For quite some time now, we've been hearing how decentralized P2P networks would be impossible to police.
Not true - once it becomes *possible* to get caught and face punishment for something, the amount of that activity will go down.
If Joe Sixpack suddenly has to worry about losing his Internet connection, or worse, he'll think twice about file swapping.
Anecdotally, I know of several parents where I work who have children that trade hundreds of thousands of songs and movies from their local machines. It won't take much for these parents to put the kibosh on that.
--Latro
The argument was raging inside Verant for weeks prior to the event about whether or not to do a player wipe.
The test server was really nothing more than a play area for GMs and annointed players that they liked.
Every run through Solusek B with a GM death touching fire giants and Nagafen while you collected the loot?
I have.
Ever go with a GM to Vox's lair and watch him solo the dragon with his rogue while you cheered him on (collecting the loot, of course).
I have.
This sort of crap was common on the server and Verant couldn't decide what they wanted to do about it.
An ever more rigorous set of rules came down to the GMs and other Verant staff on the server about what they could and could not do. A few were fired and things seemed to settle down.
Unfortunately, what had been the norm on the server didn't really change - it just went into hiding. Abuses were still common - and while Verant didn't worry so much about things that were happening in Antonica, they cared greatly about a) what was happening in the new Kunark expansion and b) what the future of the test server was going to be.
The wipe, however, was a knee jerk reaction that blamed the players for actions created by the Verant staff. Verant players set the "rules" about what was acceptable and what was not. When they decided that they didn't like those rules anymore, then exploded all over the playerbase.
The most exciting thing about test server back then was the nasty political landscape. For those that play Everquest, imagine the bitterest uber guild on your server also having GMs who could enforce their playstyle. Made for a truly amusing environment when different guilds were represented internally by different Verant factions.
DAoC definitely had a clean rollout, by online gaming standards.
The big differentiator between DAoC and EQ is really in the area of content vs player-v-player.
EQ is a game about players versus the environment, and the entire game is setup that way. The environments are more interesting, the dungeons more detailed, and the killing the big baddie is the name of the game.
Camelot is a game about realm-versus-realm (PvP) combat. As a result, there is lot of game code surrounding the concept (more detailed guild system, seigecraft, emphasis on player created goods rather than monster dropped goods), but less on content.
If player versus environment is your bag, EQ is the best game in town.
If player versus player is what you crave, DAoC has more to offer.
Verant's got a bit of a problem with the test server, and always has.
First problem:
* There is no screening of who plays on the test server. Anyone subscriber can log in, create a player, and go to town.
* There *is* a screening in order to become a beta tester of new content. Of sorts anyway, as far as I could tell - the easiest way to get into beta was the old "I know someone" approach.
* Verant found with the Kunark release that loose controls on the expansion beta program caused massive problems post-release. With Kunark, legions of test server players were annoyed by some odd happenings on the server and retaliated by spilling the beans about what they'd seen in the expansion. This had a tendency to spoil to high end game by taking much of the mystery out of it.
* While many stayed, the decisions made to reset the players on test after Kunark to "naked" status caused great numbers of quality players to leave the server. Most had gone to test to get away from the nastiness of overcrowded production servers and actually, you know, enjoy the game.
* Verant seems to ignore a lot of input that they do get. Test server players are quick to note when a bug makes it to production that they had already reported. It seems to happen more often than it should.
* Verant likes to change things just because they can, rather than for justifiable reasons. Environmental effects to sound, forcing old players onto newer machines and engines, dramatically upping system requirements even for those that aren't purchasing the expansion are all kind of silly. I'm surprised Sony hasn't woken up and said, "You want to do WHAT?" more often.
I'd disagree with earlier assertions about Verant not understanding their customer base. They have clearly mastered the "Skinner box" - whether intuitively or explicitly, and know exactly how to make a game that people will play religiously. What they haven't figured out is how to do that AND in such a way that they don't annoy large portions of their user base constantly.
Slashdot Mirror
For quite some time now, we've been hearing how decentralized P2P networks would be impossible to police. Not true - once it becomes *possible* to get caught and face punishment for something, the amount of that activity will go down. If Joe Sixpack suddenly has to worry about losing his Internet connection, or worse, he'll think twice about file swapping. Anecdotally, I know of several parents where I work who have children that trade hundreds of thousands of songs and movies from their local machines. It won't take much for these parents to put the kibosh on that. --Latro
That's really not what happened.
The argument was raging inside Verant for weeks prior to the event about whether or not to do a player wipe.
The test server was really nothing more than a play area for GMs and annointed players that they liked.
Every run through Solusek B with a GM death touching fire giants and Nagafen while you collected the loot?
I have.
Ever go with a GM to Vox's lair and watch him solo the dragon with his rogue while you cheered him on (collecting the loot, of course).
I have.
This sort of crap was common on the server and Verant couldn't decide what they wanted to do about it.
An ever more rigorous set of rules came down to the GMs and other Verant staff on the server about what they could and could not do. A few were fired and things seemed to settle down.
Unfortunately, what had been the norm on the server didn't really change - it just went into hiding. Abuses were still common - and while Verant didn't worry so much about things that were happening in Antonica, they cared greatly about a) what was happening in the new Kunark expansion and b) what the future of the test server was going to be.
The wipe, however, was a knee jerk reaction that blamed the players for actions created by the Verant staff. Verant players set the "rules" about what was acceptable and what was not. When they decided that they didn't like those rules anymore, then exploded all over the playerbase.
The most exciting thing about test server back then was the nasty political landscape. For those that play Everquest, imagine the bitterest uber guild on your server also having GMs who could enforce their playstyle. Made for a truly amusing environment when different guilds were represented internally by different Verant factions.
--Latro
XML functionality?
Huh?
--Latro
DAoC definitely had a clean rollout, by online gaming standards.
The big differentiator between DAoC and EQ is really in the area of content vs player-v-player.
EQ is a game about players versus the environment, and the entire game is setup that way. The environments are more interesting, the dungeons more detailed, and the killing the big baddie is the name of the game.
Camelot is a game about realm-versus-realm (PvP) combat. As a result, there is lot of game code surrounding the concept (more detailed guild system, seigecraft, emphasis on player created goods rather than monster dropped goods), but less on content.
If player versus environment is your bag, EQ is the best game in town.
If player versus player is what you crave, DAoC has more to offer.
--Latro
First problem:
* There is no screening of who plays on the test server. Anyone subscriber can log in, create a player, and go to town.
* There *is* a screening in order to become a beta tester of new content. Of sorts anyway, as far as I could tell - the easiest way to get into beta was the old "I know someone" approach.
* Verant found with the Kunark release that loose controls on the expansion beta program caused massive problems post-release. With Kunark, legions of test server players were annoyed by some odd happenings on the server and retaliated by spilling the beans about what they'd seen in the expansion. This had a tendency to spoil to high end game by taking much of the mystery out of it.
* While many stayed, the decisions made to reset the players on test after Kunark to "naked" status caused great numbers of quality players to leave the server. Most had gone to test to get away from the nastiness of overcrowded production servers and actually, you know, enjoy the game.
* Verant seems to ignore a lot of input that they do get. Test server players are quick to note when a bug makes it to production that they had already reported. It seems to happen more often than it should.
* Verant likes to change things just because they can, rather than for justifiable reasons. Environmental effects to sound, forcing old players onto newer machines and engines, dramatically upping system requirements even for those that aren't purchasing the expansion are all kind of silly. I'm surprised Sony hasn't woken up and said, "You want to do WHAT?" more often.
I'd disagree with earlier assertions about Verant not understanding their customer base. They have clearly mastered the "Skinner box" - whether intuitively or explicitly, and know exactly how to make a game that people will play religiously. What they haven't figured out is how to do that AND in such a way that they don't annoy large portions of their user base constantly.
Oh, and GBBG Doc! ;)
--Latro