#1: http://www.egmcartech.com/2010/03/09/nhtsa-to-join-toyota-on-runaway-prius-investigation-no-new-recall-for-prius/ #2 I think if we compare mmo development with automotive industry then F1 racing comes to mind - you can not enter F1 without experienced team and drivers even if you buy engine and chassis tech from major stables. However better comparison is with Chinese automakers - they try to emulate well known automakers and still fail at safety standarts - but at least they do not charge as those who they copycat. SV with MO is like KeystoneKops producing world class video game
#1 You have a concern about the Unreal engine? If not, then this is an irrelevent point.
#2 SV is not aiming to become a AAA game (F1 racecar), it's aiming to make a game
You mean Korean cars, right? (hyundai, daewoo, kia) Can't say that chinese cars (Beijing Automobile Works , Changfeng, BYD Auto, Dongfeng) compete on an even playing field. This is getting pretty fair of track though. China's monetary policy is not really germaine to the topic.
My objection to the whole "prior experience/small projects first" argument is that it boils down to aim low/play it safe. As long as SV is investing their own time and money, I think they should set their own goals. If you don't believe they can manage it, don't buy it.
People are complaining of the current state of MO and it's a direct result of their inability to measure their own skillset and deliver upon that. And the unfortunate thing is, that with hyped up trailers and feature lists, with hyped up IRC chats and explanations, they conned a *lot* of people into preordering the game -- at full cost -- with no refunds.
It's easy to say NOW, "don't buy it" -- but the vast majority of interested parties that wanted a sandbox PvP game have already bought it. And they are pissed off, and rightly so. The "aim low/play it safe" mentality no longer applies, because they got thousands of people to buy into the idea that they actually have the ability to create a AAA title at a AAAA (4 As, on purpose) price. They do not have the experience of even creating PONG, or ANY APPLICATION, EVER, and they are jumping into making an MMO. And people that are currently in the "hopeful" state I actually feel sorry for, those who believe that "next patch, don't worry", stating it as fact, when every patch that has been released only added a handful of shoddy features and broke more than it added. And expectations from people like me, who are in that boat of paid customers, are in line with the price I paid. And since I know that SV has no ability to deliver this game, I have no shyness in encouraging others to get a refund and keep their expectations in line with SV's lack of talent.
As for the concern of the Unreal engine -- I don't think anybody has that. The concern is the ability to USE the engine. I could give you a car engine and it would be amazing, light, have lots of horsepower, etc... but if you don't know how to connect it to your drivetrain then it's going to be an awful mess, and if you're trying to do it for the first time, it's not going to work very well.
There is still hope for Mortal Online, but it needs another 6 months to a full year of development before release. If they push it out early, it has a very good chance of immediate failure. You really only get one chance at a first impression with MMOs. Screw that up and it is very difficult to get lost players to come back. If StarVault rushes this thing out early, they are going to screw themselves over in my opinion.
From ONLY what I hear- Mortal needs to boot the beta testers and be operated on for roughly a year-ish and resurfaced into the mmo upcomnig releases spotlight. Advice towards the game I've heard is just that- it needs to quietly sink into the shadows without much attention (criticism) while devs fix the blatent problems.
If that is done, I get the feeling MO will be a solid game.
There is still hope for Mortal Online, but it needs another 6 months to a full year of development before release. If they push it out early, it has a very good chance of immediate failure. You really only get one chance at a first impression with MMOs. Screw that up and it is very difficult to get lost players to come back. If StarVault rushes this thing out early, they are going to screw themselves over in my opinion.
The funny thing is that people throw out numbers like 6 months or a year, without really knowing how much time that SV would need.
Let's look at the last 6 months. What monsterous features have you gotten? Mounts, basic housing, basic combat, basic magic, and a little bit more than basic crafting. All of those systems are extremely problematic and buggy, not to mention the client itself having huge issues.
That much stuff from day one to now has been almost 7 or 8 months -- and the progress is not that fast. People who are playing are like OMG they added XYZ, but if you look at the mechanics of said system, it's nothing overly impressive. At this rate, another 6 months in my eyes, won't make a whole heck of a lot of difference other than bug fixing. And even if they fixed EVERY BUG IN THE GAME -- it still wouldn't be any fun.
I don't know what the timeline should be, but suffice to say that SV isn't going to push the game out that far I would imagine, as they've stated many times about how their financial situation is. I think people have to get used to the idea of playing a broken, boring game. If they enjoy it hey -- stick with it. But for the rest of us that have some discerning opinions about what we want to be playing well... this game is already a failure.
There is still hope for Mortal Online, but it needs another 6 months to a full year of development before release. If they push it out early, it has a very good chance of immediate failure. You really only get one chance at a first impression with MMOs. Screw that up and it is very difficult to get lost players to come back. If StarVault rushes this thing out early, they are going to screw themselves over in my opinion.
The funny thing is that people throw out numbers like 6 months or a year, without really knowing how much time that SV would need.
Let's look at the last 6 months. What monsterous features have you gotten? Mounts, basic housing, basic combat, basic magic, and a little bit more than basic crafting. All of those systems are extremely problematic and buggy, not to mention the client itself having huge issues.
That much stuff from day one to now has been almost 7 or 8 months -- and the progress is not that fast. People who are playing are like OMG they added XYZ, but if you look at the mechanics of said system, it's nothing overly impressive. At this rate, another 6 months in my eyes, won't make a whole heck of a lot of difference other than bug fixing. And even if they fixed EVERY BUG IN THE GAME -- it still wouldn't be any fun.
I don't know what the timeline should be, but suffice to say that SV isn't going to push the game out that far I would imagine, as they've stated many times about how their financial situation is. I think people have to get used to the idea of playing a broken, boring game. If they enjoy it hey -- stick with it. But for the rest of us that have some discerning opinions about what we want to be playing well... this game is already a failure.
All the content and features are entirely irrelevant if they can't fix the lag/sync and nowgame issues.
How many months have they been working on those issues alone? Since CB started...
I really don't care if the car has leather trim if the damn thing won't start or keeps stalling.
People who have never seen a project developed and more importantly people who have not seen several failing projects will never understand a veteran developers view point. I have been through these arguments in real life and pointed out many multi-million dollar failures before they occur. A vet can't predict success, but failure reeks from miles away.
I have said since the first look at this game that this team doesn't have a clue about what they are doing.
#1 They clearly lack any ability to focus on important issues rather than fluff. When I see mechanics such as dragging corpses and the combat system isn't ready, there is a clear management issue. No one is creating priorities and focusing on getting issues off the table.
#2 Patching the patches. This is always a sign of a project in trouble. It means there was no test plan and likely no thought about how the feature would impact the system as a whole. In the least there has been no outside review of a feature before it was allowed into the build. In short the QA on this team looks much like that of VG at release (no QA team at all).
#3 They have never answered real technical questions related to technology and graphics. Many have said since the beginning that there are issues with the engine they have chosen and the inclusion of multiple hit-boxes. These have been highlighted a severe performance bottlenecks from other development teams. Yet it appears that SV has discounted a risk by pushing it to someone else and no validation of the basic engine has been done.
#4 the basic engine and mechanics were not completed before beta test. This goes back to point #1. before you have graphics, before you have individual abilities you must have a solid platform. This not only includes your graphcis engine, but your database back-end and an in-game system/architecture which will allow you to balance issue at a later date without having to re-code game mechanics.
#5 Bug stability. When you go through a professional development cycle you shouldd see a huge amount of bugs in the early stages of a project, and bugs should fall off over time. This will re-sart to a certain extent each time new features are released. To get a handle on a project and make the scope manageable a real team must freeze introduction of any new features and debug those features until all critical bugs are closed. This does not seem to be happeneing.
#6 Clearly from thier schedules they have no concept of setting a schedules with realisitic milestones. Before you have a beta you must have a feature freeze. before you launch you must have a milestone linked to bug reporting rate and resolution of the critical bugs. From the expectation that the game would be released last year it is clear these guys have no understnading on how to make the ugly decisions to get a product out the door.
#7 Clearly there is no business plan. Selling of the beta access pre-release is a sure sign they could not line up investors to keep development going. The concept of a fully open beta shows these guys have no concept on how to manage expectations. They don't understand that getting new customers is FAR easier than getting back customers with a bad taste in their mouth.
These are the biggest issues one can see at a glance. Every game has bugs and problems, the important part is how quickly they are resolved and if they introduce new features before the old ones are debugged. This process comes from experience which these guys clearly lack.
People who have never seen a project developed and more importantly people who have not seen several failing projects will never understand a veteran developers view point. I have been through these arguments in real life and pointed out many multi-million dollar failures before they occur. A vet can't predict success, but failure reeks from miles away.
I have said since the first look at this game that this team doesn't have a clue about what they are doing.
#1 They clearly lack any ability to focus on important issues rather than fluff. When I see mechanics such as dragging corpses and the combat system isn't ready, there is a clear management issue. No one is creating priorities and focusing on getting issues off the table. #2 Patching the patches. This is always a sign of a project in trouble. It means there was no test plan and likely no thought about how the feature would impact the system as a whole. In the least there has been no outside review of a feature before it was allowed into the build. In short the QA on this team looks much like that of VG at release (no QA team at all). #3 They have never answered real technical questions related to technology and graphics. Many have said since the beginning that there are issues with the engine they have chosen and the inclusion of multiple hit-boxes. These have been highlighted a severe performance bottlenecks from other development teams. Yet it appears that SV has discounted a risk by pushing it to someone else and no validation of the basic engine has been done. #4 the basic engine and mechanics were not completed before beta test. This goes back to point #1. before you have graphics, before you have individual abilities you must have a solid platform. This not only includes your graphcis engine, but your database back-end and an in-game system/architecture which will allow you to balance issue at a later date without having to re-code game mechanics. #5 Bug stability. When you go through a professional development cycle you shouldd see a huge amount of bugs in the early stages of a project, and bugs should fall off over time. This will re-sart to a certain extent each time new features are released. To get a handle on a project and make the scope manageable a real team must freeze introduction of any new features and debug those features until all critical bugs are closed. This does not seem to be happeneing. #6 Clearly from thier schedules they have no concept of setting a schedules with realisitic milestones. Before you have a beta you must have a feature freeze. before you launch you must have a milestone linked to bug reporting rate and resolution of the critical bugs. From the expectation that the game would be released last year it is clear these guys have no understnading on how to make the ugly decisions to get a product out the door. #7 Clearly there is no business plan. Selling of the beta access pre-release is a sure sign they could not line up investors to keep development going. The concept of a fully open beta shows these guys have no concept on how to manage expectations. They don't understand that getting new customers is FAR easier than getting back customers with a bad taste in their mouth. These are the biggest issues one can see at a glance. Every game has bugs and problems, the important part is how quickly they are resolved and if they introduce new features before the old ones are debugged. This process comes from experience which these guys clearly lack.
Problem that most people don't realize, is that there's a 30-50-20 split in terms of IT projects. I'm not sure of game development projects, but my guess is that numbers are FAR harsher than an internal IT project (like implementing a new sales application or something).
The 30% is failed projects. No matter how hard you try, 30% of all internal IT projects fail. My guess like I said, is that this number is a *lot* higher in game development because you have to win the business side too, whereas with internal projects you already have 'sold' it internally.
50% of projects require a LOT more resources and redesign, reconsideration, etc to be a success. Of that 50%, only another 50% are actually satisfied with the implementation. The average 'overage' is well over 100% of budget for the initial scope.
20% of all IT projects are successes outright. It just 'goes right' the first time.
The benefit to me, is that my score looks like 10-40-50, and as such, I get big bonuses on my performance and implementation skills. The better the PM, the better those scores look, but it takes a great understanding of ALL the underlying components to get a good ratio going. And given the experience of SV's team, they simply don't have what it takes to implement anything near a success.
Well I don't consider a development of this scope an IT project. This is clearly a complex SW system design development project. In the development world 50% of all project fail, most due to obvious planning issues and naive (if not corrupt) managers.. What SV is doing is a classical death march.
I have seen projects succeed, and I have seen projects fail. This one has all of the hallmarks of some of the worst projects I have seen. The book I listed above is tailor made for SV. I just hope these guys don't go broke and learn from thier mistakes when it is all done.
Well I don't consider a development of this scope an IT project. This is clearly a complex SW system design development project. In the development world 50% of all project fail, most due to obvious planning issues and naive (if not corrupt) managers.. What SV is doing is a classical death march. I have seen projects succeed, and I have seen projects fail. This one has all of the hallmarks of some of the worst projects I have seen. The book I listed above is tailor made for SV. I just hope these guys don't go broke and learn from thier mistakes when it is all done.
Death March seems interesting, but SV doesn't seem to work all that hard. Weekends off and the extended vacation they took over the holidays.
This game is going to be a train wreck. Its clunky, buggy and full of awkward mechanics and 1/2assed attempts to make it more than a pvp gankfest.
I was rather excited going into open beta, but now that I have spent some time playing it, I hope it succeeds beyond everyones wildest expectation. Mostly so the people who like it don't play any other game that I may want to play.
Clerks is a movie. Admittedly it was produced on a low budget, but.... Books were easier to use as examples since they are the work of one person. Good Will Hunting was the first screenplay and first major roles for Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, but they got advice from Rob Reiner. Reservoir Dogs was Tarantino's first but Harvey Keitel helped raise the production money and helped with the production. The point remains, until you buy the game you have nothing invested in it. If they want to tackle a major project like this, it's their own time and money to waste. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Insisting that all major projects only go to people who have a record of success on minor projects means inspiration and talent get drowned in years of making I-phone apps and facebook games. That and the desire of producers to stay close to tried and true formulas can lead to the products all looking like slight variations on the same thing. The interests of the producer are not the same (money) as the interests of the developers (creativity, polish, and artistry) "We can wait patiently for Call of Duty 7: Duty Call. Based on past examples, it should be out by 2012, will sell about 12 billion copies, and have about two hours of gameplay. Woo." http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/4060/Call-of-Money.html P.S. 'This ''game'' does not even deserve a monthly fee' The developers agree, that's why its still in beta.
But do you not feel that the indie scene would be much healthier if teams like SV took the business seriously, adopted a professional attitude and actually worked up to something like MO? Overshooting themselves by such an extent does nobody any good, people lose money, they lose credibility and confidence and a good idea is wasted.
By at least starting small and building up, they could have a realistic chance of making Mortal Online a reality in the future. By trying to do it straight out of college, all they do is fail miserably. I'd rather wait 10 years and get MO as it was promised than get the buggy mess they call a game we have right now.
But do you not feel that the indie scene would be much healthier if teams like SV took the business seriously, adopted a professional attitude and actually worked up to something like MO? Overshooting themselves by such an extent does nobody any good, people lose money, they lose credibility and confidence and a good idea is wasted. By at least starting small and building up, they could have a realistic chance of making Mortal Online a reality in the future. By trying to do it straight out of college, all they do is fail miserably. I'd rather wait 10 years and get MO as it was promised than get the buggy mess they call a game we have right now.
Wow. A direct response instead of shifting the argument. (No, really, it's like cars produced in China)
Unfortunately, its a very hard question to answer. As far as I know Aventurine (Darkfall) didn't have any more experience when they started and they seem to have achieved modest success despite a VERY rocky launch. (20,000 subs, $3 million/year gross revenue). I really don't know the level of experience at Icarus studios (Fallen Earth). The lead designer's experience seems to be mainly in pen and paper RPGs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hammock) I don't know actual subscription numbers but it did seem to be pretty well received and was one of the top games on Steam for a while. Meanwhile, Notorious (Xsyon) has artists with prior experience designing video games (Tomorrow War) and a project leader with previous experience designing MMORPGs (Roma Victor), but have yet to convince me there is actually a game there despite a release date 34 days from now.
Even if it doesn't do well at launch, I think the development and creation of MO would be a good thing overall. Darkfall has demonstrated that a sandbox MMO with open PVP is viable despite a terrible launch and demonstrated that there is significant pent up demand for such a thing. The more evidence that there is a market for a sandbox MMO, the more likely that another company with better resources will try it instead of focusing on the next WOW-killer / WOW-clone.
In terms of ambition, I think the problem is more one of time than one of scope. They almost certainly started selling discs too soon and seem to have advanced through the stages of Beta-testing to quickly. There is certainly some value in beta testing some of your systems early, but people's expectations are set by current trends. Currently the trend is to use the open beta as a showcase for the finished/nearly finished product. Going to beta early could be due to a different philosophy about beta testing or from poor organization, lack of skill, and inept management. There's only one person on this forum with any real insight on that matter (Hercules) and he has certainly weighed in with his opinion on that subject. However, he may be biased by a soured relationship with the company.
A short note getting back to the original question.
Is there still hope for Mortal Online?
That's depends on the resources available. Money. Time (time is money) Skills and knowledge of the development team. The goodwill of the target audience.
Judging from here that last one is a lost cause. Judging from the official forums, it's in reasonable shape.
A short note getting back to the original question. Is there still hope for Mortal Online? That's depends on the resources available. Money. Time (time is money) Skills and knowledge of the development team. The goodwill of the target audience. Judging from here that last one is a lost cause. Judging from the official forums, it's in reasonable shape.
Yet last time I looked there was a poll that said that almost 60% of the very friendly audience on the official forums would NOT be subscribing to the game if it releases now... which as far as we know SV still plans to release in the next few weeks. As you know they are a publicly held company and if they KNOW they won't be releasing (which they should) they have to update their shareholders. Also, since March closes out Q1 and they will have to update their shareholders on financials, I would think that they would want to say they released...
Anyhow, my point is that when only 40% of the most loyal fans will even buy/sub to the game as it stands... that's not resonably good shape... that's a strong indication that the game is in deep trouble.
"In it's current state" makes an assumption about a different resource ..... TIME. We've already had this discussion, and we will find out which of us is correct within 3 weeks, so I don't see the need to discuss it further yet.
@ slapshot: "In it's current state" makes an assumption about a different resource ..... TIME. We've already had this discussion, and we will find out which of us is correct within 3 weeks, so I don't see the need to discuss it further yet. http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3435899#3435899
Their last newsletter said that they started the release process when the open beta started, how long is this release process going to last? You can't tell people your releasing it then 1 month later after a disasterous open beta, full of lag you don't know how to fix, push it back again.
If they plan on pushing back the release date... UPDATE YOUR CUSTOMERS AND STOCKHOLDERS!
Wow. A direct response instead of shifting the argument. (No, really, it's like cars produced in China) Unfortunately, its a very hard question to answer. As far as I know Aventurine (Darkfall) didn't have any more experience when they started and they seem to have achieved modest success despite a VERY rocky launch. (20,000 subs, $3 million/year gross revenue). I really don't know the level of experience at Icarus studios (Fallen Earth). The lead designer's experience seems to be mainly in pen and paper RPGs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hammock) I don't know actual subscription numbers but it did seem to be pretty well received and was one of the top games on Steam for a while. Meanwhile, Notorious (Xsyon) has artists with prior experience designing video games (Tomorrow War) and a project leader with previous experience designing MMORPGs (Roma Victor), but have yet to convince me there is actually a game there despite a release date 34 days from now. The problem is ultimately one of scope (http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/3982/Legendary-Failures-of-Legend-Part-Two.html) From following the developers on the Mortal online forums, they seem to understand the need to limit the scope of their game. Well before they entered the closed Beta they were already discussing features that they would like to have but knew were not feasible to put in at launch (http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/288358-post6.html) If your ambition is to design a sandbox MMO, what smaller project do you start with? Even if it doesn't do well at launch, I think the development and creation of MO would be a good thing overall. Darkfall has demonstrated that a sandbox MMO with open PVP is viable despite a terrible launch and demonstrated that there is significant pent up demand for such a thing. The more evidence that there is a market for a sandbox MMO, the more likely that another company with better resources will try it instead of focusing on the next WOW-killer / WOW-clone. In terms of ambition, I think the problem is more one of time than one of scope. They almost certainly started selling discs too soon and seem to have advanced through the stages of Beta-testing to quickly. There is certainly some value in beta testing some of your systems early, but people's expectations are set by current trends. Currently the trend is to use the open beta as a showcase for the finished/nearly finished product. Going to beta early could be due to a different philosophy about beta testing or from poor organization, lack of skill, and inept management. There's only one person on this forum with any real insight on that matter (Hercules) and he has certainly weighed in with his opinion on that subject. However, he may be biased by a soured relationship with the company.
Darkfall did not make the same mistakes that SV is. SV is/did NOT limit the scope of the project. You see this clearly in the fact that the basic systems are not in place and functional while complete fluff is in place. Ignore what they say and look at what they do.
Which is more vital?
Basic melee and magic combat system?
Stealth?
Corpse dragging?
If they had scoped their project properly combat would have been one of the first priorities to be completed before anyone was allowed to work on something like corpse dragging .
DFO in contrast had a completed combat and magic system in place before beta was started. World mobs were designed and ready to be placed (turned on/off throughout early beta to test sever stability). Early beta focused on testing server stability and spwan/de-spawn mechanics. The larger beta focused primarily on balance issue wuch as swing speed, damage levels, loot drops, plugging exploits. Very few new features were added at any point during the beta. The end result was a fairly smooth launch outiside of ~2 days of de-sync issues which were quickly resolved. In fact the scope was limited to such an extent that the cities did not even have gates on them (which sucked) but key playability issues were certainly the primary focus, and the game WAS playable.
You might be able to make an argument that 5 years earlier that AV missed dates by a wide margin but the last 1-2 years of development no crazy promises were made and the beta process was quite professional.
Comparing AV to SV is completely ludicrous. AV from beta onward clearly had experienced project management and a very solid QA team. . A better comparison would be to compare SV to VG where there were lunatics un-leashed in the asylum.
Darkfall was in development hell for about 8 years. People seem to conveniently forget this.
Bumping this so people can read it again.
Problem is, Starvault has already released an article to their customers and investors that the release has already started. That was about a month ago, how long can they keep saying "its still in beta, give it time!" when the game is suppose to be releasing in the next few weeks.
Darkfall was in development hell for about 8 years. People seem to conveniently forget this.
Bumping this so people can read it again.
And Darkfall created a completely new engine from top-to-bottom. But in reality the time spent developing is irrelevant. Which will go faster 3 people making a house or 50 people creating the worlds largest building?
Does it matter if it took 5 days or 3 years? If it doesn't work it doesn't work.
What IS important is a teams ability to to create real milestones, limit the scope of development, actually have a QA team and plan, and create realistic recovery plans when milestones are not met.
Comments
#1 You have a concern about the Unreal engine? If not, then this is an irrelevent point.
#2 SV is not aiming to become a AAA game (F1 racecar), it's aiming to make a game
You mean Korean cars, right? (hyundai, daewoo, kia) Can't say that chinese cars (Beijing Automobile Works , Changfeng, BYD Auto, Dongfeng) compete on an even playing field. This is getting pretty fair of track though. China's monetary policy is not really germaine to the topic.
My objection to the whole "prior experience/small projects first" argument is that it boils down to aim low/play it safe. As long as SV is investing their own time and money, I think they should set their own goals. If you don't believe they can manage it, don't buy it.
People are complaining of the current state of MO and it's a direct result of their inability to measure their own skillset and deliver upon that. And the unfortunate thing is, that with hyped up trailers and feature lists, with hyped up IRC chats and explanations, they conned a *lot* of people into preordering the game -- at full cost -- with no refunds.
It's easy to say NOW, "don't buy it" -- but the vast majority of interested parties that wanted a sandbox PvP game have already bought it. And they are pissed off, and rightly so. The "aim low/play it safe" mentality no longer applies, because they got thousands of people to buy into the idea that they actually have the ability to create a AAA title at a AAAA (4 As, on purpose) price. They do not have the experience of even creating PONG, or ANY APPLICATION, EVER, and they are jumping into making an MMO. And people that are currently in the "hopeful" state I actually feel sorry for, those who believe that "next patch, don't worry", stating it as fact, when every patch that has been released only added a handful of shoddy features and broke more than it added. And expectations from people like me, who are in that boat of paid customers, are in line with the price I paid. And since I know that SV has no ability to deliver this game, I have no shyness in encouraging others to get a refund and keep their expectations in line with SV's lack of talent.
As for the concern of the Unreal engine -- I don't think anybody has that. The concern is the ability to USE the engine. I could give you a car engine and it would be amazing, light, have lots of horsepower, etc... but if you don't know how to connect it to your drivetrain then it's going to be an awful mess, and if you're trying to do it for the first time, it's not going to work very well.
There is still hope for Mortal Online, but it needs another 6 months to a full year of development before release. If they push it out early, it has a very good chance of immediate failure. You really only get one chance at a first impression with MMOs. Screw that up and it is very difficult to get lost players to come back. If StarVault rushes this thing out early, they are going to screw themselves over in my opinion.
From ONLY what I hear- Mortal needs to boot the beta testers and be operated on for roughly a year-ish and resurfaced into the mmo upcomnig releases spotlight. Advice towards the game I've heard is just that- it needs to quietly sink into the shadows without much attention (criticism) while devs fix the blatent problems.
If that is done, I get the feeling MO will be a solid game.
The funny thing is that people throw out numbers like 6 months or a year, without really knowing how much time that SV would need.
Let's look at the last 6 months. What monsterous features have you gotten? Mounts, basic housing, basic combat, basic magic, and a little bit more than basic crafting. All of those systems are extremely problematic and buggy, not to mention the client itself having huge issues.
That much stuff from day one to now has been almost 7 or 8 months -- and the progress is not that fast. People who are playing are like OMG they added XYZ, but if you look at the mechanics of said system, it's nothing overly impressive. At this rate, another 6 months in my eyes, won't make a whole heck of a lot of difference other than bug fixing. And even if they fixed EVERY BUG IN THE GAME -- it still wouldn't be any fun.
I don't know what the timeline should be, but suffice to say that SV isn't going to push the game out that far I would imagine, as they've stated many times about how their financial situation is. I think people have to get used to the idea of playing a broken, boring game. If they enjoy it hey -- stick with it. But for the rest of us that have some discerning opinions about what we want to be playing well... this game is already a failure.
The funny thing is that people throw out numbers like 6 months or a year, without really knowing how much time that SV would need.
Let's look at the last 6 months. What monsterous features have you gotten? Mounts, basic housing, basic combat, basic magic, and a little bit more than basic crafting. All of those systems are extremely problematic and buggy, not to mention the client itself having huge issues.
That much stuff from day one to now has been almost 7 or 8 months -- and the progress is not that fast. People who are playing are like OMG they added XYZ, but if you look at the mechanics of said system, it's nothing overly impressive. At this rate, another 6 months in my eyes, won't make a whole heck of a lot of difference other than bug fixing. And even if they fixed EVERY BUG IN THE GAME -- it still wouldn't be any fun.
I don't know what the timeline should be, but suffice to say that SV isn't going to push the game out that far I would imagine, as they've stated many times about how their financial situation is. I think people have to get used to the idea of playing a broken, boring game. If they enjoy it hey -- stick with it. But for the rest of us that have some discerning opinions about what we want to be playing well... this game is already a failure.
All the content and features are entirely irrelevant if they can't fix the lag/sync and nowgame issues.
How many months have they been working on those issues alone? Since CB started...
I really don't care if the car has leather trim if the damn thing won't start or keeps stalling.
I win!!! LOL@U
Herc,
You are trying to hard.
People who have never seen a project developed and more importantly people who have not seen several failing projects will never understand a veteran developers view point. I have been through these arguments in real life and pointed out many multi-million dollar failures before they occur. A vet can't predict success, but failure reeks from miles away.
I have said since the first look at this game that this team doesn't have a clue about what they are doing.
#1 They clearly lack any ability to focus on important issues rather than fluff. When I see mechanics such as dragging corpses and the combat system isn't ready, there is a clear management issue. No one is creating priorities and focusing on getting issues off the table.
#2 Patching the patches. This is always a sign of a project in trouble. It means there was no test plan and likely no thought about how the feature would impact the system as a whole. In the least there has been no outside review of a feature before it was allowed into the build. In short the QA on this team looks much like that of VG at release (no QA team at all).
#3 They have never answered real technical questions related to technology and graphics. Many have said since the beginning that there are issues with the engine they have chosen and the inclusion of multiple hit-boxes. These have been highlighted a severe performance bottlenecks from other development teams. Yet it appears that SV has discounted a risk by pushing it to someone else and no validation of the basic engine has been done.
#4 the basic engine and mechanics were not completed before beta test. This goes back to point #1. before you have graphics, before you have individual abilities you must have a solid platform. This not only includes your graphcis engine, but your database back-end and an in-game system/architecture which will allow you to balance issue at a later date without having to re-code game mechanics.
#5 Bug stability. When you go through a professional development cycle you shouldd see a huge amount of bugs in the early stages of a project, and bugs should fall off over time. This will re-sart to a certain extent each time new features are released. To get a handle on a project and make the scope manageable a real team must freeze introduction of any new features and debug those features until all critical bugs are closed. This does not seem to be happeneing.
#6 Clearly from thier schedules they have no concept of setting a schedules with realisitic milestones. Before you have a beta you must have a feature freeze. before you launch you must have a milestone linked to bug reporting rate and resolution of the critical bugs. From the expectation that the game would be released last year it is clear these guys have no understnading on how to make the ugly decisions to get a product out the door.
#7 Clearly there is no business plan. Selling of the beta access pre-release is a sure sign they could not line up investors to keep development going. The concept of a fully open beta shows these guys have no concept on how to manage expectations. They don't understand that getting new customers is FAR easier than getting back customers with a bad taste in their mouth.
These are the biggest issues one can see at a glance. Every game has bugs and problems, the important part is how quickly they are resolved and if they introduce new features before the old ones are debugged. This process comes from experience which these guys clearly lack.
Great post! +999 rep! (if I could anyway)
Problem that most people don't realize, is that there's a 30-50-20 split in terms of IT projects. I'm not sure of game development projects, but my guess is that numbers are FAR harsher than an internal IT project (like implementing a new sales application or something).
The 30% is failed projects. No matter how hard you try, 30% of all internal IT projects fail. My guess like I said, is that this number is a *lot* higher in game development because you have to win the business side too, whereas with internal projects you already have 'sold' it internally.
50% of projects require a LOT more resources and redesign, reconsideration, etc to be a success. Of that 50%, only another 50% are actually satisfied with the implementation. The average 'overage' is well over 100% of budget for the initial scope.
20% of all IT projects are successes outright. It just 'goes right' the first time.
The benefit to me, is that my score looks like 10-40-50, and as such, I get big bonuses on my performance and implementation skills. The better the PM, the better those scores look, but it takes a great understanding of ALL the underlying components to get a good ratio going. And given the experience of SV's team, they simply don't have what it takes to implement anything near a success.
Well I don't consider a development of this scope an IT project. This is clearly a complex SW system design development project. In the development world 50% of all project fail, most due to obvious planning issues and naive (if not corrupt) managers.. What SV is doing is a classical death march.
I have seen projects succeed, and I have seen projects fail. This one has all of the hallmarks of some of the worst projects I have seen. The book I listed above is tailor made for SV. I just hope these guys don't go broke and learn from thier mistakes when it is all done.
Death March seems interesting, but SV doesn't seem to work all that hard. Weekends off and the extended vacation they took over the holidays.
I win!!! LOL@U
This game is going to be a train wreck. Its clunky, buggy and full of awkward mechanics and 1/2assed attempts to make it more than a pvp gankfest.
I was rather excited going into open beta, but now that I have spent some time playing it, I hope it succeeds beyond everyones wildest expectation. Mostly so the people who like it don't play any other game that I may want to play.
I still have hopes for it, but I think its going to take some time for it to be the way we want it to be. Id say about 6 months to 1 year.
But do you not feel that the indie scene would be much healthier if teams like SV took the business seriously, adopted a professional attitude and actually worked up to something like MO? Overshooting themselves by such an extent does nobody any good, people lose money, they lose credibility and confidence and a good idea is wasted.
By at least starting small and building up, they could have a realistic chance of making Mortal Online a reality in the future. By trying to do it straight out of college, all they do is fail miserably. I'd rather wait 10 years and get MO as it was promised than get the buggy mess they call a game we have right now.
Wow. A direct response instead of shifting the argument. (No, really, it's like cars produced in China)
Unfortunately, its a very hard question to answer. As far as I know Aventurine (Darkfall) didn't have any more experience when they started and they seem to have achieved modest success despite a VERY rocky launch. (20,000 subs, $3 million/year gross revenue). I really don't know the level of experience at Icarus studios (Fallen Earth). The lead designer's experience seems to be mainly in pen and paper RPGs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hammock) I don't know actual subscription numbers but it did seem to be pretty well received and was one of the top games on Steam for a while. Meanwhile, Notorious (Xsyon) has artists with prior experience designing video games (Tomorrow War) and a project leader with previous experience designing MMORPGs (Roma Victor), but have yet to convince me there is actually a game there despite a release date 34 days from now.
The problem is ultimately one of scope (http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/3982/Legendary-Failures-of-Legend-Part-Two.html) From following the developers on the Mortal online forums, they seem to understand the need to limit the scope of their game. Well before they entered the closed Beta they were already discussing features that they would like to have but knew were not feasible to put in at launch (http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/288358-post6.html) If your ambition is to design a sandbox MMO, what smaller project do you start with?
Even if it doesn't do well at launch, I think the development and creation of MO would be a good thing overall. Darkfall has demonstrated that a sandbox MMO with open PVP is viable despite a terrible launch and demonstrated that there is significant pent up demand for such a thing. The more evidence that there is a market for a sandbox MMO, the more likely that another company with better resources will try it instead of focusing on the next WOW-killer / WOW-clone.
In terms of ambition, I think the problem is more one of time than one of scope. They almost certainly started selling discs too soon and seem to have advanced through the stages of Beta-testing to quickly. There is certainly some value in beta testing some of your systems early, but people's expectations are set by current trends. Currently the trend is to use the open beta as a showcase for the finished/nearly finished product. Going to beta early could be due to a different philosophy about beta testing or from poor organization, lack of skill, and inept management. There's only one person on this forum with any real insight on that matter (Hercules) and he has certainly weighed in with his opinion on that subject. However, he may be biased by a soured relationship with the company.
A short note getting back to the original question.
Is there still hope for Mortal Online?
That's depends on the resources available. Money. Time (time is money) Skills and knowledge of the development team. The goodwill of the target audience.
Judging from here that last one is a lost cause. Judging from the official forums, it's in reasonable shape.
Yet last time I looked there was a poll that said that almost 60% of the very friendly audience on the official forums would NOT be subscribing to the game if it releases now... which as far as we know SV still plans to release in the next few weeks. As you know they are a publicly held company and if they KNOW they won't be releasing (which they should) they have to update their shareholders. Also, since March closes out Q1 and they will have to update their shareholders on financials, I would think that they would want to say they released...
Anyhow, my point is that when only 40% of the most loyal fans will even buy/sub to the game as it stands... that's not resonably good shape... that's a strong indication that the game is in deep trouble.
Poll w/ about 600 votes
http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/36938-poll-will-you-buy-subscribe-mo-its-current-state.html
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
@ slapshot:
"In it's current state" makes an assumption about a different resource ..... TIME. We've already had this discussion, and we will find out which of us is correct within 3 weeks, so I don't see the need to discuss it further yet.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3435899#3435899
Their last newsletter said that they started the release process when the open beta started, how long is this release process going to last? You can't tell people your releasing it then 1 month later after a disasterous open beta, full of lag you don't know how to fix, push it back again.
If they plan on pushing back the release date... UPDATE YOUR CUSTOMERS AND STOCKHOLDERS!
osmunda... this doesn't look bad to you?
MO Forums Poll:
and MMORPG.com poll:
Darkfall did not make the same mistakes that SV is. SV is/did NOT limit the scope of the project. You see this clearly in the fact that the basic systems are not in place and functional while complete fluff is in place. Ignore what they say and look at what they do.
Which is more vital?
If they had scoped their project properly combat would have been one of the first priorities to be completed before anyone was allowed to work on something like corpse dragging .
DFO in contrast had a completed combat and magic system in place before beta was started. World mobs were designed and ready to be placed (turned on/off throughout early beta to test sever stability). Early beta focused on testing server stability and spwan/de-spawn mechanics. The larger beta focused primarily on balance issue wuch as swing speed, damage levels, loot drops, plugging exploits. Very few new features were added at any point during the beta. The end result was a fairly smooth launch outiside of ~2 days of de-sync issues which were quickly resolved. In fact the scope was limited to such an extent that the cities did not even have gates on them (which sucked) but key playability issues were certainly the primary focus, and the game WAS playable.
You might be able to make an argument that 5 years earlier that AV missed dates by a wide margin but the last 1-2 years of development no crazy promises were made and the beta process was quite professional.
Comparing AV to SV is completely ludicrous. AV from beta onward clearly had experienced project management and a very solid QA team. . A better comparison would be to compare SV to VG where there were lunatics un-leashed in the asylum.
Bumping this so people can read it again.
Bumping this so people can read it again.
Problem is, Starvault has already released an article to their customers and investors that the release has already started. That was about a month ago, how long can they keep saying "its still in beta, give it time!" when the game is suppose to be releasing in the next few weeks.
All sandbox mmos start off like crap.
Those of us that play these games already know this.
They get better overtime.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Bumping this so people can read it again.
There wouldnt be an issue if MO stayed in development, in fact I'd praise them for it. But, there is the small issue of already taking peoples money.
I win!!! LOL@U
Bumping this so people can read it again.
And Darkfall created a completely new engine from top-to-bottom. But in reality the time spent developing is irrelevant. Which will go faster 3 people making a house or 50 people creating the worlds largest building?
Does it matter if it took 5 days or 3 years? If it doesn't work it doesn't work.
What IS important is a teams ability to to create real milestones, limit the scope of development, actually have a QA team and plan, and create realistic recovery plans when milestones are not met.
I think it is time for Starvault to get their act together and finally address the various problems. Maybe then, there is still hope.
But until then, I might see more scenes like this one: