Interestingly enough, Anet had actually turned the megaserver system on several times on the live server before it was announced for testing. Just a couple of maps to make sure it didn't go bonkers when they did a full release. So some of us have actually played with it before.
Be sure to give feedback on the system on the forums. This is a system that benefits feedback from the end users. They can get the raw data on collections of players, but how people feel or if it is improving their play is another question entirely. I would think swapping between megaservered and nonmegaservered maps and trying to notice a different would be interesting.
I would like to remind everyone that this interview is about the feature patch specifically which is why the topics that are discussed are there instead of other ones. There are questions I would love to talk about with Colin given the chance, but they weren't appropriate for this interview.
Also I am embarrassed that this didn't make it into the original write-up, but Colin mentioned that the megaserver system, combined with the trait hunting system also allows them to more aggressively add new zones/areas. Couldn't get anything more than that out of him though so take it as you will.
Minion, on 12 April 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:
Now, the questions and criticisms Feathermoore should have slammed their way about PvP:
1. But you are hanging them out to dry. What have you given PvP that has affected PvP GAMEPLAY?
2. You added one map without capture points and expect a pat on the back. Why? How about.... Giving Deathmatch it's own arena and all the maps from Conquest but without_the_capture_points. Pretty simple idea, and it's easy recycling.
3. Why are you adding Deathmatch maps to Conquest queues?
1. Traits, just like the article explains. Deathmatch mode is also a gameplay change as the goal of a match changes the strategy and playstyle. Unless you are asking for a complete remake of the entire combat system, this is really the biggest gameplay change you can realistically ask for. Remember that the patch is a feature patch and not a gameplay patch in overall scope. The "no more running around" is a welcome change.
2. The new deathmatch map is just the beginning, just like the article explains. If it is received well, then the mode will be developed further likely with more setups for the mode and making it available outside of custom arenas.
3. They aren't, but even if they did it wouldn't be unusual to have multiple game types in a random arena system.
Bryant Again, on 12 April 2014 - 10:23 PM, said:
Regarding wardrobe: Did it require any purchase of any crystals or whatnot? The way you worded it seems like it wasn't required.
It does. Charges, is what I believe they were called. They don't go in your inventory and are instead treated like a currency that is kept in your armor window.
davadude, on 12 April 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:
Also, was the interview during the sPvP matches?
Heh, some of it. The purpose was originally to give me a chance to play the new map and try out the new traits. The issue was that my keybinds are set up very differently than the default. I would have spent half the time relearning where the hotkeys were so I experienced the new map watching the devs play. The conversation did continue while that was going on.
Actually, means, motive, opportunity are not enough to prove that something has been done. You also have to prove that the event has occurred. I have the means, motive, and opportunity to erase my own posts that I realized later said something embarrassingly stupid. That doesn't mean I have actually done it. (I haven't) Or in court, person A could have the means, opportunity, and motive to murder person B and person B may actually have been murdered. The prosecution still has to prove A committed the crime and not person C.
You can't assume something occurred just because it could occur.
Mordakai, on 10 April 2014 - 05:29 PM, said:
Wasn't Eve the game that introduced the $60 monocle? (Yes, I realize the outcry from that spawned the council and probably helped the game long-term, but still: Eve wants your money. Don't ever doubt that. "Greed is good".)
The Council of Stellar Management has been around for a long time. Much longer than the Exchange has. The CSM actually began after a CCP employee (CCP T20) was proven to have generated and given multiple rare/expensive BPOs (blueprint originals which can be used an endless amount of times and can be used to make copies that have a limited use for construction of objects). There is a set number of T2 BPOs in the EVE universe. They were added to the game with a lottery system one time only and will never be added again. This means you can only get them from other players and they are extremely valuable. The CCP employee made more and just gave them to a player corp that was hated by most of the EVE players. He was caught by a player (Kugutsumen) who was then banned because the player revealed the player name of the CCP employee which was effectively revealing the name of the player (against the EULA to reveal who it is without their permission). Kugutsumen is kind of a legend now.
Sorry, just wanted to plop that in since the CSM is from 2007. They did restructure after the Exchange riots though. They knocked some of the power out of it (though really it was just a shuffle around to make the costs less since each member has the right to request to talk to CCP Devs in person in Iceland about an issue at CCP's expense and all the members are flown to Iceland for the meeting).
I don't think what you are saying and what I am saying are mutually exclusive. I was focusing on the interaction between game feature design and the gem to gold conversion. I don't really think that gem to gold has any impact on most casual player's game. My original argument was that the only game design changes that could be made to encourage monetization in a way that would negatively impact gameplay only really effects achievers and that the same design decisions that would benefit the monetization from them are also standard practice in subscription MMOs that these achievers come from.
Casual players don't usually fall into the category of achievers. At least not to the level that would impact gameplay since they typically aren't going to put in the time that non-casual players would be that due to interest or time availability. Gems to gold is more likely going to be done by casuals than a non-casual achiever and help casuals get things they want by renting out people with more time. The game is designed for casuals to not feel left behind and the gem store is designed to compliment this design goal.
MazingerZ, on 10 April 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:
Never made those arguments. Already told you I didn't make those arguments. Let's give it one last go and try and point out what you are missing. Really was hoping I didn't have to TL;DR, but it looks like I do.
You ignored my central argument again. By ignoring it you take every statement out of context. You can't just start in the middle. What was my goal? To show how there is a subset of players that can potentially view the game as p2w. Did that. Did I attempt a secondary statement? Kinda I guess. That being that the gem store takes advantage of game design that would be there even if the gem store was gone. Which could continue on to a statement that the gem store probably hasn't had any large impact on the underlying game design/mechanics and systems. I only allude to that though since the post was getting massive and I didn't want to ramble to another point.
If read back, didn't I say that I ended with the assumption that the game was p2w for my argument? Yea, I did. With that in mind you should notice that I am not putting down the subgroup, saying that monetization is good, saying they should pay for my game, or any other such nonsense.
So why break down the demographics? Why make an assumption on distribution if the intent isn't to mitigate the impact of such mechanics. "This only affects at most a quarter of the playerbase." Again. "Fsck them, got mine." A quarter of the player-base should be exploited and exposed to those tactics for the good of the the other three? ArenaNet should be allowed to have a profit motive written around creating an experience that is rewarded when players want to bypass game-play for reward when the option is extended to them?
I just told you I am not saying that. I just told you that you are inferring something that is not there. I just explained how it is irrelevant to the argument even if you remove it because it is a side point I thought of while making the actual argument. Move on. Continuing to harp on this serves no purpose since what you are arguing against I am not saying.
Oh, and stop putting words in my mouth after I explicitly told you I am not saying that. Red herrings annoy me.