This post is brought to you by my late night posting on the private Vanguard beta forums. However it contains no NDA breaking material, and I figured that it might also be of interest to my audience here.

——————–

It is my opinion that at the crux of this discussion is the simple question of why do we have death penalties at all? What practical and direct purpose does it serve within the world of Telon, or any game world for that matter? To answer these questions I would like to present two games from roughly the same genre (and I apologize if you haven’t played one or both, I will try to make that matter as little as possible), these are Half Life 2 for the PC and Ninja Gaiden. In Half Life 2 you can essentially save your progress whenever you feel like it. In fact when I played through it I used the quick save option often, any time when I was presented with anything that even remotely resembled danger. As a result I never feared failure, and I never got very good at the game. Luckily for me, the game never really got much more challenging than the first level or so. Sure, I got new toys to play with, and new baddies to fight, but the worst that would ever happen is that I’d have to retry an area. On the other hand, Ninja Gaiden has no such luxury with regards to saving. There are fixed save points and if you die, you go back to the last time you saved. In addition, Ninja Gaiden is a great deal harder than Half Life 2 and it isn’t harder because of the death system. It is simply harder by virtue of design, you have to be good at this game in order to progress, and you have to be consistently good. As a result, I became very good at the game, I would practice simply killing generic baddies in order to hone my skills, and I actually felt like my personal ability at the game had increased.

Let me put this another way. Assuming that death penalty does not increase the challenge level of a game, then why does the more challenging game also have the harsher penalty?

The answer to this question lies, I believe, in the words of the great Winston Churchill (stated as he was no doubt pontificating upon the subject of death penalties himself) when he said, “Play the game for more than you can afford to lose… only then will you learn the game.”

Many people seem to argue that death penalties actually create a harder game. I would disagree. Death penalties are used in order to support the harder and more challenging game, they cause the players to invest themselves more in learning the intricacies of the game mechanics and rules, and allow the players to play the game in such a way as to meet the new challenges being presented. Human nature will guide us all to taking the easier path. If we do not play the game for more than we can afford to lose, then we will not learn the game. As a result this may sound like I am therefore an advocate of the harsher death penalties, this is absolutely not true. I am an advocate for balance.

The designer’s job is not to create a harsher and harsher penalty in order to make the game harder. It is their job, if designing a game with increasing levels of challenge, to come up with a death penalty that stings just enough to the player to sit up and pay attention enough to learn the game mechanics necessary to continue progression. If the death penalty is not harsh enough, then the player does not invest themselves in such a way as to learn the game, and thereby isn’t ready to meet new challenges. If they are not ready for the new challenges, then these challenges seem impossible. If a player finds the latest challenge impossible, they will quit the game in frustration at a lack of progress. On the other hand, if the death penalty is too harsh, then the player obviously becomes annoyed by the continued over the top punishment (because everyone, even the ‘best’, make mistakes - that’s how we learn) and stops even trying. This is a fine line of balance.

To bring this discussion back to the realm of MMO’s, it is not difficult to use WoW as an example. Many people point out the game is easy, by and large that’s true, and that’s part of the charm of the game to many people. However, what happens is that the lack of a ‘true’ death penalty in WoW is ascribed as one of the reasons that WoW is so easy. I disagree absolutely. Blizzard found that balance point for their death penalty. It stings a little, just enough that players avoid death when convenient, but it doesn’t really push the player to focus on the game and mechanics, to become better, because it doesn’t need to.

And this is why there is no such thing as a perfect death penalty. For each game the needs are different, not to mention that the penalty isn’t a nice sliding scale, as I’m sure you all have noticed by the sheer amount of discussion over debt/loss/CR/souls/etc. Right now the designers in charge are working hard to come up with a penalty that is not only balanced properly to meet the needs of Vanguard in terms of our challenge and player ‘education’ requirements, but also one that potentially provides other useful side effects such as player collision (corpse runs) or slowing progression (loss/debt) without causing unnecessary frustration or lack of ‘fun’.

Well, it seems to have been at least a good solid month since I’ve updated this thing, despite my assurances that I would leave it less than neglected. Well, I can give plenty of reasons - long hours at work, acclimating to a new location, the works. And they’re real, and I do wish I might have had more time to work on this, I have plenty of topics I want to cover, some focusing on the more pragmatic side of game design and looking at what I’ve been learning since getting my hands under the hood, and some that hark back to my roots in academia. However, in the meantime I’m just going to mention that I’m not gone and I’m still alive and hopefully soon to be back to writing. Work is fantastic, my coworkers are competent and great to work with, and I can honestly say that we’ll be putting out a product that is worth your time to play. So listen not to those nay sayers, for they know not what they say, and watch this space for more MMO goodness in the near future (I’m looking at something substantial this week, so stay tuned!).

This post build on that of Kathy Sierra’s post over on CPU titled How your product can inspire The Nod, so I recommend heading over there and reading that first.

I think the crux of the value of this idea comes from the anecdotal evidence found in Kathy’s post. The Nod (or, in the case of MMO’s, The /nod) is quite simply another way to build community and engender bonding social interactions. When two players have cause to share a /nod moment, they feel a sense of belonging and mutual understanding. As a result they may strike up a conversation, leading to the potential development of a meaningful social relationship.

The two necessary attributes for something to be worthy of The Nod are:

1) The product says something about the person who has it.

2) There’s a way for others to spot another person who has it.

In order to better explain my point and illustrate how the /nod can be used towards a positive social end, I’ll run over these two points as they relate to MMORPGS - starting with number 2 since in my opinion that is a simple one to tackle for virtual spaces. The obvious ‘products’ include anything equipable and visible on an avatar (weapons, armor, and so on…). The non-obvious ‘products’ would include learning an unusual in-game language then using it in a public space (lore junkies bond over their superior knowledge or role players bond over their interest in the more esoteric capabilities of avatars in your world) or players spending time in an unusual location (explorers bond over common wanderlust).

Number 1 is a bit more complex and dependant on individual circumstances so instead I will attempt to explain it by offering some examples of /nod worthy subject matter that has already been implemented in past MMO’s. The example that comes readily to my mind is the Burning Rapier quest from classic EQ. This Rogue only quest was a point of class pride and as it was regulated to the wayside by ‘power gaming’ Rogues as mudflation took its toll, the Burning Rapier began to become of increased sentimental importance to those Rogues who were still willing to seek it out. It had become a part of the history of the class, and therefore said something about anyone who was willing to take the time to acquire it. Another EQ example would have been Rubicite; while the acquisition thereof was largely random, having this armor indicated that you had been around since very nearly the beginning of the world and was a visible example of early adoption. EQ2 has its veteran rewards, such as the title ‘The Loyal’ for those subscribed for a year or more. This is a decent example, but I feel that it lacks some of the meaning of rewards which are only attainable by early adopters. A better EQ2 example would be the betrayal quest, which requires a great deal of effort for arguable rewards. I do know that any other Ratonga running around Qeynos would get the /nod from me. WoW’s best example would be its mounts. There are several which are still in game but no longer purchasable (100% run speed mounts that have the 60% run speed graphics and the white raptors no longer exist), and some mounts are only obtainable through a great deal of effort (black PvP mounts and cross faction mounts, doubly impressive if you have both). Despite this, I think WoW is actually the weakest of all the MMO’s when it comes to inspiring the /nod, and I would actually argue that this is a contributing factor to the poorer sense of server community compared to EQ or EQ2.

In conclusion, it is obviously impractical to rely solely on the /nod for community building or even to consider it essential, but it is another tool that should be taken into serious consideration when implementing and designing quests, items, and other player objectives. I think that it is an idea that can be taken even farther and given more consideration than it has been already, and is something that should be given conscious thought when designing with the player community in mind.

First of all, I would like to apologize for the lack of updates. The social nature of the holidays initially got in the way, then over the last two days I’ve spent a total of 10 hours traveling and 3 hours doing an on site quasi-interview for a job which I was both offered and accepted. As a result I will be working for Sigil on Vanguard as an Associate Game Designer. From my visit I know that I’m going enjoy working there and will fit right in (case in point: topics discussed over lunch - 24, Lost, Titan Quest). It’s going to be a great opportunity to work with a large number of obviously passionate and talented people on one of the upcoming triple-A MMO’s, and I’m really looking forward to it.

Obviously this has some repercussions with regards to this site; there will be a change in my blogging habits. While I do intend to continue to blog, there are several impediments. First of all, I need to step carefully around the NDA. I won’t be discussing any concrete non-public Vanguard info, in fact I will probably avoid Vanguard discussion entirely (there are many other websites out there devoted to such, and I will be adjusting my link lists over time to link to them). Secondly, much of my energy is going to be devoted towards working on the game. I anticipate that this is going to be cutting a great deal into my ’sit down and blog’ time. Finally, my writing now has the potential for bias. I have a vested interest in the success of Vanguard. If I have anything bad to say or changes I wish were made, then I obviously wouldn’t be posting them here but would rather route these suggestions through the appropriate channels. In addition, my affiliation has the potential to color my view of any other MMO’s I might discuss.

That said, I do intend to keep blogging. It provides me an outlet for public discourse and more abstract or less relevant topics. I will be shunning any dismissive discussion of other MMO’s, and attempt to keep the praise practical. I will essentially be avoiding any discussion of Vanguard, I don’t want to step on any toes by talking about anything I shouldn’t publically, and there already exist a great many sites dedicated to the game’s discussion (many of which I lurk). I would also expect that given my responsibilities I will likely be unable to do more than one post of any substantial length per week, if that. Despite all this, I hope that those of you who have become regular visitors continue to find material of value on this site, and I look forward to my renewed role in the MMO industry.

Only two links this week, but they do not disappoint. Both are talks given by amazing thinkers and speakers.

The first is from TEDTalks and given by Sir Ken Robinson, he speaks about creativity and how we teach. It’s not to be missed. Link.

The second is by Guy Kawasaki, he is ex-Apple evangelist and currently an angel investor and author. He speaks on his top 10 pieces of advice about entrepreneurship - if that alone doesn’t catch your interest, much material here which is without a doubt applicable to creating and marketing a new MMO or virtual world. Link.

Link.

My review can be found here at Jay is Games.

So why blog it as well? Simply because Gibbage really deserves any attention it can get. For a solo effort it is exceedingly polished and is quite simply the best hot seat game to be released in some time. Granted, I think it’s also one of the only hot seat games to be released for some time (Worms is the only other one that springs readily to mind for PC), but don’t let the lack of competition dissuade you.

Dan’s blog itself is also one of my daily reads, and comes recommended as well.

Anyone who has ever played one of the group centric MMO’s (and let’s be honest, that’s really most of them) has run into the problem of trying to find a group. It’s a challenge - players are segregated by location, level, and skill, not to mention simply what content they want to group for. When you have a world’s worth of content primarily designed for grouping, a LFG system needs to be designed that can quickly and painlessly match people together for the purpose of taking on this content. Here is what I see as the essential components of a good LFG tool…

It has to be easy to use - The classic LFG tool is the ‘ooc’ (out of character) chat channel. This is the means that many MMO’s employed back in the day (Everquest is the one that comes to mind first and foremost). And it makes sense, it’s a simple and straightforward way for people to get together. OOC chat often extends in a ‘zone’ of common quests and enemies, and among a common level range. Now you (and a surprising number of MMO developers) might think this is enough. But we can do better…

It has to be broad - Here’s the crux, that OOC chat? Yeah, other people like talking in it. So the next step is to make a separate channel for the lfg folks, often termed the ‘lfg’ channel. This is getting a bit more complex, but still simple enough, and it can be turned off at any time you aren’t looking for a group or a group mate. However while we’re at it, we also realize that players don’t necessarily like hanging out in the zone they’re looking for a group in. Maybe they want to do something else while they wait, like take time and tradeskill in a city. Or perhaps they want to explore the surrounding area, taking in some of the solo content that has no doubt been sprinkled in. We have the technology; sitting at zone line waiting for a group should be a thing of the past. The lfg chat gets bigger; it covers more than one zone. EQ2 has chat range by level and class (although if you want to do a level 11 quest, you’re usually stuck spamming both 1-10 and 11-20), needless to say the number of chat channels can get out of hand quickly.

It has to be persistent - I want you to take note of one word I sprinkled into that last sentence, spam. And therein lies the flaw in the chat solution, the player basically has to make a macro that says, “Level 14 Pastamancer looking for help for the great spaghetti monster taming quest”, and toss that out there every 5 minutes or so - hopefully while doing something else at least a bit more interesting. If you’re some kid hyped up on whatever drugs you’re doing these days, then somehow you think it’s a good idea to hit that button about 5 times in a row, apparently increasing your chances of finding a group. Well, the rest of us are sick of seeing your spam, and it means we’ve turned off the channel, so even if it was still on before because we wanted to keep an eye on it for a replacement in case our healer suddenly just has to go wash their cat, it’s off now. The solution to this spam and for added persistence to the player’s search is the /lfg flag. Wow! I type /who lfg and it tells me absolutely nothing other than the fact that you are indeed looking for a group. Who knows what quests you have, what kind of player you are, or how much longer you’ll be online. Certainly a series of /tell’s will accomplish this, but why make the player go through that when there is a much simpler solution.

The solution - A persistent and easily accessible directory, accessible through a simple ui and containing information such as name, level, and goals for both groups and individuals. If you wanted to get fancy there could exist the grouping equivalent of ‘friend’ and ‘ignore’ lists, perhaps even allowing for extended networks, and therefore a way for your grouping friends to indicate to you who else is worth grouping with. It could parse your active quests and allow you to list quests you are interested in doing and search using the same information. Hell, players could even type in a ‘personal ad’ style description detailing their character and play experience, and hopefully making them more attractive to any potential group mates. All this without relying on a spam filled chat channel. These games are focused on grouping and many still don’t have an acceptable solution, it boggles my mind.

From the virtual world of Second Life comes the protest of Linden Lab’s recent decision to no longer require age verification. Tachevert over at WorldIV gives a rundown on the process he goes through when composing. And John Scott Tynes, Producer of the soon to be released Pirates of the Burning Sea, goes into why he doesn’t like MMO’s.

Edit: Late update on this one. The folks over at VGTact have released their interview with Steve “Aruspex” Williams about the state of diplomacy in Vanguard. This is shaping up to be one of the more interesting new mechanics coming out of the next generation MMO’s, and it’s worth keeping an eye on what they’re doing with it.

My final paper for the virtual world/MMO class I took last semester has been posted. It can be found here along with a number of my peer’s. I’ve only had the time to read a handful of the others so far, however I did sit through their presentations, and I expect that each will be a worthwhile read.

Each paper is a result of research combined with 10-15 player interviews. I personally asked questions relating to how people perceive new worlds and their first actions within these worlds. My concrete conclusion is that there are many different ways that people approach these worlds (no surprise there), but it is almost universal that new players go to unofficial resources such as fansites to gather more information about their new world. As a result of this I would argue that programs like Vanguard’s affiliated sites are an excellent move, it allows Sigil to keep some reign on the type of content and moderation that goes on, while keeping the benefits of multiple communities and site management that isn’t tied to development. On the other hand, this also causes me to look at the IGE purchase of Allakhazam and Thottbot in a new light, and I don’t like what I’m seeing. If new players are in the hands of the proverbial enemy, in the case of the traffic and communities on these sites, then the development teams and older players may find themselves fighting an uphill battle when it comes to real money transfers in MMO’s that aren’t designed for them. Just some food for though, if you find this at all interesting, then I suggest checking out the paper yourself at the link above.

Update: A link to these papers has been posted on the Terra Nova weblog.