyline. Overall a new kind of game genre and I have already pre-ordered the game. :-)

Shattered Galaxy

[talaphid]

Shattered Galaxy, a phenomenal game if the game itself is your cup of tea, had pantloads of beta testers. Then it went commercial.

And because the game is entirely PVP, they discovered they needed to bolster the playerbase with free accounts.

Yeah. The playerbase went DOWN from beta. Why? Because it turns out a lot of people like playing for free (read: beta) and not so many like the subscription fee. (You're welcome to posit your own analysis about the actual merits of SG, but, whatever)

How many people purchased Warcraft III? How many MMO players are there currently? How many Warcraft III players are in for spending money monthly (consider one of the major selling points of War3 - free online play...)

But hey, who knows. I just think you're making assumptions in the wrong direction.

Re:no death penalty != disposable !!!

[psychokitten]

"Avatars are disposable only if the player considers the cumulative time that they have put into developing their character as worthless." That's actually the effect I've noticed in CoH with it's increasingly steep XP debt. I know a lot of people who wind up with characters every month or so because the sheer amount of XP debt they accrue makes it not worth their while to spend time with the character any longer. I encountered people disposing their characters and starting over in CoH more than I have in any other game.

User created content not very good?

[Realistic_Dragon]

Tell that to the NWN scripters who have spent literally years creating fantasticly detailed worlds, the kind of thing that can only be achieved free of commercial pressure and driven by the players.

Most is dross but a significant minority is OUTSTANDING and the man is a tool to ignore it.

Re:User created content not very good?

[Kesh]

You just killed your own argument.

The point he was making is that most of it is crap. And in an MMORPG, you don't have the option of avoiding the crap... it's part of the server!

At least in NWN, you can read reviews and choose not to download the crap, or uninstall the crap once you see how bad it is. With an MMORPG, you don't get that chance. It's simply there and you have to deal with it being there.

Re:User created content not very good?

[Sage Gaspar]

Jack Emmert: "The problem is that most player created generated content isn't very good."

Realistic Dragon: "Most is dross but a significant minority is OUTSTANDING"

Nice to see that you guys agree. Now, take a deep breath, and think about how long it took them to come out with NWN, which, in the end, has a sub-par editor that requires a lot of hacks and workarounds. Think about combining that with an MMORPG, where the technological dilemma is compounded by fifty times.

Think about the legal issues with copyright and trademark that CoH is facing even now -- Marvel is suing just because some character creation options look sorta similar to its characters. If you gave players the freedom that would be required to make this worthwhile, it would be legal hell.

While an MMO with user-generated content sounds great in concept, I doubt there exists a company right now that could pull it off.

Re:no death penalty != disposable !!!

[trisight]

What would be good is if they did it on a time based system. For instance if the player died then he would return as a ghost and have to find someone (npc or pc) to resurrect him (much like the old days of ultima online, I haven't played it recently in the past many years so I don't know if it still holds true). Then there would be a time limit to get back to the body, if the user didn't make it back to the body in time he would suffer xp debt and also his body would be lootable. Remember the old days of UO when if you died everything you had on your person was able to be taken? It sucked, but it made the game more interesting.

Also, if there is to be a time limit, it would need to be realistic, not a simple 15 minute timer, maybe an hour or two of real time.

Here's another idea, if there is going to be XP debt, don't make it so horrible! What's the point of spending 2 or 3 hours gaining xp to lose half of it in a second.. that's real discouraging..

Spoiler in parent's post. (I think!)

[freakmn]

Mind using the word spoiler? I haven't yet seen the movie, and I'm sure there are at least a couple others that would like to have a choice of what they know about the movie ahead of time. From the context, I don't think it is a major plot part, so I'm not angry, just thought it might be considerate to let people know.

Re:Spoiler in parent's post. (I think!)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a spoiler ;-)

Re:Spoiler in parent's post. (I think!)

[DLWormwood]

I haven't yet seen the movie, and I'm sure there are at least a couple others that would like to have a choice of what they know about the movie ahead of time.

The gag in question is from a light hearted interlude partway into the film. It one of those scenes you are likely to see excerpted in commericials and in movie reviews. It's not a "real" spoiler.

That said...

SPOILER

The movie foreshadows alot. Concepts and gags are frequently introduced as an aside or background story before they become relevant to the plot. The above is just one of many...

Re:Spoiler in parent's post. (I think!)

[Minna Kirai]

Mind using the word spoiler?

Since The Incredibles just ripped that idea from the same seminal 20-year-old comic that it took 50% of the plot-points from, it's spoilagability is a little expired.

In fact, anyone who read that post and thought it told something about the movie would be misled. It's almost an anti-spoiler. (ie: "What if Haley Joel Osment was dead too?")

Re:no death penalty != disposable !!!

[Minna Kirai]

This fallacy is very popular amongst MMOG devs.

That fallacy is very rare amoung MMOG critics, because few people are stupid enough to misinterpret straightforward statements that way, while still retaining enough intellect for minimal literacy.

Avatars are disposable only if the player considers the cumulative time that they have put into developing their character as worthless.

No. Just like Jack said, avatars are disposable if you don't lose anything by disposing of them. Your suggestion that time would be lost is completely contradicted by his hypothesis that nothing would be lost.

Re:Up for a laugh? COH Dress like your Hero Contes

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my. This one will find she has many new e-friends (read: stalkers) the next time she logs in.

Re:no death penalty != disposable !!!

[Shadwhawk]

Debt really tends to curb off in the +35 zone. It's pretty pathetic (a single death now gets you a small fraction of a bar of debt, rather than a half-bar or more), and XP flows almost as freely as Influence. With increased mission bonuses, you can pay off debt in the high-end game very quickly. Especially if you're teamed with a Scrapper!

Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

SPOILER WARNING ASSHOLE.

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. so not a spoiler. It has absolutely jack to do with any of the important events. It was even in a commercial.

Re:no death penalty != disposable !!!

[Paolomania]

That fallacy is very rare amoung MMOG critics, because few people are stupid enough to misinterpret straightforward statements that way, while still retaining enough intellect for minimal literacy.

Well, I certainly hop you back up that insult with some substance.

No. Just like Jack said, avatars are disposable if you don't lose anything by disposing of them. Your suggestion that time would be lost is completely contradicted by his hypothesis that nothing would be lost.

A player expends a certain amount of his time for a certain level of development to his avatar. To dispose of the avatar is to lose the value the player placed on that avatar is lost, and thus the value the player placed on the development of that avatar, and thus the value that the player placed on the time that he previously spent. Just because you have already paid for a thing does not mean that it loses all of its value.

Now to reiterate my original point, a "death penalty" does not add value to an avatar, it just dilutes the value of the character with respect to time cost. As another person responded to my post, at some point the penalty for dying makes the "avatar value" gained per unit time so small that people will actually reroll and start a new avatar in order to gain a more favorable amount of "avatar value" for their time spent.

So my original point still stands, if people already value their avatars, then there is no need for a "death penalty" to somehow make them value them more.

welcome to 1992

[spoonyfork]

These are the same questions/issues we dealt with back in 1992 while working on a text-based MUDs. Level-grind, balance, compelling content, death, population size, mules, persistence, etc. It saddens and gladdens me to see the MMOGs haven't adequately addressed these issue either. The game that does will pwn you.

Re: Developer made content vs user made content?

[Vagary]

Jack, you dumbass: user-made content = open source

Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how to get value out of your users' labour doesn't mean it's not worth anything! I'd expect better from a company with a service-based business model...

Real reason these games haven't been a big hit yet

[farnerup]

There is no single acronym for them. Just on this page I have found:

1. MMORPG
2. MMOG
3. MMO
4. MMP
5. MMRPG

... none of which is pronounceable. If you can't pronounce it, how can you discuss it?

Am I supposed to ask my friends "Hey, are you into Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games", or what?

Dismissing gameplay &

[MilenCent]

I personally loathe puzzles, riddles and jump games.

Wow, way to dismiss about half of computer gaming in one statement. Using this he is responding to the 3D Zelda games (which don't feature "jump games" as such, in fact they have an auto-jump feature in order to avoid that).

While riddles and "jump games" (his term of dismissal is telling) may or may not be arguable, puzzles are one of *the* integral elements to gaming. All games are a puzzle of some sort, held to different standards of timing. (In Robotron, for example, the puzzle is deciding which ways to run and shoot in the split-second usually available to you.) And his argument that making a virtual rave in a mission into a "real" one, and calling that an improvement, falls flat with me.

Also, I was struck by his stock answer to the XP-penalty-for-dying issue: To get you to emphathize more with your character, next question. Surely there are better ways to do that than docking the player on the experience count. His response to the "grinding" charge is similar.

He also dismissed user-created content, apparently ignorant of the fact that no game can possibly keep all its players interested with a "top-down" approach to content. Also, user-created content (*if well implemented*, and allows players to genuinely create new experiences) can have a way of building on each other to "evolve" into new concepts in a way that a team of explicit designers can never match. Yeah, lots of user content sucks, most of it in fact, but that isn't always the user's fault. Also, you could view the web as the ultimate user-content-created MMORPG; there's huge numbers of pointless websites, but the best ones are what people visit over and over again. Find a way to reward those people for producing content with an in-game mechanism, and give people a way of finding those players (like a search engine), and the problem should solve itself. (Not that I consider this to be easily done. But someday, someone will do it right.)

I was considering playing City of Heroes before this interview -- I had heard it approached a number of problems in a novel way, maybe even the right way, but I am less certain now. It's starting to seem more like the novelty arises out of setting rather than being truly different gameplay.

Re:Dismissing gameplay &

[Minna Kirai]

All games are a puzzle of some sort,

Pedantically, that is exactly backwards. To be technical about it, what we often call "games" like Doom and Half-Life are not games at all, but puzzles. By definition, a "game" requires competitiveness, so nothing single-player need apply.

Re:Dismissing gameplay &

[MilenCent]

Pedantically, that is exactly backwards. To be technical about it, what we often call "games" like Doom and Half-Life are not games at all, but puzzles.

By definition, a "game" requires competitiveness, so nothing single-player need apply.

So, Solitare is not a game?

If it's not in the defined meaning of "game," then it's certainly in the colloquial meaning.

Wait a minnit... here we go. From the definition on Dictionary.com:

1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.

All computer games fulfill this definition, even weird ones like SimCity, but probably an argument could be made that a new meaning should be introduced to specifically account for them.

The game theory meaning of "game" is more specific than the general meaning, and takes in account games no one would really play (or would rather avoid playing, such as Prisoner's Dilemma).

Which is a lot of verbiage to expend in replying to someone who basically agrees with me (since competitive games are time-focused puzzles for the same reasons), but I can be rather pedantic myself if need be.

Re:Dismissing gameplay &

[MichaelMacmanus]

You always compete. Be it against yourself or an AI opponent you are competing. Simply because your compitition is not a carbon based life form does not mean you are not competing.

Re:Dismissing gameplay &

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't ALWAYS compete. RPGs can be completely non-competitive. You MAY chooose to compete, but theres no requirement to do so.

European release

[Anonymous Coward]

is what I'd have asked him had I known. MMORPG publishers realise that if they stagger the releases, we are all bored sick of the games before they finally stagger this side of the pond right? CoH? Yawn. I was hot for the idea. But a few years later(!) I can't really be bothered with it.

excuse me while I put on my Dad hat

[geekoid]

If you are not working, or just started working, you really shouldn't be spending 50 bucks on any game, much less one with a reacuring fee.

You should save that money. when you get a enough money in the bank to live for a year without a change in your spending habits then look around at the best thing at that time.

There are free thing you can do with your time.

A MMORPG is a hole in the wall you poor money into every month.

heh, I think I'll register that with the copyright office.

Re:Totally disagree on the death penalties-Agreed!

[@madeus]

I can't wait until World of Warcraft blows this myth out of the water.

Amen to that. It's about time people stopped making excuses for crappy gameplay in MMOG's. They are full of harsh death penalties that make users not want to explore areas for fear of dying and tedious grind-a-thon crafting.

WoW really does blow that out of the water IMO, I do think it has what it takes to be genre defining.

I find it totally rediculous to suggest that harsh dealth penalties lead to greater immersion due to being more attached to the character. Most MMORPG's - including the likes of EQ and SWG - are not even remotely immersive, they are XP grinds with auto-generated quests that you could create a generator for in a matter of minutes! The terminal generator in SWG, for example, has got to be one of the lamest cop-outs ever.

WoW has managed, through a unique approach to death, to make it more immersive without this. WoW is a fun game that 'normal' people can play and enjoy on the same terms as any other game - that is it's fun to play, and that's why I think it will pull loads of new users. I think people have learned their lesson with SOE and are very wary of EQ2 (though I don't think SOE have learned it yet, though the approach of voice acting and improved questing over EQ1 shows they are trying to get it right I think).

And dispite the style of the graphics (which I was highly sceptical about at first - I thought it would wreck the experience, that was until I tried it) it's the most immersive MMOG experience I've ever had and by an enormous margin the most enjoyable MMORPG I've ever played.

players stick around in MMORPGs not because death penalties somehow give their characters depth, but because of the player community and because of the long term achievement goals.

Well said. Of course SOE rely very heavily on the 'keep grinding till level X to unlock $foo, plus you'll get fat loot and bragging rights!' approach. Addmittedly that approach has still dragged in bucketloads of people, but I think when average Joe's compare WoW with EQ I don't think they are going to hesitate before choosing WoW (that's certainly what I've seen born out from people I know IRL who I've also played titles like SWG with).

I think EQ2 is going to be a bit like L2 in that it's going to relegated primarily to the power levellers (only, in contrast to L2, ones that dislike PvP).

Let me hit ya with a Clue-by-Four...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everquest: You had these 5 fields of magic. Your spell chance to succeed was based upon your skill. For all practical purposes, the only way to raise your skill was to cast your level one spells about TEN THOUSAND times... You had to do this every few levels...

So anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together, which, i will admit, wasn't exactly a large percentage of the player population, quickly hacked up something to push the button.

Some folks inserted mouse events via software hacks. Some folks wired their own mice. Some folks build lego robots.

Now, you want those skills to atrophy without use?

Re:Let me hit ya with a Clue-by-Four...

[stanmann]

Odd, I've NEVER practiced a spell skill in everquest. NONE of my casters practice. OTOH, Several of my casters are in need of a good(not pet) method of increasing combat(weapon) skills.

More on the user made content.

[Gldm]

This was my question and I'm glad it got asked.

I agree much of the user produced stuff is going to be total crap. It always is with ANY game, massively multiplayer or no.

But the real staying power of the few outstanding games in other genres has been the ability of users to add their own content.

Consider what map making did for doom, quake, and the like. Or strategy games like Command & Conquer.

Or how about what Counterstrike did for Halflife? I'd argue that even given the original game's wonderful singleplayer story, there's no way interest would have been kept alive and generated at the level halflife2 is seeing without seeing popular mods like CS.

Yes much user content is crap, but these games weed it out through a self-maintaining process. Maps that suck just aren't played. Mods with imbalances are fixed or not played. If you let the users both create/modify the environment and control it by popular vote, the best content will usually come into the spotlight.

The first masively multiplayer game that gets this right, and lets you make zones like you would for an RTS game, and mods like you would for an FPS game, and vehicles like you would for a sim game, all to complement the RPG's traditional strongpoint of character creation, will be the one that lasts.

From what I've seen second life is a good step towards this, but it really needs a modern high speed engine. It absolutely chugs even on state of the art systems. Not exactly great for action gaming.

pffft

[FooManChuYouMoo]

I never foresaw how many characters each player would create. It seems that having a dozen or more 'alts' (alternate characters) is the norm, rather than the extreme. People love making lots of different heroes - and lots of costumes.

That's because that's where the most fun is in the game - creating a charachter. As opposed to where the fun SHOULD be - playing the game.

Re:pffft

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha, I just couldnt resist responding to this post. You are so right. I've played CoH for about 4-5 months now, and the real reason I have a bunch of alts is because only the first 20-30 levels of play really hold my interst. Once you hit level 32 or so and get your class defining abilities (ie Blasters Novas, Controllers Pets, etc.) the rest of the progress from level 32-50 just seems like a pointless level grind for the dubuious reward of new pool powers. That being said, however, the CoH developers seem to be trying to address this issue with Issue #3 and the Kheldian Archtypes, as well as epic powers. Wether or not that will make it worth my time to grind my good old level 38 blaster up an extra couple of levels in the time that I could be trying to experiment with 2 or 3 different new characters, remains to be seen.

Re:Real reason these games haven't been a big hit

[Anonymous Coward]

MMORPG

sounds like:

"More-pig"

Re:Real reason these games haven't been a big hit

[Anonymous Coward]

-"More-pig"

Are you referring to the userbase in general with that remark, or just the PKing asshats?

(just kidding :P)

Re:no death penalty != disposable !!!

[Minna Kirai]

Well, I certainly hop you back up that insult with some substance.

I don't really see the need. Your complete miscomprehension is obvious to everyone else.

Jack already explained it fine, and then I explained it fine. If you don't understand the simple 2-part statement yet, then there's little chance I can actually help you.

Jack specifically said: "If players lose nothing by being defeated". You quoted that clause, but did you read it?

Try to imagine if I could get another house identical to my current one, for free, at any instant, as many times as I want. Would it still bother me very much to suffer a tornado or fire?

So my original point still stands, if people already value their avatars, then there is no need for a "death penalty" to somehow make them value them more.

Prehaps your problem is with vocabulary; maybe you don't know what "avatar" means. You use it like a synonym for "character sheet".

Thoughts on the level grind

[miyako]

I see a lot of comments on every story about MMORPGS about the problem with level grind. The solution mentioned in the interview is to offer players more "carrots" but I think thats like sticking your finger in a dam, it's just not a viable solution to keeping players playing. The biggest problem with level grind is that combat in MMORPGS (and most CRPGs in general I think) is that combat is boring. Especially for a fighter, where you just click on the enemy and watch your character fight it out, and it's not much better for other classes. CoH did alleviate this a tiny bit, but I think the core problem still remains, combat is not nearly interactive enough.
What I would like to see in a MMO game is something closer to an action adventure (think Square-Enix's Secret of Mana series) where the combat requires player skills. This isn't to say that levels should be eliminated, but more that it gives the player a bit more to do during a fight, and keeps the pace up a bit. A system like this also rewards player skills. An exceptionally skilled player might be able to make it through an area at level 12, while an average player might need to be as high as level 15 or 16 to make it though the same area. This also has the advantage of not making the EXP penelty feel so harsh, because even if your character loses some fighting experience, you as the player are still better than you were before.
I think the biggest problem with this would be to implement it on the PC in such a way as to allow it to be playable with a keyboard and mouse, though a console only game (or one that hands down required a game controller) could do quite well with a system like this, IMHO.

A casual CoH gamer

[StimpyPimp]

I did pay for two months of CoH when it first came out. I thought I had made a mistake in game choice. But I came back to it last month, and had lots of fun. There were several fixes and capes/badges were added. After playing for a solid month, I am going to take a break, but come back later.

Death was a bummer, and you get more debt per death at higher levels. But if you join a good team (good luck), the debt magically disappears after a few good missions. Skill does make a difference, but you will still die from time to time.

As for Jack saying, "What the MMP medium has NOT had is the breakout hit that defines it." I disagree. Although I don't play it, EverQuest is the most successful MMP. It keeps its players playing, and has several expansions sold. Its not all about raw number of people playing at once, its about the long run. It is not like a music CD, that sells once, but a service to keep selling.

Re:Real reason these games haven't been a big hit

[SuperRob]

"Do you play games online? Yes? What kinds?"

Done.

Stop rely on acronyms, which most people hate anyway. Converse like a normal human being, and get the jargon out of the equation.

What MMO's really need

[Harker]

The one thing that all MMO's need in order to give them some excitement is a perma-death option.

Read that again before you reply. OPTION. As in, not mandatory, but something you actively have to choose to take on character creation, never to be changed.

My reasoning is this: Most people get attached to their characters to some extent. The higher level you get, the more risks you face, but it's all the same. If you die, you run back to your leveling spot, collect a corpse, or items, or just experience points to compensate, and continue.

In some games, I've seen this become a game. I've seen toons throw themselves off a lighthouse in Asherons Call for fun. What's the problem? It's just a bit of vitality penalty, and easy to work off.

Now, if someone were to choose a perma-death character (perhaps marked so that other's could tell) then they have something to continue to strive for. The longer such a character survives, the higher level they reach, the higher the status they can achieve amongst their peers.

Imagine a max-level character that has never died? It's possible, but there is no way to prove it in any of the games I've played. Screenshots can be faked, and people can lie. Having Perma-Death under a toons name or in the ID screen, and seeing that toon at max level would be impressive, IMO.

This got very off-topic, but it's been one of my pet peeves for a long time with most games. To date, I've only seen one game (PC, single player) that offered this. It was a blast to play, and while it could be frustrating to actually die, and have to start over from scratch, it kept the excitement just a bit higher. Made me just a bit more cautious. Made the game just a bit more serious.

Re:What MMO's really need

[Anonymous Coward]

Diablo2....hardcore mode

But the question is always - why? You are at the mercy of someone else's computer or mistakes for your character to die - router dies? monster kills you. Your power goes out? monster kills you. Game bugs out and you fall through world to your death? too bad unretrievable

Re:What MMO's really need

[space_jake]

Eve Online had an interesting death system but I don't believe it was harsh enough. I like perma-death but its a nightmare for the game moderators. People get really really pissed if they don't win. Just pwn some n00bs in Counterstrike and count how many times you get called a camper, a noob, a cheater etc... Outages and loss of connection are the worst for perma-death because people will complain to a moderator to get their character back and if it doesn't happen the person will start world war 3 on any forums they can find. Last concern, player killers, this is just the sort of thing people with power will do. But the game needs a mechanism to protect noobs something like Diablo 2. Can't attack low levelers unless they're hostile with you. Hostility is noticable and announced, safe zones, etc. I love perma-death, it'll definately stop people from whining about the "grind" of high level characters. Unfortunately there are lots of people that don't like it just as much.

Re:What MMO's really need

[z3021017]

Diablo 2 Hardcore mode is the answer to your question. In Hardcore mode, a death is permanent and you lose everything in that character.

Plenty of Hardcore players have reached the maximum level of 99 and those who reach that plateau the quickest get rewarded by Blizzard.

What he forgot to mention:

[Snaller]

"The second step is adding new gameplay. In Expansion 2, we introduced badges which reward explorers and achievers. Certain combinations of badges open up Accolades - which are permanent powers!"

All of which suck mightly from any usability point of view - a gun that does 12 hp damage and fires once every 25 minuttes? They are for show nothing else.

"Your second point, world changing events, is something we're aiming for in City of Villains. The activities of even a single player (hero or villain) can have a noticeable effect in the world."

Which of course mean sometime in the future, currently you can have no effect at all (unless you buy the company and fire them all)

If players lose nothing by being defeated then naturally the players won't see death as an issue. Players will begin to look at their characters like those in FPS games such as Counterstrike or Battlefield 1942.

Which is good.

The key, however, to a successful MMP is to create a connection between the player and his character. If the player feels that he can dispose of his character at any time, then the player inevitably doesn't care very much about his character.

Bullshit.

Stop censoring

[Snaller]

I wish people would stop modding me down just because its me they don't like...

"The second step is adding new gameplay. In Expansion 2, we introduced badges which reward explorers and achievers. Certain combinations of badges open up Accolades - which are permanent powers!"

All of which suck mightly from any usability point of view - a gun that does 12 hp damage and fires once every 25 minuttes? They are for show nothing else.

"Your second point, world changing events, is something we're aiming for in City of Villains. The activities of even a single player (hero or villain) can have a noticeable effect in the world."

Which of course mean sometime in the future, currently you can have no effect at all (unless you buy the company and fire them all)

"If players lose nothing by being defeated then naturally the players won't see death as an issue. Players will begin to look at their characters like those in FPS games such as Counterstrike or Battlefield 1942. "

Which is good.

"The key, however, to a successful MMP is to create a connection between the player and his character. If the player feels that he can dispose of his character at any time, then the player inevitably doesn't care very much about his character. "

Bullshit.

Re:Real reason these games haven't been a big hit

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres a reason for the number of acronyms. Some are redundant. But the most popular two aren't. MMORPG, MMOG. One is a roleplaying game, where the characters skills matter as much if not more so than the players, and the other is not a role playing game, where mostly the players skills matter.

Some people just randomly swap terms, others use one acronym when they want to refer to a role playing ish experience, and use the other term when they don't.