E3 Interview with Producer Dave Georgeson [Archive]

View Full Version : E3 Interview with Producer Dave Georgeson

Savanja

06-24-2010, 01:23 AM

Ten Ton Hammer sent a team of avid MMOGers to E3 and they came back with lots of news and lots of good info. Our boys caught up with EverQuest II Producer Dave Georgeson to talk a little about where EQ2 has been, where it's going, and why exciting things are on the horizon for our beloved game.<a href="http://www.tentonhammer.com/eq2/interviews/e3-georgeson" target="_blank">Read the highlights from the chit chat</a> on Ten Ton Hammer and be sure to take a look at all of our <a href="http://www.tentonhammer.com/events/e3/2010" target="_blank">great E3 coverage</a>.

GrunEQ

06-24-2010, 03:49 AM

Nice interview.Only comment is BG is PvP and as such, you already have PvP servers for people who like that sort of thing. If people really wanted PvP they would be on those servers. People are on PvE servers for a reason.Otherwise the hints of future changes sounds intriguing.

Pervis

06-24-2010, 08:18 AM

<cite>GrunEQ wrote:</cite><blockquote>Only comment is BG is PvP and as such, you already have PvP servers for people who like that sort of thing. If people really wanted PvP they would be on those servers. People are on PvE servers for a reason</blockquote>People on PvE servers have been asking for concentual PvP in some form for longer than the PvP servers have been in this game.Battlegrounds are something I have been sending in as /feedback since DoFs arenas were such a flop (though they were successful considering what their aim was).There are people that would be happy PvPing when it suits them, provided they can still solo quest, harvest and run to dungeons without fear of getting attacked by a full raid of players. In fact, I would say there is as many of these players as there are players that simply do not want anything at all to do with PvP.As it happens, Battlegrounds have no direct affect on anyone other than those running them. As is true for any other aspect of this game, if you do not like them, just don't do them.

Kendricke

06-24-2010, 10:13 AM

<cite>Pervis wrote:</cite><blockquote>As it happens, Battlegrounds have no direct affect on anyone other than those running them. As is true for any other aspect of this game, if you do not like them, just don't do them.</blockquote> <cite>From the article:</cite><blockquote>Dave mentions that while people like them, not enough people are playing them. “I think that people who are just casually going in are getting worked by people who have a lot of PvP gear and because of that we are seeing that people aren’t going in without a full board commitment. Because not a lot of new people are going in we basically have the same set of people playing over and over again. Battlegrounds is a really good feature and we will continue to support it, we like it a lot; it’s just under performing for the amount of effort we put into it. I don’t like to throw things away, I’d rather fix it and we’ll get to that eventually.”</blockquote> "...it’s just under performing for the amount of effort we put into it"While you're correct that Battlegrounds only directly affect those who choose to avoid them, the fact remains that significant development resources went into creating the items, rulesets, and environments for each of the Battlegrounds in the first place. It's also widely believed (and potentially true or not) that the Battlegrounds implementation may have created significant lag and server issues for the rest of us. Then, of course, there was the rather widespread "dupe 'sploit" that came into being with the initial release of Battlegrounds. Of course, all of that is the past. What more of us should be interested in is the comments regarding SOE wanting to fix the issue in the future - which likely means either more resources thrown at Battlegrounds or better gear/rewards used to incentivise the Battlegrounds.It's going to be an interesting process to watch, at least.

Savanja

06-24-2010, 02:16 PM

<cite>GrunEQ wrote:</cite><blockquote>Nice interview.Only comment is BG is PvP and as such, you already have PvP servers for people who like that sort of thing. If people really wanted PvP they would be on those servers. People are on PvE servers for a reason.Otherwise the hints of future changes sounds intriguing.</blockquote>I don't think that's at all true. I'm, in general, a PvE player but I really like the idea of Battlegrounds. I was also a PvE player in WAR (as much as one could be) but I still queued up for scenarios all the time. I admit that I don't use them as much as I'd like to because I'm a little scared of the big bad PvPers who will hurt me with my sad PvE gear and lacking skills. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /> I'm not sure there is a fix for bluebie server suckage though.

Shiirr

06-24-2010, 03:04 PM

The fix for bluebie server suckage is to read the red server forums and play on their terms. Even an @sswhupping can be instruction, if you look at it as such. Ask what happened, check logs, check ACT, and you'll get some decent feedback more often than not. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Regarding the actual topic of the thread, it's a short interview but I think it's very enlightening. Allow me to don my tinfoil conspiracy cap. PvE is predictable, and a lot of people burn out eventually. BG's are apparently breathing some life into a few otherwise dying accounts. Mine was dead, and it's now resuscitated, and I know several others who are still playing because of the expanded gameplay. It's strictly consensual, so zero impact on those not interested, other than the diversion of resources in getting it out. Value of that effort is a matter of opinion, but that's besides the point. They added PvP gear (BG gear) to all servers. People can dabble as they see fit, getting their toes wet without jumping into the Nagafen pool. Somewhere down the road, PvP servers will go the way of the dodo (something already well on its way, with the reduction down to Naggy & Vox), and players will be allowed to transfer off; the reasons for not allowing transfers crumbled with the introduction of BG's and mixed ruleset players fighting on common ground.

CoLD MeTaL

06-24-2010, 03:11 PM

<cite>Savanja wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ten Ton Hammer sent a team of avid MMOGers to E3 and they came back with lots of news and lots of good info. Our boys caught up with EverQuest II Producer Dave Georgeson to talk a little about where EQ2 has been, where it's going, and why exciting things are on the horizon for our beloved game.<a href="http://www.tentonhammer.com/eq2/interviews/e3-georgeson" target="_blank">Read the highlights from the chit chat</a> on Ten Ton Hammer and be sure to take a look at all of our <a href="http://www.tentonhammer.com/events/e3/2010" target="_blank">great E3 coverage</a>.</blockquote>The only way they will continue to get 'significant' participation from bluebie servers in Bgs is to contniue to make the gear better and better. Which adversely affects PvE when you can get gear as good as raiding from losing a few hundred Bgs. But it alos has a point where people will stop turning that hamster wheel.

Gaige

06-24-2010, 03:18 PM

Well, tons of people told them when they started talking about BGs that it'd be a waste of time in this game and they would be under utilized, as usual we were right so now they'll either turn into ghost towns like the arenas or so much time will be spent on them that they'll be over itemized and other content will end up lacking because they feel obligated to make BGs succeed because of how much time they wasted on them.

Quicksilver74

06-24-2010, 04:07 PM

They need a Mario-Kart style BG where your toons all race gnomish carts and appear as if in /cutemode3. You drive, or get on the back of a kart of someone who drives, and the 2 of you race up to 8 other karts, each containing 2 players. Each archetype gets special bonuses to driving, and/or defending (riding on the back), and each class has subtle differences.

Shiirr

06-24-2010, 04:10 PM

<cite>Crabbok@Oasis wrote:</cite><blockquote>They need a Mario-Kart style BG where your toons all race gnomish carts and appear as if in /cutemode3. You drive, or get on the back of a kart of someone who drives, and the 2 of you race up to 8 other karts, each containing 2 players. Each archetype gets special bonuses to driving, and/or defending (riding on the back), and each class has subtle differences. </blockquote>Only if you get to kick a ratonga out of the passenger seat as a road hazard.

CorpseGoddess

06-24-2010, 05:58 PM

<cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Pervis wrote:</cite><blockquote>As it happens, Battlegrounds have no direct affect on anyone other than those running them. As is true for any other aspect of this game, if you do not like them, just don't do them.</blockquote> <cite>From the article:</cite><blockquote>Dave mentions that while people like them, not enough people are playing them. “I think that people who are just casually going in are getting worked by people who have a lot of PvP gear and because of that we are seeing that people aren’t going in without a full board commitment. Because not a lot of new people are going in we basically have the same set of people playing over and over again. Battlegrounds is a really good feature and we will continue to support it, we like it a lot; it’s just under performing for the amount of effort we put into it. I don’t like to throw things away, I’d rather fix it and we’ll get to that eventually.”</blockquote> "...it’s just under performing for the amount of effort we put into it"While you're correct that Battlegrounds only directly affect those who choose to avoid them, the fact remains that significant development resources went into creating the items, rulesets, and environments for each of the Battlegrounds in the first place. It's also widely believed (and potentially true or not) that the Battlegrounds implementation may have created significant lag and server issues for the rest of us. Then, of course, there was the rather widespread "dupe 'sploit" that came into being with the initial release of Battlegrounds. Of course, all of that is the past. What more of us should be interested in is the comments regarding SOE wanting to fix the issue in the future - which likely means either more resources thrown at Battlegrounds or better gear/rewards used to incentivise the Battlegrounds.It's going to be an interesting process to watch, at least.</blockquote>I play Warhammer in addition to EQ2, so I've gotten a feel for both styles. To be honest, the few battlegrounds I've popped into here were underwhelming, and I know that's because I was comparing them to WAR scenarios; in all honesty, I found the BG's to be sub-par compared to scenarios. I'm a PvE player mostly (with the exception of WAR) and was really excited at the prospect of BG's entering the game.Aside from my personal issues with BG's, I absolutely feel that the biggest mistake they made in their implementation was to base them on the PvP server and require/reward players with a totally different set of gear than is used in PvE. In Warhammer (for those that don't know), you can queue up for a scenario and just jump in---no "pve vs. pvp" gear switch needed (if you have gear that's got different specs and you want to switch it, that's totally up to you but it's not a necessity). But by mixing in PvE players with PvP ones, SOE made this needlessly complicated. I'm not sure what the solution would be---keep the PvP server BG's to themselves or changing gear stats to be standard across the board are not viable or realistic options. But I do know that having to have special gear in order to feel useful, make a difference or have fun in a BG was a total buzzkill for me. I wanted to be able to jump in, whack the snot out of some players and jump out again. Just like I do in Warhammer.

CoLD MeTaL

06-24-2010, 06:34 PM

<cite>Streppoch@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>...</cite>But by mixing in PvE players with PvP ones, SOE made this needlessly complicated. I'm not sure what the solution would be---keep the PvP server BG's to themselves or changing gear stats to be standard across the board are not viable or realistic options. But I do know that having to have special gear in order to feel useful, make a difference or have fun in a BG was a total buzzkill for me. I wanted to be able to jump in, whack the snot out of some players and jump out again. Just like I do in Warhammer. </blockquote>Which begs the question, "Why are they trying soooo hard to save PvP?"If it was dieing, let it die. it was patched on as an afterthought to begin with.Now I don't mean "Why are they trying to save BGs?" because they are still trying to justify the dev time to implement this stuff that was utter fail from the get-go.

dawy

06-24-2010, 06:56 PM

So the BG's struggling eh?colour me unsurprised at that one i've used them a couple of times and thought yeah ok thats it and wont use them again.The BGs just seems to me the problem summed up in a nutshell EQ2's problems since Scott Hartsman left the game another good idea but ill thought out,sad to say the dev time could have been used elsewhere and to better effect i just hope that with Dave comes a period of stability for the game and long term goals are set and are achievable and for me thats the key word now.

Pervis

06-25-2010, 08:36 AM

<cite>Kendricke wrote:</cite><blockquote>While you're correct that Battlegrounds only directly affect those who choose to avoid them, the fact remains that significant development resources went into creating the items, rulesets, and environments for each of the Battlegrounds in the first place. It's also widely believed (and potentially true or not) that the Battlegrounds implementation may have created significant lag and server issues for the rest of us. Then, of course, there was the rather widespread "dupe 'sploit" that came into being with the initial release of Battlegrounds. Of course, all of that is the past. What more of us should be interested in is the comments regarding SOE wanting to fix the issue in the future - which likely means either more resources thrown at Battlegrounds or better gear/rewards used to incentivise the Battlegrounds.It's going to be an interesting process to watch, at least.</blockquote>Every addition to the game adds lag.Battlegrounds are underused for three reasons.Firstly, they have totally different itemization rules. This means battlegrounds are not a means of progressing a character forward, they are a sideways progression. The majority of players in this game want to progress. Its what MMO's are about, perform timesink X to progress in Y manner. This means that the only players that play battlegrounds for progression are those that want to spend a lot of time in there (I fit in to this catagory, btw).Having a specific defensive stat for PvP that is seperate to PvE is acceptable, having procs that only work in PvP is kind of rediculous.Second, they threw PvE players on in with PvP server players. This would not normally be an issue, if it were not for the first issue. PvP players had years to get geared up in PvP gear, with PvP stats and effects. PvE players had mastercrafted gear avalible. It goes without saying that the majority of PvE server players were vastly outgeared, and so were soundly smashed up into little tiny pieces, time and time again.Thats not fun.Third, they split battleground rewards into three distinct portions, but required two forms of these three rewards to get anything of actual value, and all three to get everything you would want to get. Unfortunatly, they made it so that each reward was only avalible in a single specific instance. To compound this even further, they only allow us to que for one reward type, or all three. They offer us no glimps at all in to how long we may wait if we want a specific reward form, nor if we are better off going to a different level range.If each of the above three things are addressed, Battlegrounds will be far better off than they are now.They need to either have a seperate itemization standard for PvP/PvE/BG, or simply have one that fits all three. If they had have done that, the second issue above would simply not have been an issue. They need to drop the three token system down to one token, but awarding tokens based on the size of the BG. They also need to display the que for all four options in all seven level ranges to anyone that wants to see them.Unfortunatly for SOE, though this is nothing at all new for them, they are now unable to make the right first impression of battlegrounds. There are people that have tried them and made up their mind about them already, and no amount of change to them is going to get them to go back in.MMO developers seem to ALWAYS forget how important it is to make a good first impression. They have this missconception that they can release it broken and just patch in fixes, and us players won't care. I don't doubt at all that they will patch BGs up, and I don't at all doubt that they will get better because of it. What I do doubt is that they can make another first impression, or that they can bring in those whom have already formed a bad first impression of battlegrounds.

GrunEQ

06-25-2010, 11:33 AM

I'm pretty sure, no matter how they fix up BGs they will end up like the Arena. When will they learn?

Xethren

06-25-2010, 11:47 AM

At first I was very sceptical about BGs, having played WoW in the past where constantly PVE was adjusted to balance PVP. At least EQ2 has a system in place so that spells and abilities do different things depending on your 'red' or 'blue' flag. I did enough BGs to get the lvl 90 robe (pre season), and despite it being some of the best gear in the game outside raiding, EQ2 BG PVP is so ridiculously unbalanced that I just cant stomach doing more of them. And this is back before the resist fix. Back then at least people died, now I hear people hardly die at all.The devs need to really fix the BGs before I even consider trying them again. My thoughts:1. FIX THE MATCHMAKER! There is nothing worse than going into a match, where the group is zero healers vs two. That right there says the team without heals already has a huge disadvantage and will lose in short order. My idea- make it so the matchmaker forms groups based on archtype, so that every group will have at least one healer in them.2. Change the flag mechanics in Ganak so that when you are carrying it, your out-of-combat speed buffs are negated OR let said bard keep their 90% run speed, but when that first spell gets thrown at them they need to be put into combat. It is very frustrating how the fast runners can have a whole group lobbing spells at them and as long as he doesnt attack back, they will still zoom away with the flag faster than most people can go, making them impossible to catch. Flag caps should require a group effort and defense of the one holding it, not just whichever team has a faster runner wins the match.3. Goes along with number two; once the flag is picked up, said carrier should have a few minutes in which they can score. If they dont, then the flag should reset. it is annoying and lame to have people grabbing the flag and hiding up on top of the base that most people cant reach, turning the match into a huge drawn out turtle fest.4. Either merge the three types of tokens into one, or change the amount of tokens that are rewarded based on which map you are playing. That way people dont have to stay in a queue for hours trying to get into the smugglers they need. An idea for the reward based on map: Gears- 3/win 1/lose. Ganak- 4/win 2/lose. Smugglers- 5/win 3/lose. This will make having to do the map they dont want to do easier. Plus the longer maps should have more reward.5. Squish the bug that causes people to sometimes not be rewarded tokens after a match.If even just 4 was implemented, I would try them again. I dont want developer time to go to waste as much as the next person, but BGs in their current state it seems you have to be a masocist to do them for any length of time.

Pervis

06-25-2010, 12:17 PM

<cite>GrunEQ wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm pretty sure, no matter how they fix up BGs they will end up like the Arena. When will they learn?</blockquote>There are already more people in BGs than have ever been in the arena.That said, the arena wasn't added as a form of content they expected to have high use, it was added to test the game mechanics and code in a PvP setting, as was /duel.

MurFalad

06-25-2010, 01:36 PM

First off, I'm feeling a lot more optimistic about the future of the game after reading this interview, as the interviewer says he hits the nail on the head with the problems with BGs (or at least I can totally agree which is good enough for me <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> I've been very impressed by the thought behind the changes so far).Personally I think that they made a big mistake with the gear effectively making a casual fun activity solely the preserve of hardcore players, I don't think its because I'm some sort of carebear player that cannot handle losing as I lose all the time in Planetside without the feeling of helpless frustration BG's give me (I still remember the shock one time of having an awesome time with a hopeless base defence there, and part way through noticing my Kill to death ratio was 3 to 22...).I don't give WoW credit for inventing BG's but I do for the PVP only stat approach, there they implemented it long after the first BG's started, all I can say is that originally they used to be heaving with players, as recently as a month ago it was harder to get into a WoW BG then a BG on Runnyeye/Splitpaw so bascially my recent experiences of them were ghost towns...I used to enjoy the unbalanced PVP, and the fun of acquiring gear adventuring and then using it in a BG, no one there was invulnerable, although top end raiders certainly hit hard. After they added the pvp stat I found I needed to play a lot of BG's where I could not make a useful contribution just to earn the gear to start enjoying and influencing the match. I really don't understand where the fun was supposed to be there, I did the gear grind just once and then gave up when I later fell behind, it was never an option for my alts.Right now I cannot see how they can improve the rewards for participating, the gear is fantastic for PVE already, it is all or nothing though, having a cheaper set that you could buy and then later trade in would smooth out the gear progression a lot I think.Then maybe make the very top tier of gear slightly better then everything else, but add requirements such as kill strings, damage done in a single BG etc to qualify.<cite>Streppoch@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>Aside from my personal issues with BG's, I absolutely feel that the biggest mistake they made in their implementation was to base them on the PvP server and require/reward players with a totally different set of gear than is used in PvE. In Warhammer (for those that don't know), you can queue up for a scenario and just jump in---no "pve vs. pvp" gear switch needed (if you have gear that's got different specs and you want to switch it, that's totally up to you but it's not a necessity). But by mixing in PvE players with PvP ones, SOE made this needlessly complicated. I'm not sure what the solution would be---keep the PvP server BG's to themselves or changing gear stats to be standard across the board are not viable or realistic options. But I do know that having to have special gear in order to feel useful, make a difference or have fun in a BG was a total buzzkill for me. I wanted to be able to jump in, whack the snot out of some players and jump out again. Just like I do in Warhammer. </blockquote>I've played WAR too and totally agree with this, that's a good demonstration of how PVP should work in a game (its a shame their PVE was so automated and generally felt unrewarding). In EQ2 that would system would raise another problem though which is the vast gear gap between solo/group players and raiders, while one group of players are struggling through hard hitting adds in a dungeon raid geared players are room pulling the same content. Its hard to see the two groups co-existing in a BG.If they add any more maps though I hope they add in something with PVE+PVP combined and a solid storyline, it did add some fun to the game trying to make use of the NPC's to help win the scenario.

RingleToo

06-25-2010, 03:11 PM

The biggest reason I gave up on BG (and, admittedly, I didn't give it much of a chance) is what Pervis said,"...they threw PvE players on in with PvP server players. This would not normally be an issue, if it were not for the first issue. PvP players had years to get geared up in PvP gear, with PvP stats and effects. PvE players had mastercrafted gear avalible. It goes without saying that the majority of PvE server players were vastly outgeared, and so were soundly smashed up into little tiny pieces, time and time again."And like Streppoch said, it just made it too complicated. Before BG was launched, I was hopeful, but said that BG would have problems if it didn't attract the PvE or "casual" PvP player. I've seen more then a few negative posts by PvP players about the PvE players who tried to compete in BG. What's the name for PvE players...bluies? Well, whatever it is, it isn't meant as a complement.I don't like being called names. I don't like getting smashed into little tiny pieces. BG was basically set up for the regular PvP player - which is fine. I'm not knocking PvP players. But it is my opinion that if BG is going to thrive, it needs PvE players to participate. And if they aren't participating, it's because of the way PvE and PvP players were thrown in together.