Rift: Not Enough Chatter

It did not take long. I truly tried my best to avoid all discussion of Rift. Blogs could not sway me. Forums could not irk me.

Then the magic happened.

"Just before Beta 6, we made an anti griefing change that prevented enemy wardstones at hubs and towns from being destroyed by the opposing faction, and significantly boosted guard strength around PvE hubs. We’re pretty happy with how that worked out on the PvE servers...


In time for Open Beta, we’ve developed the ability to repeal those changes on the PvP servers only, to see if they can remain playable without it. Ideally, it’s our hope that there’s gameplay value in having people being able to band together to attack and defend those areas on PvP servers.  "

Scott Hartsman - Post Beta 6 - On Rifts, Raids, PvP, and Damage…

So, with a single move, Trion does something most developers do not want to do. Cater to more than one type of player.

We have seen the promises before of Developers who say they "want" to listen to the player.  They constantly look for feedback, yet how often does that feedback become an implementation. Why is it so many devs make changes that make you shake your head and wonder why?

It was a concern last beta, when these anti-grief changes were done, and then were carried over to PvP servers. The yells of "PvE players are killing our PvP" were shouted on the forums...and at the same time the PvE bunch were all "You got PvP in my PvE" and were crying over this issue, which caused this change to take place.

What is a dev to do? Usually the easy way out. Change the major core and cater to that "casual" crowd as so often happens as of late.

Not this time.

So, for those who continue to worry about Rift, because it is the same? Or is it becoming too easy? Is it catering to that one audience all game devs want...

For once, we may have a company who puts their customer first.

Cheers to Trion...

Oh, and ,my comment ban is removed. Trion and Rift deserve the discussion.

You got your PvP in my PvE - Redux

Previously I have written about how the interaction of PvP and PvE can be a success if done correctly. But, the question remains; what does the MMO audience REALLY want in their MMO's. Can PvP and PvE really mix? And, what is the current crop of MMO's teaching us about what the MMO audience wants to see.

This became even more of a subject to broach thanks to the recent changes in Rift for Beta 6. You can read about these changes here in depth (SOURCE). What it boils down to is making quest hubs more powerful against opposition invasions from the other factions. As well, objective based PvP is being moved into their own areas, so those who do not wish to engage in PvP, may avoid it almost completely (on PvE servers).

So, what does this tell us?

If we look at previous year offerings when it comes to PvP based games, the consensus seems clear. If your game does not have a well laid out PvE component and instead focuses on PvP, you will alienate a large audience (WAR, AoC Launch). And to top it off, if you force PvE audiences to PvP, prepare to fall down (Aion, which has been rectified as of late).

Basically, my feelings are that PvE has the larger audience, and PvP is too niche.

Rift at least looks to offer an alternate path though for a PvE/PvP based style of gameplay.

Thanks to the way that you can set yourself up to be auto-flagged for PvP on PvE servers, it allows a player to be near danger, but to avoid it if they wish. But, on the PvP servers, the always on flag allows the PvP player to engage whenever they wish...mostly.

Here is where the contention arises for the PvP servers. Seems they are disgruntled over the changes, and believe that PvE is already ruining their PvP experience. Why should they not be allowed to attack the quest hubs of alternate factions, and cause havoc against those players?

So, who exactly is right here? And, can Trion see to it that PvP can have separate server rules from PvE?

My hope is that for 2011 we will see what the MMO audience really wants. Rift's success as a PvE game with PvP may just answer that. Especially when we can see which servers hold the largest populations...and of course, how those numbers on X-Fire and Raptr look.

Good Openedge - The Free 2 Play Model Can Work

Just read the report on the GDCO 2010 conference for Turbines report. You can catch the news here.
Turbine GDCO Report
"At GDCO, the studio [Turbine] announced that revenues from Lord of the Rings Online have doubled in the past month since switching to a free-to-play hybrid model."

Everyone knows how I feel about LOTRO, as I have stated in the past...the game is just not that good. Period. I could sit and point out the many flaws in gameplay and style, and most would even agree.

But, when it came to them changing to Free 2 Play, I was on onboard, and had even stated I could see their business doubling thanks to this change. Looks like I was spot on for that.

If Turbine has one thing right, it is how to treat their customers and how to make a game profitable. They pulled a rabbit out of their hat with DDO, and took a chance with a grade A (according to many) MMO and converting it to a less popular style of monetary arrangement in many MMO circles.

Most associate Free 2 Play with low quality. But, LOTRO is not too low quality wise (just in the aspect of character models and UI...which I understand has been tweaked some, but still needs work) , and Turbine took a big chance. Especially with the type of community that LOTRO exhibits, the belief was going F2P would be it's downfall. If anything, I applaud their move and am glad they have made headway. I hope they use this money wisely and apply it to a better animation engine and model designers, along with UI creators who understand DPI.

This leaves the window open now. Can this model succeed if done right? Want an example of NOT doing it right? Head on over to EQ2X and take a look.
You can't inundate your customer base with charges left and right. Also, there has to be a way to earn the same goods that can be bought in your store. Do this or alienate a large audience.
SOE's move to place the new "free" audience on other servers was genius...until they saw that their core audience wanted more people to play with, and saw an emptying of their pay servers...ouch. In so many words, don't separate your audience if you don't have a large audience to begin with.

So, is Free 2 Play the way to go all the time?  I still feel some games cannot work like this.

Take Warhammer Online. So many think it needs to go Free due to it's low populations. I disagree. The niche it inhabits does not bode well for a cash shop. Buying into a PvP oriented game is a big no-no to me.
But, the game could do with some price "tweaking". Changes to pricing structures for their "Tiers" is a start. Then charge for aspects that can be earned. Horses and Mounts could be one piece. New addons like their upcoming RvR packs is another.
The fact that PvE is taking a back seat to their PvP also means F2P would be disastrous. To top it off, their PvE is so broken to begin with...more work would have to be done in that arena before a F2P model could even look WAR in the eye.

PvE gameplay is 100% congruent to Free 2 Play in my opinion. People will be willing to buy what they need or want. But, you must offer some way to have the player gain these same items...just make sure it takes them a long time.

I welcome our new pricing models and hope it leads to more innovative ways to pay and play.

Age of Conan - Why no PvP love?

Over the last year or more Age of Conan has been taking strides to fix the overall structure of it's game-play to accommodate new players. In all actuality it has been a move to "fix" the original launch issues and at least make the game playable.




Balance, content, new additions of armor, crafting recipes and more have been put into the game.

What does that all sound like though? PVE.

Simply put, the direction of the game has changed since launch. It is now more of a casual friendly MMO RPG for PVE players than the original intent; "A Savage, brutal world...".

As of late, a sea change has occurred though in respects to how players are feeling about these changes. There is no doubt that the discussion of the changes have shown to be effective. So much so, that the game is receiving "Most improved" awards through some news outlets, population is holding steady and even rising on Xfire; players have been discussing their return to the game on the forums.
But, there is no doubt that the changes have not been enough for those players who respected Funcom enough to stick it out through their endeavors. Dissent and discourse has been the result of ignoring a half of the population (according to Craig Morrison, there is a 50/50 split of PVE-PVP players).

PVP players have started quite a few threads on the forums discussing that in reality, two years of Age of Conan has not brought any NEW challenge for PVP players, except the murder system. But, this system has proven to be broken and causes more heartache than adventure. The Siege mechanics, which was another form of high end group PVP is still in dire need of fixes due to lag and unplayability. The list goes on.

This thread describes it best..."It is quite obvious that the whole PVP department of Age of Conan is put on the back burner and is always the "last thing to work on".

Some of the concerns are:

1. Mini-game maps - 2 years and the same 4 maps still exist since launch
   
2. Battlekeeps - No change for 2 years running. New content was teased on testlive, then taken away and noted probably not until after expansion (6-8 months?)
3. Sieges - hardware changes to help with DC's, but no fix for lags or certain criteria still causing poor performance.
4. World PVP - Seems to take place mostly in one location, as most players are afraid of irritating guards which gives murder status...even if you were the one murdered.
5. Glory - Part of the new renown system. Yet, takes twice as long to level as just sitting around and crafting.
6. Arena's - Awesome idea. But, why would a PVP player do them when they equal ZERO PVP points?

It is quite obvious that after the change of Game Director, we can see that the focus of the game changed immensely. But, you may ask; does it matter?

We have the financials which show revenue for the game is still not quite there yet. But, since the new renown system has been added as of last patch (1.06), Xfire shows a major increase in activity bumping it into the high 40's (#48 today for example, which it has not seen since the 1.05 patch over 8 months ago). Discussion of the new expansion has people ready to return once that launches.

Could it be that forgetting a part of your player population and going for that PVE slant is more in line toward profit? Is PvP even needed? With the new expansion (estimates place it launching anywhere between April to June), and the core of that new game having over 85 to 90% PVE, maybe the expansion will give us the final answer.

We kinda miss ya PVP, but PVE seems to love us more.

Should Funcom be ignoring this population so long? Should more effort be put into PVP now? Or is PVE where it's at for Age of Conan? Voice your opinions.

Cheers