New WarCry Dev interview
By
Anouke_NA,
Posted on: 2007-04-09 18:18 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
It was clear form the closed beta that those poses were going to be shelved forever until peeps made a big fuss about really really wanting them, so as a consolation the emote-fly option was invented (which works really well if you set up a decent keybind).
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny, I distinctly remember hearing about the emote-based flight poses before Closed Beta began.
[ QUOTE ]
Third, the argument that they are only interested in implementing that which is easy and cheap is disproven by the inventions system in I9, which would be neither easy nor cheap to develop.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I can agree. They added a large system to the game, but most of it is cobbled together on top of existing systems. It uses almost all the normal enhancement rules, it reuses salvage, and it even models all the set bonuses in much the same way as existing powers.
Really, when I look at it, the whole invention system was adopted BECAUSE it required a minimal amount of new tech. The size of the system is large, and they certainly spent a lot of time on it, but in the end, I think the system is more about what was feasible than what would actually make a functional system.
That's not really a criticism of the devs, either. You work with what you have; no sense designing a pie-in-the-sky system when you'll never be able to implement it. So all in all, I think they did a good job adding a big feature without breaking the bank (though as always, I think they have a poor grasp on how their game actually works). But looking at I9 does nothing to dissuade me of the notion that Co* is starved for resources.
-D
Darkonne: Pinnacle's (unofficially) mighty Dark Miasma/Radiation Blast enthusiast!
Be sure to check out this mighty Arc:
#161865 - Aeon's Nemesis
[ QUOTE ]
First off, your example doesn't fit your argument, as the 10%/90% issue is one of economics, not Vision(TM)
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I think they are very much related. Its both. But you are correct, theres a lot of quibbling going on.
[ QUOTE ]
I think a balance needs to be struck in those situations. A "10%" feature shouldn't be a constant addition, but on an occasional basis, it seems appropriate to give an incentive to a small portion of the player base...
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless the cost benefit analysis determines that said feature was an unacceptable compromise between their vision and what was implementable, though right? Got it.
[ QUOTE ]
I think Statesman stated it as an intended feature, not a promise per se. Developers of any stripe rarely promise anything until they know it can be done.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then it should never have been an intended feature then right? Frankly, I dont see much of a difference between intending to implement Crossover and promising it. But
whatever
lets quibble about that if/when Mr. Emmert ever decides to clarify his remarks. Im hoping he still intends to implement it.
[ QUOTE ]
First, the silence by the Devs is hardly "deafening". They have, in the past, addressed the question of crossovers. That they haven't said anything recently doesn't mean it's abandoned; it just means there is nothing new to report. I suppose they could give us a weekly update saying "Nothing to report", but there wouldn't be a lot of point to it...
[/ QUOTE ]
If our dev team was a tad more forthcoming with what was being planned and what was still on the table, weekly updates might be a bit overkill. However, since new updates are released maybe twice a year, I think its perfectly acceptable to get an update on features supposedly not abandoned at LEAST as often as the Issues are released.
[ QUOTE ]
Second, MUO is highly unlikely to be a relevant factor. With a few exceptions (Statesman has a managerial position on both teams), they have separate development teams -- and have to be maintained in a way that doesn't interfere with one another. NCSoft is funding City of Heroes. Microsoft is funding MUO. If MUO's development were to interfere with the development of CoH, NCSoft would have grounds for punitive action.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, not even buying this one on eBay. I remember what we have been told. However, I think it would be naïve to look at CoX in a vacuum. Nothing I've read suggests Cryptic is planning to draw down and focus more on MUO - though I would be naive to believe Cryptic wasn't at least distracted by MUO. Considering how slow the trickle of new stuff is being introduced, and that we are constantly being informed of the lack of resources to do X or Y for the game, I have a legitimate concern about CoX's future.
Two separate Cryptic teams? Yeah ok. Whatever you say. At this point, I'm thinking once MUO releases, we'll start seeing some plans for new powersets or an EAT. After all, geko might just have some free time to Crossover back to his old desk. 
[ QUOTE ]
Third, the argument that they are only interested in implementing that which is easy and cheap is disproven by the inventions system in I9, which would be neither easy nor cheap to develop.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ill have to disagree with you here too. What they are planning with inventions doesnt appear to deviate much from existing mechanics. It may not be easy, but its certainly cheaper than delivering on intended features.
[ QUOTE ]
And this isn't a case of wanting to consolidate just low-population servers, as DAoC did.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is. Serdar Copur may not be looking outside of the ideal, perfect box, but I am - and I'm not alone. That was the point.
[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowest population server is not "woefully under-populated". And consolidation of population -- besides the technical questions of what to do with duplicate names, overfilled character slots, etc. -- sends the wrong message, that the game is dying.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or it sends the message that this design team can adapt to declining subs. It would demonstrate a gratitude to those players still around far more effectively than any veteran reward, IMO.
[ QUOTE ]
Consolidating a few servers doesn't solve any of the problems of having multiple servers, and it only mitigates one -- the problem of finding teams at off-peak hours.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would do far more than that, and I suspect you know this considering your cherry-picked premise is arguably false. The problem isn't endemic to the number of servers themselves, it's the relatively low population on some of them. There are ways to mitigate the doom associated with duplicate names and the assortment of other copouts Team Emmert apparently has no resources to address. I'll just add that clustering neednt be the permanent adjustment to core infrastructure that some fear could easily be damaged. Once MUO goes live, and folks realize CoX is a better game, the option to restore the cluster to individual servers could potentially be an option. 
[ QUOTE ]
A "compromise" that leaves most of the problems untouched, and slightly mitigates one problem, while introducing others, is not a viable compromise.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you believe a compromise will create more problems than it solves, I can understand why you wouldnt want to be proven wrong. Fortunately, there are other perspectives that can counter your doom with a tad bit of pragmatic optimism.
[ QUOTE ]
Two separate Cryptic teams? Yeah ok. Whatever you say.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have fairly direct knowledge that this is in fact the case, as incredulous as you might be.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two separate Cryptic teams? Yeah ok. Whatever you say.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have fairly direct knowledge that this is in fact the case, as incredulous as you might be.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's at least two, given that I doubt a lot of people could be multitasking across CoH/V, MUO and the other projects Cryptic have on the burner right now. Apart from those at the highest level of management and those who might be working on basic systems like the proprietary Cryptic engine (and I say 'basic' as in 'base that other things are built on', not 'simple'), it simply wouldn't be feasible for people to be stretched across multiple projects on different programming platforms ie Xbox360.
So yeah, there are at least two separate teams within Cryptic, at the very least to avoid being sued by Microsoft.
[ QUOTE ]
... So yeah, there are at least two separate teams within Cryptic, at the very least to avoid being sued by Microsoft.
[/ QUOTE ]
Makes sense. However, if so - I fear one of the two has been allocated quite a few more resources than the other - inhibiting CoX's potential.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two separate Cryptic teams? Yeah ok. Whatever you say.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have fairly direct knowledge that this is in fact the case, as incredulous as you might be.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's at least two, given that I doubt a lot of people could be multitasking across CoH/V, MUO and the other projects Cryptic have on the burner right now. Apart from those at the highest level of management and those who might be working on basic systems like the proprietary Cryptic engine (and I say 'basic' as in 'base that other things are built on', not 'simple'), it simply wouldn't be feasible for people to be stretched across multiple projects on different programming platforms ie Xbox360.
So yeah, there are at least two separate teams within Cryptic, at the very least to avoid being sued by Microsoft.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT
I'm also sure NCsoft has a say in development issues as well, and would not be happy with sharing people from its project with another developer's project.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would it be fairly obvious to say that it ill be levels 50-55?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll go ahead and squash that one now. Level cap is NOT going up in I10!
[/ QUOTE ]
Good. I sincerely hope it never does.
I have a bunch of characters who are quite happy at 50, not worrying anymore about leveling. I can exemp any one of them that fits my mood into whatever I can find. In I9, I can concentrate on gradually improving them through the new Invention stuff, running the STF, and so on.
The last thing I need is to log in some evening and be suddenly confronted by another five or ten levels of leveling on each of them. No, thanks. Very happy with things as they are.
Please try MA arc ID 351455, "Shard Stories: Scavenger's Hunt." Originally created for the Dr. Aeon contest, it explores the wild potential of one of the City's most concept-rich but content-poor settings: the Shadow Shard.
Yep I also think the level cap should NEVER be raised. I'm prefectly happy with my lvl 50.
[ QUOTE ]
That's the problem, isn't it? Matt Miller once said (in reference to EAT's for example):
"From a production standpoint, when given the choice between an expensive feature 10% of the players will get to see and enjoy, and one that 90% of the players will get to see and enjoy, its almost a no-brainer."
Frankly, I see Vision(tm) getting more in the way of progress than economics and time tables. You'll forgive me if I take exception to what realistically defines an unacceptable compromise in this game? Or are you really willing to put the 10% / 90% ratio to test on a few features this playerbase has long requested and may never see?
[/ QUOTE ]
First off, your example doesn't fit your argument, as the 10%/90% issue is one of economics, not Vision (TM); their Vision (TM) includes the EATs, they are just quibbling on economic concerns.
Second, I'm going to have to assume that when you said "you" in your question you were referring to someone else, because I have never said or implied anything of the sort. I'll go ahead and answer anyway, though: I think a balance needs to be struck in those situations. A "10%" feature shouldn't be a constant addition, but on an occasional basis, it seems appropriate to give an incentive to a small portion of the player base.
[ QUOTE ]
I hope so, because it sure does look like our dev team would rather everyone forget the notion of a Crossover feature (even though it was Mr. Emmert himself who I understood promised this would be added to the game. Or am I mistaken about this?)
[/ QUOTE ]
I think Statesman stated it as an intended feature, not a promise per se. Developers of any stripe rarely promise anything until they know it can be done.
[ QUOTE ]
Suffice to say, I am of a mind at this point in CoX's life that balance in this game, while laudable, isn't as big a priority or as game-breaking or tedious as many make it out to be. Based on the deafening silence by the devs, I'd surmise they've reached the point (with all the MUO distractions) where they think that if it isn't easy and cheap, they aren't interested in introducing it.
[/ QUOTE ]
First, the silence by the Devs is hardly "deafening". They have, in the past, addressed the question of crossovers. That they haven't said anything recently doesn't mean it's abandoned; it just means there is nothing new to report. I suppose they could give us a weekly update saying "Nothing to report", but there wouldn't be a lot of point to it...
Second, MUO is highly unlikely to be a relevant factor. With a few exceptions (Statesman has a managerial position on both teams), they have separate development teams -- and have to be maintained in a way that doesn't interfere with one another. NCSoft is funding City of Heroes. Microsoft is funding MUO. If MUO's development were to interfere with the development of CoH, NCSoft would have grounds for punitive action.
Third, the argument that they are only interested in implementing that which is easy and cheap is disproven by the inventions system in I9, which would be neither easy nor cheap to develop.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this particular case, though, compromise itself really isn't a viable option. The desired goal is a single server. There isn't a compromise possible there -- you either have a single server or you have multiple ones. There isn't an in-between state. (And this isn't a case of wanting to consolidate just low-population servers, as DAoC did. The desire he stated was for all servers to be one.
[/ QUOTE ]
We disagree. Rather than do nothing and spend nothing which is what production would rather do, I believe consolidation or clustering is a viable compromise between leaving the servers woefully under-populated and everyone playing on one server.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even the lowest population server is not "woefully under-populated". And consolidation of population -- besides the technical questions of what to do with duplicate names, overfilled character slots, etc. -- sends the wrong message, that the game is dying. And even without that, it still would not be a viable compromise in this situation. The goal stated was "single server", with the purpose of solving the problems caused by having multiple servers. Consolidating a few servers doesn't solve any of the problems of having multiple servers, and it only mitigates one -- the problem of finding teams at off-peak hours. The other problems stated -- such as real-life friends starting on a different server -- would remain untouched. A "compromise" that leaves most of the problems untouched, and slightly mitigates one problem, while introducing others, is not a viable compromise.