After having the chance to mess with it on computer, I'm not particularly happy with the randomness of Ronin Beat. On an actual tabletop where the players are rolling the die I'm willing to stand by the d10 roll, but not in the computer where it makes everything a crap shoot.
What I'm thinking is that I'll change to a numeric damage output, but keep the health pips as is. The way that would work is that each person/enemy would have a max damage, if they take under three quarters of that in one hit, it's a glance, over three quarters it's a gash, and over the max it's a down. This would also segway into the introduction of levels, as those would have to determine how hard you could hit, and be hit.
Unless I get feedback to the effect that people are completely enamored with the random factor, I'm going ahead with that change.
30.1.09
29.1.09
Early Playtesting - Ronin Beat
This link from Rapid Share is only good for 10 downloads, but that would be half my total visitors so I doubt anyone will actually run into much trouble getting the file.
http://rapidshare.com/files/191407436/Ronin_Beat.exe.html
So what is this? It's the combat system that I worked on while my computer was down, with a few minor changes.
At the moment I don't have any levels or anything in it... in fact I don't have any art assets either. Still you can get in and see the math go to work. As is kind of necessary with the play testing phase, I need more than just any bugs you dig up, I need thoughts, opinions and heaven forbid... ideas!
I'll be putting more work into this for the next little bit, but I'd definitely prefer some sort of point of reference for what really needs work.
http://rapidshare.com/files/191407436/Ronin_Beat.exe.html
So what is this? It's the combat system that I worked on while my computer was down, with a few minor changes.
At the moment I don't have any levels or anything in it... in fact I don't have any art assets either. Still you can get in and see the math go to work. As is kind of necessary with the play testing phase, I need more than just any bugs you dig up, I need thoughts, opinions and heaven forbid... ideas!
I'll be putting more work into this for the next little bit, but I'd definitely prefer some sort of point of reference for what really needs work.
The question that rests like a gun to the head of the MMO industry.
What do you do if the perceived value of content reaches zero?
Value is a purely subjective measure, a comparative measure as to what is most worth your dollar. We have two measures of value, the natural and most common measure, and the more objective measure. The first is a comparison of what we pay for similar things, the second is what else we could be getting for that same amount of money.
MMOs as they stand are largely a content delivery mechanism. Their numerical and mathematical base being also the core of their user interaction means that their game play is rarely a content generator, such as you would see most aptly in Force Unleashed for example. What this means is that the player base requires a constant stream of new content, which with a maximum efficiency team should be produced in roughly O(n) time. O(n) time means O(n) pay checks, and while hiring more people would allow you to produce more content, you can't hire more people to produce the same amount of content faster until you are dealing with overarching story plots that can actually be subdivided into lesser partitions.
What all this means is, your product's intrinsic value is tied to the content delivered. The cost of content has a flat bottom, where each equivalent sized package of content costs a certain minimum to create which cannot be reduced. Thereby any equivalently "sized" game must cost at least the minimum cost of the associated content to create, with the game's engine, design, and core game play programming being added on top.
Ironically, although the quality of content often scales the cost of generation upwards, for professional level work, people generally pay roughly the same amount for any equivalently "sized" package of content regardless of quality. The monetary gain usually being manifested in number of purchases, rather than quality of purchases.
The baseline price for MMO content has been $15 for a while now. However, with the proliferation of non-flat rate business models, and the rise of user generated content being passed from a purely hobbyist vantage to a business model in itself, the baseline perceived value of content is approaching $0. It is important to note, however, that it is not the perceived value of any particular "package" of content that is approaching 0, it is the perceived value of content as a whole. Also, more than any particular business approaching any particular model, it is rather that the sheer amount of content available is so overwhelming, that content is losing all value associated with rarity. Having access to content of almost any sort is easy and free with the current climate of the internet.
My personal answer:
Much like novels, we will grow and adapt as consumers and businesses will, of course, fill in the voids. But in the mean time, some of the best in the industry will probably find themselves replaced by small operations that weren't even on their radar. Likely, launching without full content will become even more of a death knell than it is now, as it will be assumed that the game has full content and only the quality would set it apart as a worth while purchase.
But there are deeper aspects to this as well that don't fit very well within the current market overview. For instance, the very model of an MMO as a content delivery system will have to be reworked, at the very least it will become incumbent on them to act as content generation systems. User generated content as we generally refer to it probably will not be at the core of this, instead it will more likely be emergent rule sets designed to evolve alongside the players.
At least that's my $.02.
Value is a purely subjective measure, a comparative measure as to what is most worth your dollar. We have two measures of value, the natural and most common measure, and the more objective measure. The first is a comparison of what we pay for similar things, the second is what else we could be getting for that same amount of money.
MMOs as they stand are largely a content delivery mechanism. Their numerical and mathematical base being also the core of their user interaction means that their game play is rarely a content generator, such as you would see most aptly in Force Unleashed for example. What this means is that the player base requires a constant stream of new content, which with a maximum efficiency team should be produced in roughly O(n) time. O(n) time means O(n) pay checks, and while hiring more people would allow you to produce more content, you can't hire more people to produce the same amount of content faster until you are dealing with overarching story plots that can actually be subdivided into lesser partitions.
What all this means is, your product's intrinsic value is tied to the content delivered. The cost of content has a flat bottom, where each equivalent sized package of content costs a certain minimum to create which cannot be reduced. Thereby any equivalently "sized" game must cost at least the minimum cost of the associated content to create, with the game's engine, design, and core game play programming being added on top.
Ironically, although the quality of content often scales the cost of generation upwards, for professional level work, people generally pay roughly the same amount for any equivalently "sized" package of content regardless of quality. The monetary gain usually being manifested in number of purchases, rather than quality of purchases.
The baseline price for MMO content has been $15 for a while now. However, with the proliferation of non-flat rate business models, and the rise of user generated content being passed from a purely hobbyist vantage to a business model in itself, the baseline perceived value of content is approaching $0. It is important to note, however, that it is not the perceived value of any particular "package" of content that is approaching 0, it is the perceived value of content as a whole. Also, more than any particular business approaching any particular model, it is rather that the sheer amount of content available is so overwhelming, that content is losing all value associated with rarity. Having access to content of almost any sort is easy and free with the current climate of the internet.
My personal answer:
Much like novels, we will grow and adapt as consumers and businesses will, of course, fill in the voids. But in the mean time, some of the best in the industry will probably find themselves replaced by small operations that weren't even on their radar. Likely, launching without full content will become even more of a death knell than it is now, as it will be assumed that the game has full content and only the quality would set it apart as a worth while purchase.
But there are deeper aspects to this as well that don't fit very well within the current market overview. For instance, the very model of an MMO as a content delivery system will have to be reworked, at the very least it will become incumbent on them to act as content generation systems. User generated content as we generally refer to it probably will not be at the core of this, instead it will more likely be emergent rule sets designed to evolve alongside the players.
At least that's my $.02.
28.1.09
27.1.09
Patience Rewarded
I've been having a hard time focusing lately, especially on the whole job hunt. You see if I had a job, I'd probably want to move out of my parent's house, and if I were to move out of my parent's house, I'd transition. My parent's are rather hard line Mormons, so as much as I love them, I've always thought that once I transitioned, I wouldn't be able to see them and talk to them anymore.
Today, my mother told me that even if I transitioned, I'd still be welcome to visit them, and to keep in touch.
I can't... I don't think I can say what this means... shit I think I'm going to cry. Anyways, just, have a great day everyone. Be happy, and don't sweat the small stuff, yeah.
Today, my mother told me that even if I transitioned, I'd still be welcome to visit them, and to keep in touch.
I can't... I don't think I can say what this means... shit I think I'm going to cry. Anyways, just, have a great day everyone. Be happy, and don't sweat the small stuff, yeah.
The Lich
Mortals. Need I say more to expose your pathetic arrogance. I suppose I must, then, as you seem not appeased. You who draw your swords in my home, before my hearth, and in my humble hall of friendship. Rambling on about justice, about sanctity, and above all of life.
What do mortals know of life, so thoroughly is your lives entrenched in death. You call this magic of yours the magic of life, and yet all you do is delay an inevitable end. You cling to the feel of your skin and the tautness of your muscles, measuring life in ones ability to maintain that hollow shell. For all your healing, for all your "life", your fate remains inescapable.
But not mine. No I, with this magic you claim to be the magic of "death", have attained life beyond the flesh and sinew. For a thousand years and a thousand seasons more has my life continued, and with the grace of justice and the gods will continue for thousands more. And yet you, who fear death with all your puny existence seek to lecture me on life.
A desacrator, an unholy abomination with no respect for the "sanctity" of this so called life, you say. In what are you so sanctified, according to whom do your gods torment you so. I, the defiler? What a claim to lay before me, you who should be declared murderers. You who damn an entire race to an inevitable and preventable demise, all for the sake of your sanctity, for your useless piety, for your false gods. Strike me then, if you remain so certain of the justice in your hearts, but be forewarned. The Lady of justice, blind though she may be, lay behind my blade, and in this very hall around me, crying out for the destruction of your sorry, rotten souls.
I was thinking lately about good bad guys, and especially bad guys that could really be identified with. The concept of a lich giving the mortal heroes a lecture on life and death just sort of came to mind tonight as I was trying to get to sleep. Hopefully with it out of my mind and down on paper I can actually get some sleep.
26.1.09
Something Positive
I feel like writing something positive, so I'm going to give a short review of Suikoden V.
If you like JRPG game play and love amazing writing, you'll find this game fucking awesome beyond all reason.
If you hate JRPG game play and love amazing writing, It'll still be fucking awesome beyond all reason, you'll just be too far into a frothing rage about turn based wizardry style combat to notice.
If you hate JRPG game play and hate amazing writing... I just feel sorry for you.
There you go, a happy note by my standards.
If you like JRPG game play and love amazing writing, you'll find this game fucking awesome beyond all reason.
If you hate JRPG game play and love amazing writing, It'll still be fucking awesome beyond all reason, you'll just be too far into a frothing rage about turn based wizardry style combat to notice.
If you hate JRPG game play and hate amazing writing... I just feel sorry for you.
There you go, a happy note by my standards.
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning | Preview Weekend 1 & 2, Open Beta, Levels 1-21
I've had some distance now to try and look back at my days in WAR objectively. I don't claim to be critiquing the whole game, just the first twenty levels or so, before the leveling pace dropped off enough to halt my apparent progression. This is to be a critique of the game, so if you're looking for fuzzy bunnies and rainbows... why are you even reading a post about WAR?
There were a few things that WAR did that set it well ahead of the curve. The first, and probably least obvious, is that each stat had a dual function. This didn't entirely prevent dump stats, nor create a viable mechanism for balanced characters, but it was a step in the right direction. Second to that is combat capable, if not overpowered, healers. It's really a shame that the player base fell into pointless bickering and shortsighted complaints of players not doing their job. It would have been an entirely different game, in many ways, if the player base had instead solidified behind their healers making them the comparative rock stars of the game, rather than the tank as is usual of cooperative dungeon play.
Despite their having excellent stylistic feel for their environments, WAR, ironically, lacks much sense of warfare beyond a few exceptions, all in PvE. Warfare is governed by a few simple rules, it's the effort to place out a significant force of trained and equipped personnel into an enemy territory to take and hold points of logistical and tactical importance, or the same but in defense of your own territory. Skirmishing experts, like the elves, seemed to make sense, with their prolific use of ambushes and attacks along the flanks... but pretty much every other army seemed to be of the opinion that throwing out warriors one at a time would somehow turn the tide of battle against an organized foe. In fact, if not for the player's godlike status, and the AI's relative stupidity, every battle the player engages in should result in their side's complete and utter defeat. What makes this a true failing of the game is that it spawns from a war game, even if a particularly tactical one.
Before I move on, the only ways to fix that particular failing is to implement a system of logistics. WAR was remarkably lacking on the logistical front, with severe limits on crafting, but also without any significant sinks to encourage organization. While an organized war band may be more effective, a disorganized war band doesn't really face any significant challenges so long as it can outnumber it's opponents, and they are also disorganized. With the proliferation of pick-up war bands and general disinterest in open RvR this was hardly an uncommon feat. This would often cause the teeter totter effect where one side would be forced back into their static defenses, but then gain so much power from their defenses as to then wear down the opponents morale and allow them to safely wait out a shift in numbers. In a more logistical system, each side would have to make other considerations, for example would it really be of any worth to wait outside an opponents camp and be worn down, when moving your lines of defense back to the strategically important points would allow for greater tactical flexibility, but also allow you to maintain a larger overall force and better defenses. Likewise, would it be wise to fall back to in-place defenses if you were then to consume the logistical advantage that would allow you to attack. Much like in real warfare, logistical considerations add a significant amount of planning and down time, but they also add weight and decrease the uncanny nature that surrounds wanton skirmish warfare.
The classes in WAR rarely seem to scale well. Their specialties and usefulness seems to undergo mercurial shifts from bracket to bracket, or even level to level. Back lines dps becomes front lines dps, becomes crowd control, then finally shifts back to dps. A front line healer goes from healing/buffing for the front line, to becoming a veritable tank in itself, to a slightly longer lasting front line dps, to a back line healer. None of this would be so significant if a player could choose to stop leveling and settle in a bracket they feel comfortable with, but instead it's inevitable that a character will go through all of those permutations, and possibly even more in the twenty levels I hadn't had a chance to investigate. Overall, these strange twists serve to punish a player for leveling, as they find out that the role they have spent the last 8-10 levels learning to play is suddenly no longer viable, or is simply so much less effective that they are forced from being on top of their game to being on the bottom of their game.
I'm not going to get into a debate on the good and bad points of a mud inherited loot based system. I'm sure there are plenty of those out there, somewhere. I will simply say that WAR does, as it must, suffer from all the problems inherent in such a system. Likewise it does, as it must, benefit from all the advantages of such a system.
To close the "bad" points segment, I'd like to briefly touch on Richard Bartle's comment, "I've already played Warhammer, it was called World of Warcraft". I'm sure I've already publicly stated that in general I agree with him, but it's worth repeating. WAR and WoW are incredibly similar games, with most of the differences being in the fine detailing. It isn't even so much comparable to saying that a pair of chairs are alike, so much as saying a pair of finely crafted Victorian rocking chairs are alike. Sure to someone who spends all day in one and then moves to the other, or to a true connoisseur, they seem very different, but to most sane outside observers... their both finely crafted Victorian rocking chairs, and it isn't really that important which one you find yourself sitting in, if any at all. (After all rocking chairs may not be your thing.) But also to add my own thoughts on it, the problem I see is that the two are uncomfortably similar in a fashion which tells me many decisions were made because "it's an MMO, that's just how it's done." This can be seen in the UI, the skills set-up, and the dungeon system. There have been many good examples of how to break from all of those, some of them would have worked especially well with their flavor of game and setting. For instance a Guild Wars style mission system, balanced more around war bands, would have been a better selection than their limited dungeons in most cases. It would have allowed them to fill in the story better, as well as allowed the players to interact more with the iconic armies of the game, such as bloodthirsters, war bosses, and steam tanks.
Finally, I can't talk about WAR without bringing up the public quest system. It is one of those sublime systems that keeps the player wondering why anyone hadn't done it before. While I'll admit the balancing on some needed some work, there was a certain charm to either pre-arranging a group for them, or just picking up a group of random stragglers to complete one. Their level design and placing of them was also generally quite good, both space efficient and relatively intuitive.
There were a few things that WAR did that set it well ahead of the curve. The first, and probably least obvious, is that each stat had a dual function. This didn't entirely prevent dump stats, nor create a viable mechanism for balanced characters, but it was a step in the right direction. Second to that is combat capable, if not overpowered, healers. It's really a shame that the player base fell into pointless bickering and shortsighted complaints of players not doing their job. It would have been an entirely different game, in many ways, if the player base had instead solidified behind their healers making them the comparative rock stars of the game, rather than the tank as is usual of cooperative dungeon play.
Despite their having excellent stylistic feel for their environments, WAR, ironically, lacks much sense of warfare beyond a few exceptions, all in PvE. Warfare is governed by a few simple rules, it's the effort to place out a significant force of trained and equipped personnel into an enemy territory to take and hold points of logistical and tactical importance, or the same but in defense of your own territory. Skirmishing experts, like the elves, seemed to make sense, with their prolific use of ambushes and attacks along the flanks... but pretty much every other army seemed to be of the opinion that throwing out warriors one at a time would somehow turn the tide of battle against an organized foe. In fact, if not for the player's godlike status, and the AI's relative stupidity, every battle the player engages in should result in their side's complete and utter defeat. What makes this a true failing of the game is that it spawns from a war game, even if a particularly tactical one.
Before I move on, the only ways to fix that particular failing is to implement a system of logistics. WAR was remarkably lacking on the logistical front, with severe limits on crafting, but also without any significant sinks to encourage organization. While an organized war band may be more effective, a disorganized war band doesn't really face any significant challenges so long as it can outnumber it's opponents, and they are also disorganized. With the proliferation of pick-up war bands and general disinterest in open RvR this was hardly an uncommon feat. This would often cause the teeter totter effect where one side would be forced back into their static defenses, but then gain so much power from their defenses as to then wear down the opponents morale and allow them to safely wait out a shift in numbers. In a more logistical system, each side would have to make other considerations, for example would it really be of any worth to wait outside an opponents camp and be worn down, when moving your lines of defense back to the strategically important points would allow for greater tactical flexibility, but also allow you to maintain a larger overall force and better defenses. Likewise, would it be wise to fall back to in-place defenses if you were then to consume the logistical advantage that would allow you to attack. Much like in real warfare, logistical considerations add a significant amount of planning and down time, but they also add weight and decrease the uncanny nature that surrounds wanton skirmish warfare.
The classes in WAR rarely seem to scale well. Their specialties and usefulness seems to undergo mercurial shifts from bracket to bracket, or even level to level. Back lines dps becomes front lines dps, becomes crowd control, then finally shifts back to dps. A front line healer goes from healing/buffing for the front line, to becoming a veritable tank in itself, to a slightly longer lasting front line dps, to a back line healer. None of this would be so significant if a player could choose to stop leveling and settle in a bracket they feel comfortable with, but instead it's inevitable that a character will go through all of those permutations, and possibly even more in the twenty levels I hadn't had a chance to investigate. Overall, these strange twists serve to punish a player for leveling, as they find out that the role they have spent the last 8-10 levels learning to play is suddenly no longer viable, or is simply so much less effective that they are forced from being on top of their game to being on the bottom of their game.
I'm not going to get into a debate on the good and bad points of a mud inherited loot based system. I'm sure there are plenty of those out there, somewhere. I will simply say that WAR does, as it must, suffer from all the problems inherent in such a system. Likewise it does, as it must, benefit from all the advantages of such a system.
To close the "bad" points segment, I'd like to briefly touch on Richard Bartle's comment, "I've already played Warhammer, it was called World of Warcraft". I'm sure I've already publicly stated that in general I agree with him, but it's worth repeating. WAR and WoW are incredibly similar games, with most of the differences being in the fine detailing. It isn't even so much comparable to saying that a pair of chairs are alike, so much as saying a pair of finely crafted Victorian rocking chairs are alike. Sure to someone who spends all day in one and then moves to the other, or to a true connoisseur, they seem very different, but to most sane outside observers... their both finely crafted Victorian rocking chairs, and it isn't really that important which one you find yourself sitting in, if any at all. (After all rocking chairs may not be your thing.) But also to add my own thoughts on it, the problem I see is that the two are uncomfortably similar in a fashion which tells me many decisions were made because "it's an MMO, that's just how it's done." This can be seen in the UI, the skills set-up, and the dungeon system. There have been many good examples of how to break from all of those, some of them would have worked especially well with their flavor of game and setting. For instance a Guild Wars style mission system, balanced more around war bands, would have been a better selection than their limited dungeons in most cases. It would have allowed them to fill in the story better, as well as allowed the players to interact more with the iconic armies of the game, such as bloodthirsters, war bosses, and steam tanks.
Finally, I can't talk about WAR without bringing up the public quest system. It is one of those sublime systems that keeps the player wondering why anyone hadn't done it before. While I'll admit the balancing on some needed some work, there was a certain charm to either pre-arranging a group for them, or just picking up a group of random stragglers to complete one. Their level design and placing of them was also generally quite good, both space efficient and relatively intuitive.
25.1.09
I hear
Every day I hear it. Whispered on the streets in daylight, and screamed in the alleyways when no one is thought to be around, but I still hear it. Sometimes as thin as a still voice in a crowded room, other times as loud as the echoing crash of a waterfall, but all the same I hear it.
People, humans, crying out as if with one accord for a hero to save them. A savior to bring them peace, to turn back the tides of darkness all around. The cry for freedom, and light, as they cling desperately to their final ray of futile hope. And now, even my dreams, I hear it.
Of course, I can make only one reply... bring it on.
- Abbadon, Daughter of Raphael, Lord of the Pit, Defender and Champion of the Dark Host
Toys
I had a long post planned, but I'm feeling a written out at the moment. So here's the gist.
Why are the games industry/community en masse such snobs about games? Why is Will Wright the only designer who seems to be allowed to say out loud that he wants to make a toy? And why is simply creating a virtual environment to play with a toy never quite enough for the people who make games about toys?
Why are the games industry/community en masse such snobs about games? Why is Will Wright the only designer who seems to be allowed to say out loud that he wants to make a toy? And why is simply creating a virtual environment to play with a toy never quite enough for the people who make games about toys?
24.1.09
Finishing up the list
Just found this today, and loved it... but anyways, I think I'll wrap up the explanations behind the List that I started over in it's comments section.
The Dark Knight:
I spend a lot of time thinking about how to properly live my life. I believe in pacifism, and honesty pretty much to a fault. The Dark Knight was a good examination of the ways in which the world doesn't always function in the ideal, and the question faced when, as they say, "the truth isn't good enough." It's given me a great deal of food for thought, and allowed me to have some reference for various issues that my personal philosophies face.
The Prestige:
Beyond being just good entertainment, I'm constantly brought back to the argument as to what is true magic. Is it being able to fool everyone completely, to have a trick that is completely impenetrable. Or is the look on their faces when they are confronted by "magic". I face this own conundrum when I want to design a game, is it the depth of simulation and immersion that I aim for, or the fun factor and childlike wonderment. Much like The Prestige, I don't really have an answer... yet.
How to Save a Life - The Fray:
For the first time in my life, I felt some real empathy with how my parents must have felt in having to deal with me as a child and teenager. I heard the song when I was about 17 I think, so it really sort of mellowed me out for a bit.
Toxicity - System of a Down:
Don't have a good explanation for this one. I was playing the end of the game Oni with song on repeat, so the two kind of merge together. But the image of a "toxic city" is kind of burned into my mind, though I tend to equate the toxicity with certain people not with any literal toxins.
Adam's Song - Blink 182:
Listening to this while suicidally depressed actually helped me. Mainly because I kept thinking that "Adam" should tell his mom it's not her fault himself... which would require him being alive. Getting that third person perspective on it really helped me to not go through with anything.
Define Normal - Julie Anne Peters:
A, the first book I ever read that had a clinically depressed person who just slept all day. B, The first time I encountered literature that actually made me feel that being different was okay.
Keeping You A Secret - Julie Anne Peters:
I wound up picking this up at the library on a whim... best whim ever. The book follows the life a high school girl as she discovers for herself that she is gay, and then being outed before she can come out, and getting kicked out of her house... It's kind of cathartic, but then I later found most lesbian literature about that time of life usually is. Of course, I found this before I came out, and it's always sort of... well it's kind of like this strange ray of hope that at least you're not alone.
Luna - Julie Anne Peters:
I'm not really very much at all like Luna, but it's definitely the only fiction book I've read that actually deals with Gender Identity Disphoria in a realistic manner. Partially because it deals with the past, the fact that it isn't a new issue that pops up after puberty but rather something that you deal with for your entire life.
Something About Us - Daft Punk
Love... never had it, but I like to think it's out there. Of course, I've been avoiding it too, never seemed like the right time... if you listen to the song I think why that's important will make a bit more sense.
I think I'll cover the games in another post. But If anyone reading this still has my Birth Prototype, I think you'll see the direct effect of Mass Effect, Mechwarrior 2 and Escape Velocity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
