Category Archives: Games

More Time

Posted on by

So, I have a beard.  Well, perhaps not a full Gandalf beard, or a biker bear but enough for my liking (and my wife’s apparently).  It’s enough.  I trim it on a weekly basis out of habit with a mechanical trimmer.  This week, from lack of attention, I set it at the lowest setting.  So now I have stubble.  Which reminded me of a joke I once heard.

What’s the difference between a good haircut and a bad one?  Two weeks.

And I think that accurately reflects the status of a lot of things.  Give is a bit and things tend to even out.

What with the release of WoD in a day, and me being on Stormrage, one of the only servers I know of that still has a queue on regular days, it certainly looks like launch day is going to be a crapfest.  Wait 2 weeks and things’ll die down enough, what with free server transfers a near-guarantee.

Which is sort of akin to all MMO launches I guess.  You wait 2 weeks after the date they are going live and then things are stable.  That initial wave of players simply goes back to work and moves on.  Plus for me, things are sort of on a decent run right now.  WoD is a few weeks before the Revan expansion in SWTOR, which is a couple months from the FF14 expansion too.

Then there’s the steam sale…oh boy.

SWTOR – Not Enough Buttons

Posted on by

It’s ironic really that WoW has made large efforts in the WoD expansion to remove skill bloat and that SWTOR embraces it so heartily.  Well, maybe in the Revan expansion there’ll be less…

The game seems to give me a new button to press every 2 levels.  Many of these buttons do the same thing but slightly differently.  Either a higher resource cost, more damage, longer cooldown and so on.  The problem with this is a simple and complex one.  Every class, regardless of game, has defining skills.  Those skills are either unlocked in a logical pattern, randomly assigned or perhaps unlocked through talent selections.  When you have them, the class works.  When you don’t, well, it doesn’t.

SWTOR is an odd beast in that some classes have these skills early and others have them late.  My Sorcerer, Powertech and Warrior all had a logical breakdown of skills over time (minus the actual tanking skills, which came out way too late).  From a leveling perspective, the overall play made sense and had a pattern, more or less.  Sure, there were some powerful unlocks but it only modified the play, not a complete re-write.

I have a 31 Sniper (pure DPS) and that one made sense too.  What with the 12x experience bonus, I wanted to try an Operative (heal/dps hybrid).  She hit 31 recently and what a world of difference in playstyle.  By far the hardest class to play with and maintains the least amount of survivability.  The skill unlocks don’t make sense and make for a very odd pattern of combat.  Outside of talents, there’s only 1 viable attack.  I needed 2 more talents to get ‘er going, a DoT grenade and Cull, a super damage skill based on the amount of DoT’s on the target.  The class is largely unplayable up until that unlock at 31, at least compared to the other classes.

On to interrupts for a minute.  Every class gets an interrupt and a 4s stun.  They often get a knockdown attack (which doesn’t affect elites) or two.  Then they also get a paralyze/DoT attack.  You end up with 4-5 skills that prevent an enemy attack.  And you need to use the damn things too because enemy NPCs can dish out insane amounts of damage, in particular the elites I mentioned before.  Some entire fights are predicated on interrupting those attacks.  And that’s above and beyond the basic rotation.  So I end up with 12+ buttons to press in a solo fight, half of which do the same thing.

There’s still missing some data on the Revan skill clean-up (called Disciplines).  The concept makes sense.  They do say they are changing interrupts to an 18s timer, which is odd given the previous paragraph….

I do know that WoD (and Cataclysm too) did a rather effective job looking at ability gain and timing.  Simplified rotations of 4-5 buttons per class.  It’s really something comparing the two during the leveling process.  Vastly different interpretations.

SWTOR – Progress, I Guess

Posted on by

What with the 12x experience boost, carving through the levels is somewhat a breeze.  Let me rephrase that a tad actually.  The 12x experience boost transforms SWTOR into 3 parts; first is the actual story, second is the stat race and third is the travel experience.

The actual story is pretty neat, per class.  I just finished a Sith Warrior (let’s say ~12 hours) all the way through and I’m of the opinion that the story was written to be played light side.  At least the key moments seem to fall well into that line.  There were a few spots where I had to pick the dark side, to keep the semblance of a bad guy but overall, the light side choices weren’t so much super good guy as they were “I don’t really care what happens”.  Which is sort of a better super villain if you ask me.  I’ve done the Sith Inquistor and preferred that story mind you, even though it was more rote.  Sith Warrior is just ho-hum quests, until the final act.

The stat race is something else.  In most MMOs you can get by with straggling gear.  Say the average power curve is 200.  If you’re missing 20, then no big deal, stuff is just a tad harder.  SWTOR don’t play that way chump!  Scaling of power seems to be based on a variance of norm rather than an absolute number.  What that means is that if you are slightly above average in stats, then you just run over everything.  Slightly under and you’re in for a rough time.  Every 10 levels I had to do a full restock.  Every 5 was a top up.  Considering I’m doing about 3-4 quests per world, that’s a fair top up.  It’s not the end of the world, I had a 55 on the fleet who could mail me supplies.  It put me out of pocket maybe 50K for the whole thing, though by the time I hit 55 I was near 400k in cash.  (note: sell everything on the GTN, if it doesn’t go on first pass, vendor it)

The travel time is the odd one and to me shows where the game was stretched.  The first 3/4 of the worlds are great, playing more like a spiderweb than a linear path.  Belsavis and Voss though, wowza.  Belsavis I must have spent 30 minutes just travelling between 2 quests.  Thank goodness I unlocked quick travel with Legacy, so that my ports back to the ship were quick.  Voss was less about travel and more about poor quest design.  I mean Bears, Bears, Bears was the thing here.  Like, have me do the 4 things at once rather than just ping back continually.  Ugh.  47 thankfully came quickly and off I went.

So the optimal leveling path, as I see it, is as follows:

  • Always log off in a rested exp zone
  • Use the Cartel EXP boosts.  You’ll start getting them as rewards near level 20.  Pop them before you turn in a quest, as that’s when it really matters.
  • Avoid all the other quests.  Seriously.  The only one you must take is the one on the Quesh stardock, that’s it.
  • 1-47, do the core world quests.
  • 47+ head to your ship to start Makeb.  For the love of poop, use the GSI terminal on the stardock.  I went from 750 strength to nearly 2500 from the boost that terminal gave.  Very good odds you’ll be stuck on the Armageddon quest to hit 55.  Which is the worst of the Makeb quests, hah!
  • When you complete a quest, use the Personal Holocron (Teleport)
  • Have someone on the fleet who can buy stuff for you and sell stuff if your bags are too full.  A level 15 is fine and with this boost takes about an hour
  • Commendation aren’t worth it, in my opinion.  Get the lockboxes are quest rewards if gear isn’t an option.  Sell it.

For $15, I got a good story, got to see some nice scenery and avoided a ton of content.  But, I learned to play the class much better because of the crappy gear differential.  I am a firm believer that this model is more effective than simply selling max level characters.  In that model, I have no idea how to play the character, no idea what’s going on and I’m just sitting in no-man’s land at max level.  Two separate ways to get to the same goal but vastly different.

SWTOR – Boost Me

Posted on by

I guess it’s Shintar’s fault but I decided to try SWTOR again (and sorry, I didn’t notice the referral code until after).  Yes, yes, I know.  I have a sub to WoW and FF14 active at the moment.  WoW is about farming pets at the moment, given the content lull before WoD, and that’s like 30 minutes a day.  I did level 3 more characters to 90, so that’s something.  FF14 I’m on the bubble for.  At 43, I’m in no-man’s-land.  Not enough for end game, too high for the mass of folk.  Dungeons are my best bet but my schedule these past days has made sitting down for even 30 minutes to concentrate hard.  I play a healer, so it’s not like I can AFK in a fight.

SWTOR’s next expansion is in a month.  It’s $20, which I think is the right price point for any expansion.  I guess there’s a Blizzard premium, just like Apple.  Think Turbine could learn a bit about this…

Anyways, if you pre-order (done) and subscribe (done) you get 12x the experience on class quests, which is ~5 quests per planet.  It stacks with generic experience boosts which you can buy in the store or get as a reward.  I logged on my Imperial Agent and the quest log was at 8K experience per quest.  The class quest though, that was over 100k.  1 quest practically gave me a level in itself.  Tried the Bounty Hunter who was 50 (my Sorc is 55 from previous subscription) and Makeb (the 50 to 55 zone) has all the quests impacted by the boost.  That’s…a level of insane.  30 minutes and I had 2 levels.

I played SWTOR during beta and for the first 3 months.  I considered it still in beta when I left as some core design was missing, in particular around the social tools.  Went back for Makeb for a few months, then real life got in the way and I stepped away from the PC for some time.  Funny story, I left Rift because I went away for 3 weeks in the summer, came back and the guild had server transferred.  SWTOR has always interested me for the story and the cannon.  Let’s be honest, KOTOR is the reason that people today even bother with games related to Star Wars, and SWTOR is more or less KOTOR3 multiplayer.

The 12x experience bump though, that’s an odd one.  When the core of the game is the story and this bypasses 90% of it, it makes you wonder.  Even a new played in WoW/WoD skipping til 90 would have no understanding of their timeline.  SWTOR is different in that there’s a personal hero story and the zones themselves are deeply tied to that story.  In WoW, you’re a faceless hero, in SWTOR you are the face of your game.  The good news is that it only applies to your class quest, which is the only unique part of the adventure upon replay.  Well, sort of.  The “normal” zone quests provide you with a fair chunk of SW lore.  Plus they give you the chance to pick light/dark side.  Skipping all of those means you really haven’t picked a side.

You’re also giving up the loot.  As a subscriber, training costs are 0, which is good, but you’re woefully underequipped for the content ~level 20.  There’s a climb in difficulty due to poor stats up until you reach 47 and can head to Makeb.  Makeb has a zone buff that normalizes your gear.  You could be in level 1 items and do fine.  I’d say that the loss of credits was an issue but you get next to nothing until level 40 anyways.  A set of dailies gives about 100k at 55, so it’s not like people are going to be struggling.  It’s a massive split from WoW’s instant 90 though, where you’re fully geared in epics, have super flight, all skills, some runes and a bit of cash.

What it does give you is an ~8 hour quest, from 1-55, detailing your class from start to end.  There are 8 unique versions of this (4 per faction), so about 60 hours of content.  For $35 (sub+pre-order), that’s a decent deal.

Levels, Shmevels

Posted on by

I’ve been thinking some about levels lately, and what exactly their purpose is.  I think is really boils down to just a time/action based gate to a specific and tangible goal.

Levels are a construct of the Pen and Paper days, where it was clearly used in a bunch of calculations.  A level 8 had that as a multiplier/addition in calculations.  Some early RPGs did as well.  UO kind of kicked that to the side for the masses though, with a more organic skill process, where levels didn’t make a whole lot of sense.  Still, there were some items that were gated behind a skill level (such as tinkering) where you just were not able to do something until a certain point, though the majority was just about making really crappy copies of something instead.

WoW and EQ went back to PnP roots with levels and something new every ding, at least at launch.  You’d get a new skill, or a talent point each level.  You could have had half the levels requiring the same amount of overall experience and just doubled the rewards though.  A rank of fireball wasn’t a new fireball.  60 levels in WoW taking 7 days of playtime for 20 skills could have just as easily been 20 levels over 7 days. Expansions further diluted the concept of levels, where some you wouldn’t get anything but a ding.  Cataclysm made this readily apparent when I leveled an alt.  I could go 10 levels without any reward.  Why did those levels even exist?

When I’m looking at WoD, I’m in the same mindset.  10 new levels is predicated on the 10 new perks they want to give everyone.  They are random perks too, so it’s not like two monks at 92 would be the same, yet they would be identical at 100.  Which sort of seems stupid if you think about it.  The end space shouldn’t homogenize the differences of leveling, it should be the other way around.

That said, due to the way power curves work and gear scaling, you wouldn’t want the difference between a level 9 and a level 10 to be light years apart, that requires solid design work.  Vertical progress without levels doesn’t really make much sense.  I rather like EvE’s system of skills to equip something instead, or rather the concept.  Just setting a timer doesn’t make much sense mind you, it should be based on use and time.  WoW tried that with weapon skills, but it wasn’t based on bad equipment, it was based on miss chance.  I can clearly remember training my Shaman with axes at level 60 in a level 15 dungeon, which while odd in practice, actually made logical sense.  And really, do you feel more powerful at 60 than you do at 10, on same level enemies?  Your time to kill should be the same.

The more I think about it the more it seems like the concept of levels as arbitrary gates is not well thought out.  A full skill based game is unlikely in a themepark.  Levels for the sake of levels should also go the way of the dodo.  They should be meaningful rather than just a number, and having less of them is a solid step towards that goal.

PvP – My Take on It – Redux

Posted on by

A solid comment on my previous PvP post from Duke of O, was a rather long one with quite a few good elements in it.  Rather than bury it in a comment section, I would like to take the time to respond appropriately.  I’ll split up the comment here for readability but the entire content will be present.  You can always check the previous post for an unbroken version.  I’ll be using the royal version of I, You and We, unless noted otherwise.

As a long time PvPer, of both the discrete, balanced and instanced variety as well the persistent world variant, I find it interesting that the reasons why you dislike OWPvP games are the reasons why I like them. I like the chaos and the anarchy, and the feeling (albeit simulated) of living in a frontier world without laws or structure. I don’t mind the low standard of behaviour, as I already have a dim view of human nature, and all the adolescent posturing I see in these games just confirm what I already know about people interacting in anonymous environments without accountability. You don’t need OWPvP to see people behaving badly on the Internet – the more extreme polemic elements on both sides of the Gamergate debate are proof enough of that.

This is a rather fatalist view of the world and part of the core issue with the lack of progress.  A silent partner is as guilty as an active partner.  I personally expect more from people, you (specifically Duke) don’t share that view.  That doesn’t invalidate either argument, it just provides context on the entire comment.

I find it somewhat contradictory that you call these type of games anti-social, and then start talking about how common it is for players in these games to form what you call “gangs”. I don’t know why a PvE group banded together to achieve a mutual goal is called a raid group, while a OWPvP group doing the same thing becomes a “gang”, unless it is just your personal biases colouring your language.

This one is complicated due to my word use.  Raid is a military term, defining a quick attack and quick retreat before the enemy has a chance to know what’s going on.  Blitzkrieg is very close (and still used in US football).  The first time I saw the use of the word was in UO pre-Trammel and it was applied as per the definition.  It was used in EQ, again as per the definition (though you’ve likely also herd the term zerg which is similar).  It really took hold in WoW, where the events themselves were called raids and the meaning changed to one of strategy rather than guerrilla tactics.  A gang is a social construct that engages in illegal behavior.  I am selecting that term because that’s how I see it apply to OWPvP.  There is a difference between a gang and vigilantes, the latter of which is trying to enforce the law.  There are many more gangs than vigilantes and sometimes the line between them is very small.

And for anti-social, it’s how it applies to the general society and those not within your gang.  If you treat people outside your gang as you would treat people within, then you’re pro-society.  If you have a separate set of rules, then you’re anti-social.  If your goal is to destroy the enemy, rather than work cooperatively for a common goal, that’s anti-social.  If your goal is to inhibit your enemy for no tangible benefit (e.g. for the lulz) that’s anti-social.  If you use illegal or unethical methods to reach your goals, that’s anti-social.  Saying you made a friend or bonded is a drop in the bucket – if your enemy list is longer than your friend list…

Grouping together for the purposes of mutual gain, security or shared cultural identity seems to me to be the very essence of sociality, and speaking from personal experience I have found that the tightest bonds I have made in online spaces are in these types of games. Shared enemies and shared danger make for one hell of a bonding experience. Of course we treat the enemy with no quarter, but again this is what I expect from these anarchic and volatile environments, and I would like to think my opponents are aware of this.

This is the basis of my argument of consent.  If they are aware and agree, go nuts.  The argument that it builds social bonds is valid, just like a gang does.  Unless your group has some moral/ethical/legal code and actively defends that code, then you’re not a benefit to society, you’re a benefit to each other.

I do not disagree on the bonding aspect.  Our military brethren go through the same thing (ignoring the long-term effects of real-world combat for this argument).  If you share values with these people, as I assume you do, then it makes sense to build a stronger bond with them.  PvE builds similar bonds, assuming the values are shared.  Facing adversity, trusting that your team has your back and you are all working for the same goal will certainly build bonds.  Long-term trust.

I recall reading your comment on J3w3l’s blog, which says this about OWPvP – “honestly, it’s like seeing my history books in gaming.” That’s exactly why I love these type of games! If human history is the account of humanity’s rise from individualism to tribalism to nationalism to globalism via conflict and cooperation, then these type of games give us the opportunity to simulate them in a virtual environment, and to take part in them.

Agreed.  People want to simulate these events.  No different that war enactments or LARPing.  All the parties present consent and there are rules to the events.

The tale of the CFC’s rise to domination in null sec in EVE is like watching the pacification of the Wild West. From a frontier space filled with hundreds of self-serving, ruthless and selfish “gangs” the CFC has managed to create the biggest player association in MMO history, with over thousands of members, a feat no other player association in any other MMO has succeeded in or come close to doing. According to a long time writer on EVE politics (James315) the very reason why the CFC succeeded in bringing peace to null sec is because they treat their coalition members with respect, they honour their agreements and contracts, they are diplomatically astute and have a well-developed logistics and intelligence network, and when push comes to shove they can muster massive fleets in war.

CFC has done tremendously well through some of the most shady backdoor deals I have ever seen.  Governments would be proud of what this group has done in name of “the greater good”.  The amount of spying, ISK scams, backstabbing, murder, bribery, meta-PvP, and other assorted methods would astound anyone who paid attention.  Burn Jita helps the game how exactly?  What does CFC do to benefit the game, rather than benefit CFC?  It really is something to watch.  There is no game to compare to EvE where territorial control is similar.  But groups that have a similar social structure and larger overall impact?  Syndicate probably takes the cake on that one.

These are not attributes one immediately associates with “gangs”, although I do have to admit that there are plenty of player associations which fit that description in OWPvP MMOs. But it is equally possible for OWPvP worlds to have groups which conduct themselves with honour, integrity and trustworthiness.

I agree that there are people who conduct themselves with those values.  I remember the various towns that sprung up in UO, rune libraries and food dispensaries.  I have never seen an ounce of it in WoW.  AA has some, in particular the armadas.  EvE University is (mostly) a good example.

I would even contend that groups that succeed in dominating the meta-game in OWPvP games are groups which have the virtues of being able to work together internally and in partnership with other associations, and are competent and skilled in their chosen fields. I accept and respect the fact that they are not for everyone, and if anything, the fact that the reasons why I like them are the reasons why you hate them leads me to believe that these two viewpoints are probably irreconcilable.

I agree that they are both skilled and competent.  I think that their methods are abhorrent and provide no tangible benefit to anyone outside of the game.  Someone could be the best scam artist and make a mint in EvE (you see one every year or so) but you’ve screwed over a large group of people who placed trust.  So ya, they might find that they can smooth talk their way but now you have all those people who no longer want to trust anyone.  If that person scams someone outside of the group, it’s ok but if they were to scam someone in the group, it’s not.  The most notorious sociopaths are also extremely well skilled.  These arguments are not exclusionary.

I don’t think our points are irreconcilable because I don’t think we’re arguing the same thing.  My argument is that it requires consent and the majority of the actions in OWPvP are anti-social.  Your argument is that it’s fun, builds bonds between people, and requires skill and dedication.  They can both be true.

I truly do understand why people do it, in particular when there are no real world consequences of the actions (outside of meta-PvP).  It’s just not possible to argue that the actions support a progress of society as a whole, rather than subsets of individuals.  There are hundreds of reasons we don’t have tribal warfare anymore, that we have large partnerships across countries, that civilization has progressed more through cooperation than conflict.  OWPvP argues against all of that.

Whatcha Playing?

Posted on by

I won’t hide the fact that I love a bunch of games.  That’s what this blog is all about really.  I won’t hide the fact either that my roots in a given game are not very strong.  The last vestige of that person died during the LK early raiding days.  I mean, I like the social guild aspect, truly I do.  I’ll run dungeons, visit houses, chat it up.  The game has to be decent enough mind you.  But the deep roots, those really only get established 3+ months after launch with a stable core of players.  ESO for the first month had people dropping like flies.  I made it to month 3 of WS and the guild went from 40+ active a night to 2.  (Sidebar to Wildstar, worth the read I find.)

I think nearly all MMOs have their merits in one shape or another, and depending on their patch cycles and what’s in that patch, I’ll stick around or not.  The following is a list of the MMOs I tend to track activity on the most.

WoW’s patches are usually pretty decent and can keep me around for a month or 2.  That they take eons to come out is why they are leaving so much money on the table.  Plus they still treat alts like crap, outside of heirlooms and achievements.  I’m subbed now since I got the WoD patch.  I am honestly back out of habit as none of the proposed features are standing out to me.  I would be surprised if I get to Christmas.

SWTOR’s patches are pretty neat but fairly spread out.  I like a lot of things about the game and really the main detractor for me was the incessant zoning.  It’s oddly better with the housing system they built though, which is pretty nice.  I think I’ll go back once Revan is out as Makeb was a good gaming spurt.

RIFT is pretty solid though the content patches are a little too spread out for my tastes.  With only 4 base classes, alts aren’t such a problem since every class can play any role.  And the AA system is neat and housing too.  Sadly, it doesn’t scratch that itch anymore and the real benefit is from long-term investment.  It does a lot of things well, with no real soft spots but no peaks either.

ESO is a different game today than it was at launch.  Story is still solid and the classes are better balanced.  I don’t get VRs at all as it’s an artificial time gate to see the end game.  I mean, you’re max level but not really, so you need to solo to reach max level+.  I was wanting multiplayer Skyrim – I got something different.  That’s ok, just means it’s for someone else.

Wildstar is over 3 months since the last content patch and still riddled with bugs.  The next patch doesn’t have a date but it is on the PTR.  A game just frigging littered with potential and squandered through astoundingly poor decision making.  GW2 is at least B2P, so shitty decisions you’re not really paying for.  But WS…just wow.  I can’t think of a game that has such a massive disconnect between casual and hardcore.  The 1-50 stuff is pretty decent.  50+…if you have any concept of what raiding and stat management means, then this game will suck your soul dry. It’s just so frustrating to see clearly logical errors that have been present for 6+ months still not fixed.  And seeing all the devs leave ship/get laid-off, doesn’t really inspire any confidence.

FF14 had a recent patch, with a new class and job.  I’ve always liked this game, with a somewhat slower pace.  It doesn’t require alts unless you want a different race or a server … and even then it’s not so needed.  It’s well balanced, content patches are regular quarters with dungeons, raids, classes, items, quests and a slew of other items.  I mean, 2.4 gave more content than some games have in expansions.  I’ve recently re-subbed as I firmly believe it’s the best game on offer for the price.  My White Mage is in the mid-40s, so still some ways from max level.  White Mages suck solo, which is a hilarious reminder of my vanilla warrior and priest runs.  Dungeons are where it’s at with zero queue, just need to have the 45 minutes uninterrupted for it.  The absolute best part of this game though, is the social aspect.  The initial rush is done, the game has a high enough skill level that the face rollers can’t get past level 20 and people are generally quite nice to each other.

PvP – My Take on It

Posted on by

Seems the topic of PvP is flaring up recently, and I’ve been struggling to get my point across.  This post should help set down my theories on it and allow for more depth in the argument.

PvP, to me, has 2 main components.  First is that it requires two consenting parties for it to be acceptable.  Second, is that it’s primarily focused around competition, and is often used for anti-social behavior.

Consent

First off, you should know I’m a fiscal conservative and social liberal.  I am ok with 2 people doing what they want, as long as there is consent.  There is a lot of argument around what consent is and what it isn’t, and in particular at what age you can actually understand the implications of consent.  It is not possible to give consent when you are intoxicated, for example.

Real world example in Canada at the moment; Jian Ghomeshi is a fairly popular radio DJ for the CBC, a crown corp new broadcaster.  You might remember him from the Billy Bob interview.  Well, last week he was fired from the CBC, and news is slowly trickling in to as why.  TLDR; he had admitted to being inclined to BDSM for some time.  The other parties are claiming a lack of consent on these relationships.  And in this particular case, there’s the whole position of power issue. I’ll let the courts settle it but this is likely to be a watershed event for Canadian law.

Most people’s understanding of BDSM is from the movies or from 50 Shades of Grey.  Something taboo in the dark corners that someone else does, 100 km away from civilized society.  Hearing that a Canadian icon is into this, and not ashamed of it is pushing it to the limelight.  I don’t mind the activity as long as both parties consent.  The main issue, from my perspective at least, is that people’s understanding of the act, and thereby their consent, is flawed.  There is a massive difference between asking someone if they like “rough sex” and “do you want to be choked to the point of passing out”.  There are shades of BDSM and what someone would find acceptable, you can’t really dial it to 11 with someone you just met unless you were really descriptive as to what it meant.

When you look at PvP, it’s a similar boat.  What does PvP actually mean?  Does it mean even footed battlegrounds, where stats and skills are normalized?  Does it mean territorial control?  Does it mean greifing and exploiting?  Does it mean meta-PvP such as the multiple cases in EVE ISK scams?  When you are clicking the EULA, it certainly doesn’t state any of that.  You actually have to play (or read about other players) to understand the event and when (if) you can actually give consent.

In some PvE games, you need to flag for PvP and willingly embark.  In the more sandbox type games, just logging in is considered consent.  And your consent is usually backed up by an exchange of money to the developer…

Social Impacts

This one has two sub components.  The structured PvP, governed by rules – which is what e-sports are based upon – is the one I think most people are interested in.  At least, it’s the one that dominates the market globally, though less so in NA.  The other part is the anti-social stuff, or wild-west if you will.  Bullying and griefing falls into this bucket, including all sorts of harassment.

I don’t mind the first one as again, it’s predicated on consent and the rules make it clear on the engagement and results.  You know clearly before engagement the limit of the activity and how a winner is declared (if there is one).  PvP battlegrounds and realm warfare fits into this.  LoL, WoT, MOBAs, CoD are all based on this model.  Though competition and failure, people progress.  Either you’re competing against yourself or someone else – you need a target goal.

The anti-social side is where the crap happens.  Trash talk, harassment, bullying, corpse camping, theft, meta-PvP, murder sprees, destruction for no gain are all some examples.  This isn’t exclusive from the structured PvP in any way.  You’ll find graveyard campers and trash talkers a plenty in that model.  But some games are built with only this in mind.  DayZ is a really solid example where the PvP is so rule-less that no one can progress outside of gangs.  If you see someone, you kill them and loot them, plain and simple.  There is no other goal in the game, no point of building progress as the risk of loss far outweighs any potential gains.  EvE has this problem with AWOXers, where personal corporations do not want to invite new players as they pose a greater risk than a benefit.

I get why people want to play games that allow you to do this.  CoD allows indiscriminate headshots right?  No real-world benefit to this.  It’s fantasy fulfillment.  We need it as an outlet.  I’m onboard with the concept and I see why people would want to participate.

Summary

I just won’t consent to it and participate.  Lack of player consent is where some developers are trying to find new ways to address bad players.

LoL’s tribunal was set up to mitigate this activity.  Get reported enough, get sent to tribunal, face a potential ban.  It’s not working though, since the ban puts people in the unranked games, which causes even more grief.  XBOX Live has a ranking system where only the worst ranked people play together, a sort of cesspit of society if you will.  I haven’t heard news on it but the principle makes sense.  AA has a penalty box, where you go to a tribunal of sorts then have to sit in-game for a period of time – I think the most I’ve seen was 12 hours.  I think it’s a good thought but the penalties are much too lenient.

I don’t play EvE, Darkfall or AA because I don’t like the anti-social aspect and the lack of structure.  I think they each offer a decent take on the whole sandbox structure mind you.  Still, I won’t consent to that type of PvP and since each of those games doesn’t give you an option of consent, outside of logging on, I see no reason to play.  There are plenty of other options out there.

Failure Drives Progress

Posted on by

A thing about me some people might like to know is that I hate to lose, I mean I really hate it.  This aligns with my comfort level in games of chance.  When I lose, I get an insane drive to try again and learn from my mistakes.  I’ve come to accept the fact that there are times where I will make no mistakes and still lose.  I can often spot them and just either play through or drop out.  My career deals with the political space, so without detail, it happens more often than I would like.

Anecdote, to this.   My career has been defined by people telling me that something couldn’t be done or by being told no.  I am a firm believer that no matter how hard you squeeze, something will get out and that telling a client no just means that they are not going to ask you for help next time.  I have climbed the proverbial ladder in short order (about 10 years faster than I had planned), with “failure” as a primary motivator.

Which brings me to playing games (and hockey) where my skill is the primary barrier to success – not some random roll.  I know in Wildstar there were a few battles where you needed near perfect timing to complete them.  The first attunement boss quest was one such event that you really needed to learn the dance to avoid the fire blasts and being knocked down 1000m.  It didn’t help that he was (is?) bugged so that any DoT had him spam cast his fire blasts.  We were 6 trying, he bugged every time and all but 1 other quit.  It was 2AM, after 4 hours of trying that we got it.  Success felt great and the possibility of success was always there.

I love XCOM, have since the first version on DOS.  I had to go to the library and write my own mouse driver (I must have been 13 at the time) to play it and I put in a solid 200 hours over the years.  I saved at the start of a mission and at the end, so that the decisions made were strategic and tactical and not a numbers game.  Balance made sense.  I played a lot of the new XCOM and did the same thing to start.  Then I reached the mid-game, where 2 or 3 90% shots would miss.  Like point blank shots.  A few of those missions in and I started to feel like my strategies were flawed.  My squad was perfectly placed, turns saved up.  I’d send one guy to open the door then scoot away (taking fire on opening was ok).  Then I’d miss every shot that round, enemy would throw a grenade and mind control and next turn I was down to 2 soldiers.  I think not.  I’ll take getting swarmed, or duck and hide strategies but if I play perfect and the game “cheats” I move on.  Old SNES games often did this…Mario Kart’s blue turtle shell is a prime example.

MMOs are a tough one for me.  Sure, they give you some control on outcome and they are generally stress free but today, they don’t provide enough controlled failure to keep me attached.  Or they do and the requirements to meet that control are not worth the results at the end.  So Wildstar again.  I do love the concept of the game.  I do not enjoy the concept of elite-level play with minimal margin for error on all content past 50, for rewards that are marginal.  In particular if that requirement is less about you being perfect but that 20-40 people have to be.  The skill floor is very high and honestly, the rewards are not there for me today.  FF14 has a lower skill floor and a slightly better reward structure.  SWTOR is close to this level, with a slightly lower skill floor.  WoW arguably has the lowest skill floor of them all and the skill cap just got nerfed to the ground baby!

And to add more complexity to it, I really do not like PvP.  I find it to be one of the most anti-social activities on the planet, though one of the most instinctive ones.  See, I like sports because there are rules and officials to ensure even play.  So that cheating is rare and that skill is the main point.  Two teams, to be matched, are generally on fairly even terms.  PvP is the opposite of that.  Cheats and hackers are rampant.  Griefing is a core tenet and piracy is the norm.  I get the theory of comparing power levels, I do.  I do not understand how stealing someone’s house has anything to do with that.  So I don’t play.  I’ve tried them all certainly, but none have provided anything but frustration as no one is building and everyone is destroying.

That said, failure is one of my main drivers.  Finding fault and trying to fix it and avoid it is fun.  Realizing that you cannot fix that fault (say a gold hack, or bad boss programming) means I leave that action and maybe the game.  If I never fail and there’s no challenge, then it’s a one and done trip if I think the end result is worth it.

It’s interesting to reflect on the concept of what is fun for you.  It ends up saving me money/time by avoiding things that clearly have all the flags of no-fun, while at the same time maximizing my fun in a game finding activities that are more in-line with my happy place.  Challenge is fun!

Skill & Chance Continuum

Posted on by

KTR’s Zubon has a great system of theories that he references often in his posts.  Many revolve around the concepts of chance and randomness.  A recent post relating to games of minor chance and skill that deter people from participating.  Which I think is the definition of sport as we know it.

In sport, there is always some element of chance – that the ball will be take an odd bounce, that a stick will break, that someone will slip rather than jump.  I mean, if it was a purely objective event we wouldn’t have sports betting right?

A Z-theory (I like that term) is that randomness helps the weaker party, which in practical effect is quite true.  I have a great distaste for games of pure chance.  This is compounded by the fact that my wife has an abnormally large swing to the “luckier than not” camp.  I’ve had enough nights of multiple Yahtzee to learn my lesson.  Games of moderate skill with elements of chance are also rigged in her favor.  I can count cards and I can detect patterns.  Heck, I’m an analyst by trade.  But the element of chance is seemingly in her favor (we joke that she has my grandmother’s luck).

Example.  Cribbage is a card game where you count to 121 points.  Points are accrued through discard per round, then through a point scheme in your overall hand.  Pairs, 3+ in a row and counts of 15 give points.  Simple in theory.  Odds would dictate the optimal cards to play at a given time, where statistically you’d be favored.  However, as with all games with chance, there’s some long-odds chance that you get more points, one where you give up the certainty of points for the chance.  To say my wife is an amateur cribbage is not fair.  That said, the better she gets at understanding the game and the systems that support it, the less likely she is to win.  Which I guess makes sense in the short game but certainly not in the long game (the famous change adaptation curve).

My brother is on the other side, where he actively aims to increase skill and optimize his play.  He has a dislike for randomness and chance, to the point of frustration.  Someone who wins through “cheese” as he calls it, pushes all the wrong buttons.  That said, even if he were to lose a game of skill there is always some additional factor to himself that would cause it.  My sister and I can clearly remember the nights of “stop walking so loudly”.  I was accused of cheating in GoldenEye because I remembered where the armor spawns were.  And the reactions are in the heat of the moment.  Once removed from the event, he can break apart what worked and what didn’t.  I guess that deals with focus?

I find myself closer aligned to my brother than my wife.  I prefer to play games of skill to chance and to play against opponents of equal or greater skill.  I do not want to be the best player nor do I want to be the worst, just somewhere in the top 10%.  Never been a fan of topping DPS meters but I am a fan of looking at why other people do.  And most times, assuming same power level, it’s because they replaced all pretense of defence with attack.  That isn’t an exchange I am willing to make.  On the odd time that I find someone who is truly more skilled than I am, I break it all down, compare to what I have and try some of it out.

Hockey is my final example.  I play 3 times a week and I can objectively say that I am a better player at 35 than at any other time.  Not better physical shape, far from it, but a better player.  I’ve moved from teams to better ones, taken up some high level shinny and pay a closer attention to other professional games.  I get to try some stuff out, see what works with my skill set and go from there.  You reach a point of confidence in the action, where you also understand the risk involved.  You then become more instinctual than thought-based, which drastically increases reaction time.  I had to relearn a bunch of fundamentals in the past 2 years due to bad habits. It’s made a world of change.

The point of the post is more about exploring where along the skill/chance continuum I find comfort and realizing that not everyone is there with me.  And that people who are too far apart on that line will have a hard time playing together.