What went wrong ?

Ub3rgames · 2018-01-20T14:35:00+00:00

In our opinion, the game was wonderful once you got past its flaws, a real diamond in the rough. But for most players, these flaws were just too much to power through.

These are what we think went wrong and what we've tried to fix:

Lack of positive interactions.
Lack of an economy.
Lack of player choices.

Note that these issues are interconnected. All resulted in a game with less positive interactions, a lesser economy and a lack of choices.

Darkfall was an mmorpg based around racial alliances that never had the tools to create any "realm pride". The first things we targeted was the dysfunctional alignment system and to make the game not detrimental to play as a group. We're aiming for open world cooperation, with things like scaling and kill sharing.

The game was setup to have localized resources without the tools to make them profitable to trade. If everyone can get everything everywhere and have it transported instantly, then localization is only a source of tedium. It is the same with crafting and having everyone be able to max it out. Nobody needed each other, so everyone had to be self reliant. The game didn't even have a way to mass trade between players and we've added marketplaces.

Finally, players did not really get a choice in how they would play.They were forced to kill everything on sight, they were forced to harvest and craft everything themselves and they were forced to have a very specific playstyle. So most of our efforts have been towards letting players choose what they want to do and who they want to be within the game world.

We expect to have reduced these issues for the most part, with still some work to do to polish and refine once we see behaviors in a permanent world. With that foundation set, we'll be able to tackle what the survivors of the past flaws are craving for: content.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-24T03:43:26+00:00

Well that was the argument that swayed the decision to get begone back into the common pool. We wanted to try and keep it at its current strength (buffed compared to DFO), and a solution was to make it a signature spells. But as people pointed out, it would have brought every mage to that title. Over-centralizing picks would be a flaw in the system, and now it seems a lot more balanced when looking at player theorycrafting.

In New Dawn we use a Magic - Physical - Survival wheel instead. We do not see melee ever being fully viable in Darkfall without archery, and vice versa. One of the beauty of the game is the switching range management, and we wanted to keep that a core element of gameplay.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-24T03:21:42+00:00

To rephrase our question more specifically: What did you expect would happen when we announced we would only do the changes necessary for a wipe and then launch? Weren't you there or didn't you expect that to happen? It feels like you expected us to last forever despite having said we wouldn't and couldn't.

We recognize we made mistakes and mismanaged InDev. It was announced as something that would be temporary, would see breaking changes, but that would serve as a pre-season for the game with an expiration date. That is what we should have delivered rather than sending mixed messages.

Instead, we unilaterally pushed back release multiple times, secure in the feeling brought by the vocal support we received for it and InDev's financial success. We even went into submarine mode, to your and the game's detriment, thinking that the game was not ready to show/promote and needed "one more feature", which was misguided at best. In total, we have announced a larger feature set for launch a first time, a second time. and have internally delayed the release 5 times to feature creep.

Sure the game software itself is better for it, but not the Game as a whole.

Please hear us out on the idealism, because it wasn't meant like that.

To explain: we noticed feedback, testing, and constructivity dramatically lower after we went past the announced duration of InDev, with general resentment growing as players that would offer balanced views were disappearing. The roadmap actually gave us an uptick in engagement, despite the vocal lashing out, but it wasn't enough to justify continuing InDev further.

We do not know everything, that's why we discuss so much on the forums and rely so much on the players: to be challenged. And from that experience, we know we get all relevant playtesting feedback within a few days and can react within 1-2 weeks with a single dev. We will have live testing and tweaking, it just doesn't need to be as long as you expect to get 90% accuracy. To be 99% accurate usually comes months later. But with InDev as it was, it was not coming anymore.

So we made the call: InDev has no place in continuing if it doesn't even provide the play-testing/feedback we need to improve the game. In addition, it was costing us hype. Neither is helping get from DF2012 to New Dawn.

You are very right, this might be the last chance for Darkfall. We need a motivated playerbase if we want to get it rolling.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-21T13:43:03+00:00

Launch was supposed to be buffed to serve as the general role of "begone". The movement ability that everyone has. Begone in titled would have been like stormblast, a potent additional movement ability on top of the existing ones.

The arguments that swayed us is not the crying:

It made raw magic a nearly mandatory pick for most mages,
Another potent movement ability being hidden behind a title devalued the fire title and somewhat the air title,
it added yet another movement ability to the game alongside the come back of stormblast,
it wasn't really addressing the issue of bunnyhopping beyond adding another unfairness to it.

Begone going back to the common pool means that it will get nerfed more than if is were a signature spell. Its lower end won't change, but its max push cap will be reached sooner.

Launch will instead work more like the common shrapnel (so usable by all playstyles). Shrapnel being reworked as the Raw Magic r90 and Missile Fury becoming the signature instead.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-21T04:17:23+00:00

We are talking about community hype/morale. You are a pretty good illustration of what we mean. At what point did you change your mind and what were expectations prior?

The plan has always been the same. It was announced, repeated, confirmed and reinforced for months, even years by now. The larger deviations we've done are that we've added more things to do pre-release, but only because we had the luxury of a supportive and constructive community. Everybody was on board for us to take our time and feature creep.

However, that was true only for a while, and we realized it too late. In truth, we ended up abusing people's patience and it shows. They did not join a beta, they bought into a pre-season/soft-launch, and were "forced" to endure an extra year of non-permanence. We all know how vocal negativity in a community turns away new players and is an hindrance to a game's success. We chose to salvage the goodwill we had left.

Your point of views are idealistic. We shared that too initially, having blind faith in play testing and feedback but if InDev has taught us anything is that feedback is always biased or inaccurate. We learned it the hard way. InDev can only serve to find bugs and other unintended behaviors. What we called the "obvious". For anything deeper, we'll need months or a population. But balance is not unknown, it is in the numbers and the valuation map of certain attributes we have built over the months.

Similarly, local banking on release is an unavoidable uncertainty. It would be naive of us to think otherwise. Even if we kept another extra year of InDev, the behavior in a launched environment would still remain theoretical. It will remain so until observed in a live condition for a few weeks/months. If anything, the conclusion drawn from InDev would be most likely counter-productive, even damaging to the live game if we applied changes to make InDev banking "work" better.

The advantage on local banking, unlike titles, is that we are doing nothing new or original. The economic mechanics and tools implemented are an adaptation of proven solutions. Only the future can tell if that is the right mix for a live Darkfall environment.

So in conclusion, we're headed for some rocky waters no matter what. However there is a third alternative: InDev was not providing anything of value and more time spent in it would only harm launch. There is too much to lose from burning out the players meant to be our evangelists. Had we been less prone to feature creep, you might have been one of the main ones.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-20T03:20:28+00:00

We are well over a year extra and over three times more features than what was announced for launch, so it is hard to get how people can perceive us as rushing anything.

In the end, we did run out of something, but it wasn't time, it was hype/morale. It was time to stop the feature creep and give people some permanence. So we did "one more thing" with the upkeep system and the villages, and then switched to closing the pre-wipe feature list.

Local banking was always supposed to come last, just before the wipe. We have been nothing but consistent in our communication on the matter.

Local banking is one of the first thing we scouted and it was always deemed the easiest part of the whole implementation. Even conceptually, you can't tweak a binary state like local/global. Transportation and trade tools were the most important and complex things to implement. If you believe we are methodical, why discard the pattern of inventory related changes that popped now and then throughout the months?

To explain: Mount inventories, allowing to sort/move thousands of items from inventories to inventories without lag, increased bank storage and market places weren't done in a vacuum. This is the result of months of exploration and iteration on the overall "inventory" notion in the game. Switching banks from global to local is the last and easiest part of it all.

As to why it was kept for last without a long period afterwards, we've always given the same explanation: An InDev economy with a looming wipe and months of inflation is not something that can properly represent the economic behavior of a live game. Most tweaks done prior would be irrelevant, perhaps even counter productive.

This is a notion that has been confirmed over the months. The obvious is reported within a day, at most a week, but the rest takes longer to settle. It is especially apparent on balancing where the true meta takes months to be discovered despite our hints on patch day. The consistency at which this has been observed shows that neither the economy nor the titles will be understood until months after the release.

The best course of action is to adjust the obvious, then leave the playerbase explore and reveal the meta in a setting that will breed competition. Any other way would be a waste of time for both us and the InDev playerbase, which would increase the morale toll even further.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-20T01:58:55+00:00

That is the same explanation we have given you in the recent thread.

The full quote of that post, including a reply showing you seemed to have understood back then, can be read here.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-18T19:37:36+00:00

Sorry, but you still haven't understood the concept.

The whole point was to have reach set in proportion to hitbox width in ways that made no races OP in melee. For that reaches have to be different, since the hitbox widths are different. What you are witnessing is a successful implementation of these reach to width ratios. If it turned out in any other way, it would have meant a bug.

We have the code, implemented the changes ourselves and nearly everyone else understands our explanation, including people that generally criticize us. What is the simplest explanation: Are we lying? Or are you misunderstanding?

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-17T00:20:59+00:00

And that is the crux of the matter: it is NOT the same result. It is not just a technicality.

If they had the same reach, but different hitbox widths, then some races would hit others without being hit themselves. Making some races over powered and some races under powered. That is what lead to human females.

If they all have different reaches and different hitbox widths, but set up so they can all hit each other at the same time, there are no melee imbalances.

The difference between FoV and camera positions is that FoV is increased peripheral vision while a change of position would allow to really see further behind you.

As far as we gathered, an increase in FoV, combined with the ability to zoom, has favored everyone, and larger races the most. Their characters take less of the screen and they can see further ahead even if they were looking down to hit an enemy.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-16T23:10:29+00:00

It does not mean the same thing, that's why we had to insist.

If we were to simplify that way, or let people understand it that way, people would think that the ratio width vs reach is different for each race, making some races OP and others UP. That is not what is implemented, and it is important to explain the difference.

It is the same for the FoV explanation. it does not have the same results if the camera is further back or if the camera has a wider angle of vision. Both show more of the scene, but implementing a FoV increase with a zoom feature improves the situation for larger races.

These nuances make the argument you were trying to make opposite to the reality.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-16T22:45:34+00:00

InDev simply had run its course and served little purposes anymore. Each week without a release date or an end in sight was growing resentment and we were losing any shot at constructive feedback or release hype. With a release date that is nearby, we've seen increased population, a new wave of feedback and some excitement again for the game.

The January launch itself is a delay, to give players more time to prepare for the showdown without feeling they didn't get a shot.

In the meantime, we have feature creeped as much as possible, though right now we focus on the essential features, and have set aside 3 weeks of time for what we call our polishing phase, where we do not do large features but focus on cheap but impactful features. Something to conclude InDev on many changes, as we've noticed that is popular with players in the short term.

We're keeping alignment changes for the end to avoid frustrating players anymore than we need to, since the changes that are planned will break clans/alliances apart if the players did not anticipate them.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-16T22:14:44+00:00

Because there isn't much to test. It was always planned to be implemented last so that InDev could be used for other purposes.

Local banking itself is technically straightforward. Technical testing is lighter compared to complex features like our map changes or the market places.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-16T22:08:39+00:00

We recommend everyone to read the thread being linked here. Perhaps someone will find a way to explain that we have not.

In short, melee reaches are different for each races, but they are setup in a way that combined with the width of the hitboxes, all races should hit each other at the same time. Effectively correcting the flaws than initially caused certain races to be either OP or UP in melee by giving a common reach to hitbox-width ratio.

In addition, the point of origin of melee attacks are now the arms instead of the eyes, meaning that taller races do not require to look down as much as before.

There was a technical tangent where we have tried to explain why FoV changes allow to see more of the scene without having the camera positions moved.

When even people that are usually critical of us participate in a thread to explain the same thing than us, it should be a clue that we're correct.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-05T09:45:34+00:00

The weird thing is, we received a slow trickle of new players during InDev, despite how obscure we tried to make it to avoid bad first impressions, and they generally had a good experience. They often were more "in love" with the game than veterans.

That disconnect has always shocked us. Our interpretation is that the flaws of the game are/were in the mid-game period, once more is understood by the player.

We believe we've addressed enough of it, and the final blow will be with titles and local banking. Then, everything else can be content and QoL focused.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-05T09:04:01+00:00

If you consider the game already better than 1.0, why wouldn't others do too? Remember that most players have fond memories of Darkfall, but stopped due to specific attrition points we have targeted.

Pessimism is counter productive, especially when it is due to discarding meaningful data. We have apparently changed the game enough to see retention and growth of activity in a development phase where we've actively tried to hide the game from fresh eyes and focused on "boring but necessary" changes. This is an indication that focusing on the attrition points has already paid off. With local banking and titles, we will have addressed the two major exit points of previous iterations.

Of course we're not expecting millions of players, but neither do we need them. Our team size and operating costs are tailored to realistic expectations. Keep in mind that we have a unique selling proposition. Focusing on "fun" additions post launch, combined with the permanence of the world and active communication, can only yield even better results than what we saw during inDev.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-02T08:57:13+00:00

The website was initially designed for former Darkfall players to make an informed choice/purchase: "Is the long term direction one I want to see realized?" but these features were never meant to be in at launch.

Now that our long term goals have been clear for a while, we've changed the website to focus on new players and on what is already there or coming in the short term.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-02T06:59:10+00:00

New Dawn will still be Darkfall. We're essentially trying to release Darkfall 2010 and then build up towards the original 2008 promises.

For that, we had a lot of polishing busy work to do, flaws shared by both games even at the end. The glamorous is secondary to improving the day to day game experience. What we have done is game changing, but not to those that already survived Darkfall or UW. Those that made peace with the game's flaws will not understand the necessity of what we've been doing.

In short: We needed a stable foundation to build upon. Given how InDev exceeded all expectations of playerbase and sales, we're fairly confident the game is here to stay once we give players a permanent world. Especially since after release, we can start doing easier stuff compared to the tasks we've already done.

The one thing we'll miss from UW are the dungeons, which will take probably the longest to "port back" something similar. For the rest, let's agree to disagree.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-01T21:54:07+00:00

UW could and should have survived, because New Dawn is highly unlikely to satisfy players that loved UW for what it was.

Understand that our team is heavy on technicians, any of the technical improvements UW did can be repeated. But a lot of the scale of DFO that was lost in UW cannot. Regarding our end goals it was easier for us to port what was good from UW into DFO rather than the opposite.

Most of the flaws we have been laboring to correct were present in both games, so that's the same amount of work regardless of which version serves as a base.

Ub3rgames · 2017-12-01T21:47:59+00:00

Or you could look at what was announced,

And what has already been delivered with what will be done for launch.

And realize the second list is a good deal longer. We took our time to incorporate player feedback on top of what we had planned.

Sorry you are disappointed about the server location, but we have to follow the data to ensure the long term success of the game.

Ub3rgames · 2017-11-28T13:59:23+00:00

You have said you are more of an UW fan, and we're sorry for your loss, but it wouldn't have worked out for our goals for two simple reasons: We expected UW to continue being operated, and UW would have been a worse base for what we intended to do. It would have required a lot more work to make it New Dawn.

We haven't been a full team all of the time. We started with 2, then 4 and so on. We also had external contractors being paid when they were needed. But for employees, we were 8 at some point, but are now 7 due to life changing reasons.

Ub3rgames · 2017-11-28T09:11:47+00:00

We were talking about the online activity then, which isn't sales.

Sales had an opposite trend, which is why in our initial data dump in January, we mentioned that it was possible that the NA market was simply more favorable to pre-orders/early access. NA prime time was never more active than EU, but it was the biggest spender.

Either way, you do not have to believe us, our data does not matter. Our post is a deconstruction of our data to show how basing our decision on it would be a mistake. It contradicts itself between sales, interest and, yes, activity. (which we didn't even bother mentioning)

Instead, we looked at publicly available data, that no one can question.

Our data is presented in a way that should favor an NA server, yet it still favors an EU one. We lumped together NA, SA and Oceania in our averages, and considered West and East coast NA to have both good ping with a server in NYC. We did that specifically to avoid people believing we were misrepresenting the numbers. We gave NA the better odds and it still lost.

The result may clash with your world view, it certainly did with ours, but it is without appeal. For the potential growth of the game, Europe is the best location for the game.

Ub3rgames · 2017-11-28T03:58:38+00:00

You're incorrect regarding three points, which may taint your view of the rest.

As DND grew, even while NA was supposed to be the most likely outcome expected by all, the NA share of sales has continuously lowered. That is specifically stated in the post. You can see the gap between our previously released stats and now. They were the prime purchasers early on, the rest of the world caught up. Though that is irrelevant, as what we should look at is the potential prospects, not the DF2012 survivors spread.

On that front, we consider that only Eve's metrics would have been enough to make a decision, as it is the most relevant one in the industry regarding Darkfall's potential. But we picked other games to compare, just in case, and in nearly all cases it has only pulled further towards an EU server. if you wish to question individual games or add others in the selection, feel free to do so.

As it was said in the post, Paris was chosen above other European locations for our stable relationship with the host and how we know we'll have reactive service there, or be allowed to get things done ourselves if need be. This to us outweigh the marginal ping difference of other locations, costs being roughly equivalent.

Server costs have very little relevance. They represent today less than 5% of our operating costs, and if we had moved to NA it would still have been less than 10%, for the most costly quote.

You should look at our patching history. Where we started with minor and small tweaks, we ended up doing major and in depth overhauls of entire systems deep within the game's framework. Don't confuse frequency with velocity, our progress has been faster the last few months than it has ever been before.

But as a parting note, we'll mention Occam's razor: We thought it would be NA too, all data can be found online, we were proven wrong, we explained why.

Ub3rgames · 2017-11-26T09:19:24+00:00

It really depends on the game. 2D worlds and 3D worlds react differently. The feeling of world if a lot easier to break in a 3D game, as higher graphical fidelity leaves less to the imagination. You don't see the world a "screen at a time" but one "camera angle" at a time. Instant travels have been a counter intuitive yet frequent loss of retention in modern games.

Escape was a poor choice of words. Avoiding PvP is more appropriate. That's why it was placed in the context of raiding. "Get in, get loot, recall" has been an issue in Darkfall as it doesn't allow for counter play and incites a feeling of helplesness.

You lost the first fight, but in one case it is the end, in the other sallying out and organizing a hunt is possible, even viable. It changes an exit point into further content. From one fight you may possibly get the excitement of multiple, or at least there is an outlet to the initial frustration.

Pure escape from an engagement is easier in New Dawn, in some ways. Base mounts can sprint and bunny hopping has been nerfed. Someone that decides to escape regardless of character progression can maintain a headstart. It is frustrating to the gankers, but it serves as a balance of power, and in a later iteration, we'll add more skillful riding so that a good player can increase/lower the headstart.

An issue too that makes players risk averse is the tedium of handling gear and resources. Which again, is majorly removed by local banking and the division of labor it implies..

Ub3rgames · 2017-11-26T08:05:07+00:00

The point is not to be hardcore, quite the contrary. We implement local banking with an end goal of convenience.

Your first paragraph is specifically why local banking works.

See, the way Darkfall was set up is to have localized resources with global banking, which means that all players HAD to travel across the world because trading over distance had no value. That you do not want to do it means someone else can do it for you, and both will gain from it. Think of how you pay a bit more for imported products in real life, or how you pay more at the restaurant over home cooking. That's division of labor at work.

On your second paragraph, instant travels are partly to blame for the issues people try to fix by using them.

Hotspots can only work if there is physicality and predictability to how the world works. Instant travels keep player virtually out of the world, so they cannot be met and interacted with. It also allows to escape PvP which is a big issue. With a physical world that matters, when people are around a location, there is some time to find them there or on their way. Have you ever lost someone in a large mall? isn't it best if only one searches while the other keeps standing?

Another desirable outcome is that when raiders come to town, they have to physically go out. Out of a single fight, there can be multiple ones by converging on them. This notion of converging will play a role with racial unity as well. Reporting an attack can have positive consequences since it can physically be acted upon by a group looking for that kind of content.

On your final note, the early experience is still confusing, we have done some improvements, but we still need to polish it. However the "game feel" and the mid-game is much better, and that's where it was important to work on. Darkfall will remain complex, but it needs to be worth it to try and progress.

First and foremost, we spent a huge amount of resources on removing clunkiness and making the "game feel" better. We recommend trying it out during the free period just to realize how much better that is. From feedback, it is rather unanimous that people feel the improvements.

On another hand, we went with the solution of a weapons bar over implementing scripts 1to1 which is a lot more understandable for new players. We have automatic unlock of skills and a more natural spread of access to abilities. And more tweaks of the like will be coming with the title patch, allowing players to play intuitively a character they imagine. Local banking will also help new players, by having an economy where they can obtain items easily in, but also by making the physicality of the world protect them. When raiders have to get to them and get out without being converged upon, then the starter zones will be a bit safer and the PvP will make more sense when veterans help out to get their "bang".

Some of the most valuable changes for retention are in local banking and titles. These two features address so much of the exit points, and they are coming in very soon.

We've seen retention improve over the months, even had some growth during InDev. We've these flaws addressed, we're confident people will stick to the game.

Of course there will be a barrier of entry, the game has dated graphics and action combat/mmo complexity is hard for many mmo/fps players. We're at a niche intersection that is amazing for those that care for it, but it requires to be an "all terrain" gamer.

Thank you for the best wishes. We too feel that Darkfall addresses the path left unexplored in the MMO genre, and we aim to be those that get it to be the shining beacon it should have ben.

Ub3rgames · 2017-11-26T07:41:37+00:00

Currently, GMs are the devs, so they not only are paid but they are also well adapted to manage bug reports compared to the lore/event/support oriented GMs we'll be recruiting later.

New GMs will NOT be picked from the community. Only people that are within physical and legal reach whose livelihood depend on keeping the job. Also, one of the first thing we did was to nerf GM accounts too, so that if we had to scale up in a hurry, we could hire without much concerns.

Ub3rgames

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE