Constructive Critique of Shroud and other levels.

[ccheath776]

This is a very kind and non flaming critique of the Shroud raid part 4. Any developer or level designer from turbine that reads, I appreciate you taking the time to look it over.

The one part I have a major problem with is the holding tank.

I understand the essence of it but let me say this. I do not believe this is a good mechanic and I will tell you why.
Knowing now what I know of game design I have an idea and knowledge that I want to use to put forth a recomendation. Far be it to me to tell hardened and experienced game and level designers how to make a raid. But this is my point of view.

Taking a page from Bob bates, a game designer, His basic theory is that good games design with the player in mind not the designer. Meaning that a well designed level is done in a way that the player is challenged but does accomplish the task of defeating the level. In the case of the shroud, and in the case of many other single fail concept raids, the player should never be put in a position to fail and not be able to re-do the mission. In the case of the shroud, if you fail you have to go back and do parts 1 -3. This breaks the game design rule of repitition. Never making a player do something over if they fail. Or if they do, they should be able to get back to the part they left off and not have to go -redo a part over again. Maybe put a timer, if they fail the last part. They have to wait a day but they can jump back to part 4 and try again. Then once they defeat it they have to go through parts 1 - 3 again. There are more inventive ways to make a player go through different parts of quest without repeating.

Thats the first issue I see. The second is the well of souls with no way to come back. Death happens in any game and in this instance, it should be made possible for the players to come back into the fight after maybe a 1 minute timeout or some such. If you want to go further give the players a set amount of limited times they can be ressed. Like say 3 - 4. It should not be one shot and done.

I know other people have defeated this raid, fine, I understand that. Thats not my point. A raid or quest should be able to be done by everyone, not just the most elite and skilled player.

Having gathered a lot of knowledge about game design and what makes games funner, I see a few flaws in this game design and I want to express them. I may be wrong, or I may be right. But the fact is, according to the design models I have been taught, this and many other quests in DDO do not follow them.
Thats not necessarily a bad thing, the game designers at Turbine can design how they please and this is not a flame. Just an observation of how I think these can be improved.

I know online games are a little different than FPS's or other genre's but the principles should remain the same. There should be some death circuit breakers in the mix to give the player at least more than one shot to kill the boss if they die.
Your trying to keep the player playing in the game for as long as possible. A 1 death fail solution is not the way to keep people playing.

I used Bob Bate's model for game design and wrote up my own. I used his concepts and although the player in my game can fail, its not a lose and go back situation. They have the option to reload and try again. I also designed with the player in mind, not to beat the player. No game designer should be setup to try and beat a player. Your playing with them, not against them. It won best in class.

This brings me to my other critique. The Abbott. It has not been defeated by anybody since the change. Thats not a problem with the players, its a design flaw. No mission in any game should be unbeatable. No matter who they face. Even if it is the supreme GOD of all the universe. There should be a winnable situation.

Unfortunatly, from my point of view the game designers are going to have to bite the bullet and simply design it so it is beatable in some way. And not by 20% of the time, but 80 - 90% of the time. I know that sounds nuts but I have spoken to several in the industry designers and they all agree with me on this. A good game design is such that the player accomplishes victory basically every time they play. You want a player to be able to tour the game. The next part tells about those that after they see the ending, they can do more and challenge themselves.

NOW I do have a solution for adding challenges. I say that there should be mechanic by which the player wins almost every time thus allowing them to experience the "ending" and letting them achieve victory. However, there should also be a mechanic for a highly skilled player to up the challenge level and give them an acceptable challenge. One that would be considered a pass or fail condition. One that only a few can really accomplish. That is what the Elite setting is for. Under an elite setting, you play under the original rules of one death, one fail, must repeat.
Will everyone want to play that way? No but I can guarantee some will. And when they do, you should give them a reward for the effort. Access to most ingredients or a special chests.
The challenge of the elite should not be the challenge of them all.


I dont want this to be thought of as that I am saying the game designers who made these quests are bad. NOT AT ALL!! Please dont take it that way. I wanted to give my opinion on how they can be improved because I believe that they can be.

If I had been the designer on these quest, I would have done them differently based on the knowledge I have about the industry standards and what has worked. And the above stated changes are what I would have made, based on that knowledge.

Take for what its worth, afterall, its just my opinion.

Thank you for reading this.

[Milolyen]

Sorry but we have a difference of opinion here. When I play a game I want it to challenge me and to have more of a risk to it. If you fail in part 4 and have to restart it is a VERY strong incentave to not fail. If it was set up to where if you fail in any of the part then you have to wait a day to go back in and start at part 4 it would make it a REAL pain and no one would like it. Why? because while you may be on part 4 ... how many others are also? That group of people then you have to wait on everyone to log in and what if someone is not able to make it the next day. Sorry but that solution just would not work in an MMO.

Then if you could just go right back in on part 4 then you would run into this ... **** the bard/cleric/caster died with most of his mana ... everyone recall out and lets come back in real quick and try again, it just would not be as much fun to me as "**** we lost the cleric, okay everyone pull together and play smart" and adjust your stratgy to make up for the loss. Sorry but no thanks I like haveing the penalty/handicap that comes with the penalty box set up they used and actually miss it being taken out of part 2. It gives a more intense feel to the fighting. This game has always been way to forgiveing of deaths in my opinion. The harder you work for something then the more pride you have in having done it.

Which Items in your inventory are you more proud of ... the items you looted or the items you traded for/bought? and Why?

Milolyen

[Westerner]

Sorry but I disagree. Part 4 is my favorite part of the Shroud because it is a high-risk, high-action, challenging quest that is non-repetitive. Win or lose it's usually over pretty quickly. One person dying is not a big deal... it's a team effort. The team wins or the team loses. Winning Part 4 feels like an achievement.

If you find Part 4 too hard, I suggest you need to practice more and/or study the successful techniques of others.

[GlassCannon]

The two previous posts were made by some.

I do not like the "You roll a 1 it's over" nonsense in part 4, and I also dislike the obscene HP total on Arraetrikos. A challenging quest does not consist of pressing autoattack and waiting for half an hour while a healbot spam cures you(at great monetary expense). Healing classes should not be paying for the raid loot. They currently are.

Other mechanics were a bit aggravating - grinds. DDO began as a non-grind game. What happened??

[ahpook]

I agree with your issues on the penalty box/holding tank. Like the reaver, it would be nice if there was a method to rescue the people who died. It could be a great opportunity for a sneak rogue to have role in getting to the penalty tank to rescue the dead. But its certainly not a significant problem.

However, I disagree with your idea that you should be able to jump back to part IV after a failure. The idea that you should not have to redo parts on failure is not always applicable. Otherwise, if you fail with the Pit Fiend half dead you should be able to restart in pt IV with the pit fiend half dead. Otherwise, you are redoing some of the quest. Others have pointed out more practical limitations of your proposal as they pertain to an MMO.

[Milolyen]

The two previous posts were made by some.

First .... Is there a problem with that?

Second ... What you want everything handed to you on a golden platter? Honestly what is the fun of getting something if you don't earn it? How fun would the game be if you had a dev holding your hand through the game and anytime something might be a challenge the dev types a /kill command and you get all the loot it had? Remeber playing a game like doom when all you had to do was type in an invicible command and a walk thru walls command and a get all weapons and infinite ammo command and tear through the game, I mean really how long did you actually play it?

If there was no risk, no challenge, then what is the point? Ya I see a lot lvl 16 going back to kobold assult and blowing through that on your lvl 16 chars and calling it fun. Okay so it is a little fun every once in awhile when ya had a bad day but you don't do it every day because there is no point in it. The second you get a char maxed out with all the best gear in the game ... what is the point of playing anymore? Remember it is the journey that makes life fun not the destination ... I mean really how fun is it to get buried 6 feet under.

Milolyen

[Westerner]

I do not like the "You roll a 1 it's over" nonsense in part 4, and I also dislike the obscene HP total on Arraetrikos. A challenging quest does not consist of pressing autoattack and waiting for half an hour while a healbot spam cures you(at great monetary expense). Healing classes should not be paying for the raid loot. They currently are.

Are you talking about Part 4? or Part 5?

[efreet5]

The two previous posts were made by some.

I do not like the "You roll a 1 it's over" nonsense in part 4, and I also dislike the obscene HP total on Arraetrikos. A challenging quest does not consist of pressing autoattack and waiting for half an hour while a healbot spam cures you(at great monetary expense). Healing classes should not be paying for the raid loot. They currently are.

Other mechanics were a bit aggravating - grinds. DDO began as a non-grind game. What happened??

In part 4 my guild sends in exclusively high hp tanks to melee (1 per cleric) and everyone else better be ranging or be self-healing that way it's inexpensive, just wait til the tank is at about 30% and HEAL. We never even have to use scrolls most of the time, hell they gave me 200 like 3 runs ago and i've still yet to use em all in there. You should have said only stupid healers pay for their raid loot.

[ccheath776]

Sorry but we have a difference of opinion here. When I play a game I want it to challenge me and to have more of a risk to it. If you fail in part 4 and have to restart it is a VERY strong incentave to not fail. If it was set up to where if you fail in any of the part then you have to wait a day to go back in and start at part 4 it would make it a REAL pain and no one would like it. Why? because while you may be on part 4 ... how many others are also? That group of people then you have to wait on everyone to log in and what if someone is not able to make it the next day. Sorry but that solution just would not work in an MMO.

Then if you could just go right back in on part 4 then you would run into this ... **** the bard/cleric/caster died with most of his mana ... everyone recall out and lets come back in real quick and try again, it just would not be as much fun to me as "**** we lost the cleric, okay everyone pull together and play smart" and adjust your stratgy to make up for the loss. Sorry but no thanks I like haveing the penalty/handicap that comes with the penalty box set up they used and actually miss it being taken out of part 2. It gives a more intense feel to the fighting. This game has always been way to forgiveing of deaths in my opinion. The harder you work for something then the more pride you have in having done it.

Which Items in your inventory are you more proud of ... the items you looted or the items you traded for/bought? and Why?

Milolyen

Its not a fact of how hard it is. its a fact of preferences.
You may like it that way but what about everyone else.
You can have multiple avenues and difficulties that operate differently.
I can make a game that is basically a tour. Most single player games are. Even crysis. Its challenging but theres an easy setting for us who want to simply see the game through to the end and dont care about how much challenge it is. But there is a nice hard setting for those who wish to have a challenge.

It could be the same with that quest.
There is really no benefit for the 1 and done approach. There is no runed chest at the end to loot, so there is no reason for gold farmers to farm it. And they still do even with the settings.

Your not getting what I am saying.
Read any good game design manual or instruction booklet and it will tell you that you should cater to all play types. Even those that simply want to see the boss drop and dont care about anything else. Or for those of us who dont have the time to waist going through shroud 1 - 4 only to fail.
Dont Die, Dont fail is an easy thing to say. But from a game design point of view, levels should not be like this.
You want the one fail and end way, fine, set the difficulty to elite or hard.
If you dont want that, set it to normal and try your best.

No timer, no punch back in at 4, fine I can do without those.
But I would like to at least be able to res at least once or twice.
With the dragon, I have a chance to be ressed.
With the reaver, that is there to.
With this raid, it is not. I do not think that is a good design and thats my opinion.

There should be options for the way people want to play. Not one-size fits all, another game designing mistake.
It can be done. Should it be done is the question. I think it should because I think it would make an already great game even better.
On normal you should be able to res at least 3 - 4 times. On elite, 1 and done and there should be an award for that effort.
Can you give me reasons why it should not be done?
Why there shouldn't be different settings?
Ones that dont involve "I dont play that way so others shouldn't.."
Why cant this game cater to all playstyles not just one?

[ccheath776]

Second ... What you want everything handed to you on a golden platter? Honestly what is the fun of getting something if you don't earn it? How fun would the game be if you had a dev holding your hand through the game and anytime something might be a challenge the dev types a /kill command and you get all the loot it had? Remeber playing a game like doom when all you had to do was type in an invicible command and a walk thru walls command and a get all weapons and infinite ammo command and tear through the game, I mean really how long did you actually play it?

If a player wants to walk around invicible in a game with the biggest gun, as a game designer, I am going to give them a way to do that. Maybe thats the way they want to play.
For an MMO that doesn't apply as you cant have cheats available. I was just pointing out why that was there in DOOM. Other than for testing dev's leave it in for that specific purpose to allow those who want to walk around with the BFG with all the ammo blasting away everything, can do so.
Thats not what I am talking about here.

I'm talking about this from a designers view and my honest look at it from that view.
I dont have to have all the knowledge in the world about the quest to get its basic design.
Its pretty basic that if you die, you get sent to the holding tank, your out of the fight, and if your party also dies the quest is over and you have to start at quest #1.

I've read design documents, I've seen plenty of ways to look at designs. In my view looking at it, I think this is flawed and I am offering an alternative.
They ask for our suggestions I am only giving them.
I can't put it any other way.
You have a differing opinion that is ok.

The holding tank -
Its not the tank itself that I disagree with, its the fact that your out of the fight completely with no way to get back in. I like the rescue idea, allow someone to get to a place to res people back into the fight.

Yes this quest is beatable as is. I just think there are a few ways to make it better.

[Kamboe]

I say that there should be mechanic by which the player wins almost every time thus allowing them to experience the "ending" and letting them achieve victory.

Thats when you go into a quest on 'Normal'

However, there should also be a mechanic for a highly skilled player to up the challenge level and give them an acceptable challenge. One that would be considered a pass or fail condition. One that only a few can really accomplish. That is what the Elite setting is for. Under an elite setting, you play under the original rules of one death, one fail, must repeat.

I don't believe we should be able to just go into part 4 if we fail, 1-3 is there so we cant just farm larges all day

[Angelus_dead]

I'm talking about this from a designers view and my honest look at it from that view.
I dont have to have all the knowledge in the world about the quest to get its basic design.

That is true- you don't need to be 100% knowledgable about every small detail. For example, if you don't know that Anur-shub is the faster monster in The Shroud, that doesn't completely rule you out (although it IS important to know that).

But, you do not appear to meet even the minimum requirements for understanding what you're talking about. Pray tell- how many times have you beaten The Shroud? I'm taking a wild guess here, but I say it's zero.

Its pretty basic that if you die, you get sent to the holding tank, your out of the fight, and if your party also dies the quest is over and you have to start at quest #1.

I've read design documents, I've seen plenty of ways to look at designs. In my view looking at it, I think this is flawed and I am offering an alternative.

It's fine to offer your opinion. But you are making a case that games cannot allow the possibility for even temporary setbacks- a cursory survey of any of the top 1000 games from the past 20 years will reveal that is not a widespread belief.

[Westerner]

It's fine to offer your opinion. But you are making a case that games cannot allow the possibility for even temporary setbacks- a cursory survey of any of the top 1000 games from the past 20 years will reveal that is not a widespread belief.

His core argument seems to be that game difficulty should scale down to the level of skill/effort that is fun for him. Which is arguable for a solo game like DOOM but not, IMO, tenable for a MMO. There needs to be some minimum universal challenge level to get loot, otherwise, players gravitate to the path of least resistance and loot becomes cheapened.

[Angelus_dead]

Dont Die, Dont fail is an easy thing to say. But from a game design point of view, levels should not be like this.
You want the one fail and end way, fine, set the difficulty to elite or hard.
If you dont want that, set it to normal and try your best.

No timer, no punch back in at 4, fine I can do without those.
But I would like to at least be able to res at least once or twice.

You CAN be rezzed. Simply tell the other party members to kill that monster, click the altar, and instantly you'll be rezzed to go on fighting in the rest of the quest.

The idea that players be allowed to fail if they mess up badly cannot really be contested. If there is no possibility of even a temporary setback, then there is also no such thing as victory- the players aren't contributing to the success, they're just along for the ride and watching things happen. In that case, they aren't even really playing a "game" at all.

The real question is if the degree of punishment is appropriate considering the chance of failure and time/resources invested to get that far. This is more of a judgement call, although it can be quantified. A person who has experience playing The Shroud a few times would know that the chance of being killed is low enough that it's fine for the punishment to be moderately severe.

For a counterexample, the Phase Chasm challenge in the Ascension Chamber is a bad degree of punishment. There is only one player who can try crossing the bridge, the chance of failure on that specific part is very high, there is no perception of intermediate degrees of failure, and if that runner fails the entire party needs to recall and start again from the entrance.

So for the Phase Chasm, we can accurately complain that there is a fatal lack of allowed repetition. Empirically, nobody plays Ascension Chamber, and that is why. But as you probably know, lots of players do The Shroud everyday, and they hardly ever fail. It is fine (in this regard)

[Aspenor]

No thanks. Practice makes perfect, you'll beat it eventually.

[ccheath776]

But, you do not appear to meet even the minimum requirements for understanding what you're talking about. Pray tell- how many times have you beaten The Shroud? I'm taking a wild guess here, but I say it's zero.

I've completed every Raid in the game save for the Abbott. So your guess is wrong. Last night was the first time I had failed the shroud.

It's fine to offer your opinion. But you are making a case that games cannot allow the possibility for even temporary setbacks- a cursory survey of any of the top 1000 games from the past 20 years will reveal that is not a widespread belief.

Temp setbacks? The shroud is a permanent set back. You fail you have to restart part 1 - 4.
I beg to differ greatly on your assesment of the best games over the last 20 years. Every game, single player at least, has a way to die. The good ones have ways to die and it not affect your fun or gameplay.
I refer to game designers of the past when I look at the shroud and suggest how some things coulde be improved. I am not trying to be a know-it-all. I am trying to have a discussion about the reasons for the one and done mentality of the 4th part of the raid. In my opinion, looking at other games, taking knowledge from well and respected game designers, I do not believe this particular mechanic should be as it should. There should be a way to re-enter the fight in some fashion if I die.
I didn't talk about a complete wipe. You wipe, everyone is dead, mission is over. I dont mind that. I just dont like that I cant die and be ressed in some fashion. Being resurrected in some fashion is a part of the game.

In the case of recently as of the last patch I didn't have control over how I died. The game lagged out for 10+ seconds, when I got unstuck, bam I was in the soul tank with no way to get back and I looked at that from a point of view of design and saw some concerns.

I agree there are too many problems with starting right at 4. Which is fine, thats acceptable.

Ok you point out past games. Ok no problem. Lets take one for example. Just out of the air, how about an RPG. NWN 2. What happens if I die at the end of that game? I lose yes but I can simply reload, or even in that game I can res my character(s) while in the final fight.
I dont, if I fail get transported all the way back to the beginning of the game and have to start over again.
I have the ability to recover from death if I need to.
I can list a thousand other games where death is handled in a fashion that allows the player to recover if possible. Reload at a point and get back in the game. And there is multiple settings to allow the player to set the challenge to their comfort level.

I'm not bashing knowledge levels or intelligence, or players ability. I'm point out what I see as a flaw, adding a contructive critique of it, why I think it should be done another way, giving examples of why I think so, and referencing industry experts as my basis.

I dont see why that is such a problem, or people have flamed me for it. Or questioned how many times I've completed it.
If you dont agree, offer reasons why. And "because I like it that way.." is not really an answer.
This is a development discussion thread.

I feel I would like to bring up the topic of adding a change to an already great quest. and here is why. My playing ability or quest completions should not be put into play.

[Angelus_dead]

For a counterexample, the Phase Chasm challenge in the Ascension Chamber is a bad degree of punishment. There is only one player who can try crossing the bridge, the chance of failure on that specific part is very high, there is no perception of intermediate degrees of failure, and if that runner fails the entire party needs to recall and start again from the entrance.

Elaboration:
In The Shroud, the player can observe intermediate steps to failure (his death). You die either by suffering too much hitpoint damage, or (rarely) by being poisoned by the Pit Fiend for 60 straight seconds. There is no instant-killer (except Kasquik's vorpal, but there is an easy buff spell for vorpal-immunity). So whenever someone dies in The Shroud, he can look back on it and see that a series of consequetive mistakes led to the loss. It wasn't one single error that wiped out all your progress. After being damaged the first time, you (or another player) had a chance to cure you and make it right. That gives the player an avenue he can follow to improve his survival in future attempts.

Plus, when a character dies in The Shroud the hitpoint damage he's already inflicted on the boss isn't erased. He still made a positive contribution to the team, even if he didn't survive all the way through. So partial success is rewarded, and there is a hill-climb opportunity to learn to get more success on your next try.

But in Black Abbot challenges like the Phase Chasm, both those aspects are very different. To win Phase Chasm you must cross 14 toggling tiles which are invisible to you. Your perception of your current success state is only binary: either you are standing on something and completely fine, or you are falling into blackness and completely doomed. There is no middle ground. Once one detectable error happens, the whole thing is failed, and not just is your character dead, but every other player in the raid may as well give up and restart it.

And it doesn't matter how close you came before falling. Whether you fall from the 1st tile or 13th, your effort was equally worthless. The rest of the team can't see how close you get.. all they know is that you lost.

So really, the problem can be explained by saying Binary Bad, Continuum Good.

[Milolyen]

If a player wants to walk around invicible in a game with the biggest gun, as a game designer, I am going to give them a way to do that. Maybe thats the way they want to play.
For an MMO that doesn't apply as you cant have cheats available. I was just pointing out why that was there in DOOM. Other than for testing dev's leave it in for that specific purpose to allow those who want to walk around with the BFG with all the ammo blasting away everything, can do so.
Thats not what I am talking about here.

I'm talking about this from a designers view and my honest look at it from that view.
I dont have to have all the knowledge in the world about the quest to get its basic design.
Its pretty basic that if you die, you get sent to the holding tank, your out of the fight, and if your party also dies the quest is over and you have to start at quest #1.

I've read design documents, I've seen plenty of ways to look at designs. In my view looking at it, I think this is flawed and I am offering an alternative.
They ask for our suggestions I am only giving them.
I can't put it any other way.
You have a differing opinion that is ok.

The holding tank -
Its not the tank itself that I disagree with, its the fact that your out of the fight completely with no way to get back in. I like the rescue idea, allow someone to get to a place to res people back into the fight.

Yes this quest is beatable as is. I just think there are a few ways to make it better.

Yes as a game designer you want to give the customer what they want but within reason. The designers of this game have to do a delicate balance between giving their customers what they want along with keeping them around to continue playing even after they got what they want because that is how this game makes its money. Keeping people playing. If everything in the game was auto won all you had to do is run through the "easy script" then there would be no point in it. Ya you would go through once to see it to the end but what then? How would they keep you paying the $15 a month?

For a ps/xbox/nintendo game that you pay the 50-60 dollars to buy yes you want them to be able to beat it fairly easily on normal and give a hard/elite setting to challenge the gamers that want a challenge and those game design practices are good to follow on them. However you can't really do that in an MMO when you are fighting to get subscriptions for if you provide an easy button and people are going to use it. Then after they use it they get bored. Well I already seen this and it is so easy why do it again, then with no reason to play subscriptions go out the window. These you failed now you have to start over make it more interesting and makes you think more about tactics specially when someone gets the unlucky 1. The way it is set up currently even if there was a way to free them from the penalty box for dieing it would more than likely make it more of a drain on resources. SR have seen a couple pugs fail that because they decided to use the fly to try and get the 1 or 2 people that died out of the penalty box instead of just finishing it and getting them later.

This is not ment to bash your idea in any way just trying to shed some light on one possible reason that they did not go that route and I for one like the fact they didn't for the reasons I have stated. If that makes me a powergamer/elitest then oh well *shrug*

Milolyen

*edit* FYI the second post I made was more for Glass that was calling me a powergamer because of my view and not ment to question you. And I would still like to see your response to my questions there Glass.

[Impaqt]

Maybe they could add a Lever in Pt 4. Whereif it looks like the partys gonna wipe, SOmeone can Go over to it, Pull it, Res everyone to full health/Spell Points and it simultaneously activates the laser that destroyed the tent on the Pit fiend.

[Aspenor]

I really don't see a purpose for this. There IS a way to "recover" from dying. Restart. It's not like it takes all that long.

Why is everybody so insistent on feeling that people have the right to beat something simply because they stepped in the quest??

You fail, you try again later. It's that simple. I'm glad they coded it that way. It makes it immeasurably more exciting.