Massively^™

The second part of Ten Ton Hammer's interview with Kevin O'Hara, Senior World Designer for The Agency, focuses on the game's mission design and eventual end-game. We find out that there will be a main story to the game that will be continued through a major line of missions, but you can expect plenty of side missions similar to pretty much any other MMO as well. Following what was said in the first interview, these missions will take place in a variety of settings, both large open areas and smaller enclosed spaces.

As for the end-game, O'Hara expects that there will be a few choices for players of The Agency. The PvP in the game will have rankings and leaderboards for people to ascend, and a lot of re playability is being built into the missions via the scoring system -- people will want to replay old missions and try to do better, to receive more rewards. But how about raiding? Obviously you won't be suiting up with 40 friends to take out a dragon, but O'Hara says that the raiding will likely be in the form of a large-scale mission that requires a lot of people and co-ordination.

There's a two-pronged assault of Age of Conan raid content information at Ten Ton Hammer -- a 20 minute raid presentation video, and an interview with raid boss scripter Eirik Munthe. Both the presentation and the interview occurred at the AoC launch event in Oslo last week, and both were rich with information. It looks like the endgame content has some incremental innovations just like the lower-level stuff; that should make the hardcore crowd happy.

In the presentation, bits and pieces of one of AoC's level 80, 24-person raids were shown to an audience with live commentary by Game Director Gaute Godager. Multiple bosses were shown, such as a poison-leaking monstrosity and two demons -- one ice, one fire -- who gain power when standing near one another. Godager explained the philosophy behind raiding and epic gear, and using collision detection in battle strategies. He revealed that raid groups will be able to call it a night halfway through a raid and finish any time they want (so long as it's before the raid expiration date -- one week after its start date). There was also a brief series of clips of a massive PvP siege.

In the interview with Eirik Munthe we learned that Funcom put together strike teams consisting of designers, scripters, and writers. Each strike team focused its attentions completely on a 20-level span; for example, Munthe's team worked on content for player levels 60 - 80. Munthe described the challenges he faced when scripting encounters with some of AoC's unique features such as collision detection and CoE (cone of effect) healing in mind.

A couple weeks ago we introduced Steve Williams' notion of mudflation, its causes, and a general framework for its eradication. On Friday, he posted part two of his three part economic plan, suggesting that the best way to remove currency from the player economy was to replace large money sinks like item repairs with frequent, small, invisible tolls for things like entering a city, using reagents, and changing zones. By making these sorts of things invisible instead of up-front, you can stem the devaluing of your currency without pissing off the players, or so the argument goes.

This blogger is far more fond of having money sinks that yield tangible results. Things like player housing (and the subsequent decorating that goes along with it), guild cities or hang-outs (CoX's Supergroup Base system works quite well), or more types of crafting always seemed to yield better results. Even though the concept of an invisible toll system is really in the players' best interest , we can't imagine the response being anything other than vitriolic. In any case, we're looking forward to act three of Williams' economic treatise to see how he wraps it up.

Sometimes the difference between staying in a game and leaving it is the company you keep. Even more so than in Second Life, where if you don't find a friend within the first 3 days you're likely not to return, joining or creating a guild is arguably the most important step in developing a lasting relationship with the game, and getting access to all the content a game has to offer. Sure, you can solo for a long time, probably even to 'end game', but you'd be missing out on all the opportunities that only running with a pack can grant.

For those of you who run a guild, how do you choose who gets to join? Recommendation by a current member? Extended invitation to a particularly funny/knowledgeable forum poster? Do you put the initiate through tests? How does the process work?

When we reported early last month that the Destination Games team was looking to give a serious buff to Tabula Rasa's experience modifier system, it was then largely regarded as something to be happy about. Too many players were suffering from the attrition of climbing from tier 3 at level 30 to the so-called "elder game" waiting at level 50. Not only do the incentives to continue leveling dry up around that point, but the quests themselves become sparse and hard to link together.

Well evidently, the fan community has decided in all of a week that the buffs to the modifiers are simply too much, and some have called for them to be scaled back, or changed so that anything more than 3x experience is restricted as a veteran reward or unlocked after leveling one character to 50. On this, we have to disagree. Allowing for the majority of players to finally make that push through to 50 will go a long way towards pressuring the TR team to finally implement a real end-game to draw people back into the fold. If they can't succeed at that charge, than they deserve to fail. We're OK with putting them on notice.

Loot should always be a secondary concern in MMOs. The modern MMO is a virtual space that allows people to communicate and share experiences in a way that no other medium does, but I've been seeing more and more, the idea that developers should put the concerns of those players whose sole or primary concern is the acquisition of loot above the concerns of other players.

It's the old hardcore vs. casual argument of old – one that I honestly don't think we'll ever see the end of, for the simple reason that applying a hard and fast label of 'hardcore' or 'casual' is fundamentally flawed. There is no magical line that you cross, and in the space between one day and the next suddenly become 'hardcore' as opposed to 'casual', and the idea that you must belong to one of those two groups is fallacy, pure and simple.

It's no secret that MMOs operate on a finely tuned treadmill mechanic. The game offers players a succession of small goals, each of which provide the incentive for players to continue on towards the next goal, and so forth. The sustained success of games like World of Warcraft are attributable in no small part to the game's ability to continue to string the player along with new and more interesting goals. What happens though, when a game's system of rewards begins to break down? This is the question that TTH's RadarX explores in an editorial looking at Tabula Rasa's end-game. It's hardly a new question for fans of the game (additional end-game content ranked number 2 on our New Years Tabula Rasa wishlist), but the question is becoming more urgent as casual players finally catch up to their more hardcore brethren in the ranks of the Tier 4.

You'd have to believe that Destination Games is at least aware of the problem, it just becomes an issue of implementation. Looking at patch 1.4, with the announcement of a new level 50 instance, it seems evident that they're at least responding to the needs of those at the farthest end of the leveling race, but there's no immediate evidence that they're plugging in content in the middle. Probably the most promising sign was when they plugged in a whole new quest hub into the Palisades in a recent patch, but until they release the final patch notes for 1.4, we have no way of knowing whether the upper-middle level range will get the same treatment.

Where I disagree with RadarX is in his assertion that enemy density and the frequency of patrols should be toned down for areas like the Mires. Part of what makes Arieki so fun the first time around is the truly war-like atmosphere it generates. It only makes sense that in such a dense war zone, there would be areas that the Bane rule with an iron fist. I don't have a problem with areas like that encouraging more group activity, because frankly, it just suits the lore a heck of a lot better. Now if they just stuck in some quests for groups to do, I might stop by bitching all together and just get back to playing.

The past year was a big one for Tabula Rasa and all who call it a virtual home. While most players only had a scant two months to enjoy the worlds that Richard Garriott and company created, the news came thick, and the time was exceedingly well spent. And Massively has been there from the beginning. From the end of beta event to the 24 hours of Tabula Rasa contests, from our visit to the NCsoft office to Richard Garriott's lecture at George Washington University, we've been all over Tabula Rasa like white on rice, and we plan to keep it that way.

Having said that, we have a few things we're looking forward to from the Destination Games crew for the year 2008, from the more mundane to the potentially fantastic. As much as we enjoy blasting the Bane in the game's current state, if we had our way, this wish list would be on the public test realm tomorrow.

I'm not a Biologist, but my understanding of evolution is that things change and grow. Certain species die off, to be replaced by newer ones better suited to the environment of the time.
With one expansion under its belt, bucketloads of content patches behind it and another expansion on the horizon, WoW certainly hasn't stood still as time has passed. While WoW had hardly become sterile, is adding new content the same thing as evolving the game?

As you should already well know, Destination Games is hard at work on patching up some common complaints in their new sci-fi epic Tabula Rasa. Though the most significant part of the patch for most players was Rage getting whacked with the nerf bat and the promise of a free respec, that wasn't all that Paul Sage and crew had in mind. An easily overlooked part of the patch notes says, and here I quote, "We have also fixed another problem where item rarity was not affecting damage bonuses on the items. Now green weapons will do more damage than their white counterparts of the same level. Blues will do more than greens." Itemization is getting tweaked, and it's going to have huge ramifications.

As things of this nature usually do, the change has spawned a heated discussion within the TR community, with some feeling that the difference in itemization (which, if you'll note, is called a "fix" not a "change") is going to have profound implications for the way players approach equipment and the game in general. As the game exists now, damage is entirely independent of item quality, and the only advantages conferred by rare items (which follows the popular rarity scheme of white < green < blue < purple) are that they have their mod slots filled. In most cases an item bought at a vendor is basically equal to a purple of the same level that you can get either as a rare drop or as a quest reward. Why is that a problem?