Allods Online: Fatigue is pretty smart

The fatigue system in Allods Online is pretty smart.  Players have a fatigue pool that is filled every time they gain experience.  Fatigue is gained on a 1 to 1 basis to experience and is displayed as the blue portion of the experience bar. At any time, fatigue can be turned in at an innkeeper for experience (also on a 1:1 basis).  The fatigue pool is limited and only so much can be gained in a single day.

This is not immediately obvious, but when fatigue is maxed out, a player is effectively cut to 50% of their normal experience gain.  However, Allods does this in a very smart way which I agree wholeheartedly with.

Experience that is gained off kills and quests is never affected by fatigue.  If a monster is worth 10 XP, it is worth that same 10 come full fatigue. So, the player never sees the decrease in their active XP gains, which show on-screen after a kill or quest turn in.  The loss comes in the lack of fatigue gains, which are buried in the combat log.  This is a smart visual way to prevent players from feeling shortchanged.

Secondly, the system encourages players to do other things.  Each day the fatigue system sets a soft cap on how much experience gaining a player should be doing.  Players that push past that soft cap are never prevented from doing so.  Players that hit the soft cap and want to stop, don't feel punished for doing other things because realistically they are only missing out on 50% XP gain.  This allows for and encourages social behavior.

Also, it encourages players to log out, which for a free-to-play game like Allods is golden.  Logged in players cost money and without monthly subscriptions, its money lost.  I suspect that players who are actively engaged in other aspects of the game outside of combat are more likely to drop a few dollars on a customization cash shop item as well.


Lastly, fatigue rewards the casual player.  Only getting an average of thirty minutes a day to play has not made me feel left out in Allods.  I can complete a few quests, get some fatigue gain, hit up an innkeeper and feel comfortable that progress was made.  I often think of it as double experience every time I  log in since so many of my friends are often playing well past maxed fatigue.

Site Updates Incoming, Need Your Eyeballs (and browsers)

My new template is nearing completion and can be viewed at http://test.heartlessgamer.com. Please check it out and let me know if it appears that something is not working. Currently built to run best in Firefox 3+, but no known issues with IE8 or Google Chrome.

A live version using this template can be viewed at http://reviews.heartlessgamer.com. The rest of my sites will be moved this weekend pending any disasters discovered today.

General comments on the design are welcome.
Thanks!

Multiplaying.net Site of the Week

Multiplaying.net has picked Heartlessgamer.com as their site of the week.

Thanks!

DISQUS comments fixed! Yay!

@DISQUS has helped me identify and remove the offending java script that was causing comments to fail on heartlessgamer.com. Everyone should be able to post without issue now, guest or not.

Please give them a try below.

Micro-transactions and Battlefield Heroes Beta

EA Dice made some unpopular changes to the pricing model in the free-to-play (F2P), but supported by micro-transactions Battlefield: Heroes. Ars Technica has an article with the basics:

You could buy certain items to give yourself an edge, sure, but it was just as easy to earn in-game Valor Points (VP) to purchase weapons and widgets for use in the game. Many gamers did just this, earning VP in their regular gaming session without ever paying a dime. Others made a few purchases here and there to round out their items.

With micro-transactions all the rage right now, this has created a shit-storm around the blog-o-sphere. I find myself having to step in and defend the unpopular view.



The game is still in BETA and changes are to be expected. Overall, these changes were GOOD for Battlefield: Heroes. However, they were POORLY communicated (as in no players knew they were coming). Also, the developers originally stated players wouldn't be able to buy items that would make them more powerful, which is a promise now breached.

As a long time Battlefield: Heroes player (since early beta), I stand firmly in my belief that players DO NOT need more than the default weapons to be successful. I routinely place in the top three during matches with nothing more than the default weapons (the proof is on my BF:H profile page). I could continue playing my way, unaffected by these changes, but I won't.

I originally limited myself to $20 worth of battlefunds to play dress up, because there was nothing else worth spending money on. Now, spending real money on the game is more about convenience and enhancement. I buy funds now and NO LONGER have to spend my time as well to win VP! I can easily purchase the items outright that will help me enjoy the time I spend playing. This is a win-win for my time and offers value for the money spent.

All while free players STILL have access to the majority of the arsenal they previously had via VP, albeit not nearly as easily. Outside of the changes to bandages, the other questionable move was adding battlefund-only weapons that are more powerful than the VP weapons. Again, this was NOT supposed to happen per the developer's own statements.

How does shooter drama spill over into the MMO blog-o-sphere?

As micro-transaction business models begin flooding the MMOG market, certain MMO bloggers are looking for any excuse to attack them, which means they reach outside of MMOGs. I was once on that side of things, but I've come to realize that micro-transactions are a valid business model and offer a great value when combined with F2P.

F2P games are routinely misconstrued as altruistic projects where the developers aren't allowed to make a profit operating the game. F2P games are a different means to the same goal: operating a sustainable business. They are no different in the need to generate revenue than are subscription MMOGs. Both F2P and subscription games make game-related changes to sustain the bottom line.

Subscription games feature many time sinks (lock out timers, progression gating mechanics, etc.) to increase the amount of time players need to pour into the game, therefore increasing revenue. Also, subscription games often come with a box price and they release expansions which often invalidate everything that existed before.

F2P games operate similarly, but with a more "car salesman" approach. They already can keep players playing by being F2P, so the subscription model's tricks don't work. F2P games have to sell something to the players. This means they have to balance being free with making money, and the line has to be drawn somewhere as we've seen with Battlefield Heroes and Free Realms recently. Yes, changes will scare away players in F2P games. The same as patches/nerfs will drive away players in a subscription MMO.

Lessons Learned

Wrapping this whole mess up, it amazes me how people lose perspective so quickly when micro-transactions get involved. They let subscription games get away with murder, but god forbid a F2P game charges $10 for a horse or limits the free riders.

I think the most valuable lesson for EA Dice that can be learned here is simple: don't charge real money for micro-transactions when a game is still in BETA and changes are being planned to the pricing model. For the players, don't expect a free ride indefinitely. Finally, F2P combined with micro-transactions is a means to the same end: making money.

Did I mention this game is still in BETA?

Heartlessgamer.com Giveaway: Allods Online Beta Keys

Sorry, ALL KEYS ARE GONE!

I will update this post if I receive any more keys.

On Monetizing MMO Blogs

Recently, I asked for some feedback on the site, as well as opinions on MMO bloggers monetizing their blogs.

First, I run advertisements in three forms on this blog currently: in-line text ads, search traffic only ads, and referral links. The first two are powered by Chitika and pay per click. The referral links are to Amazon.com and pay a percentage of any purchases made via that link.

What do you need the money for?

The biggest question that people ask me is what I do with the money I earn. The blog is free to host on Google's Blogger, so there are no web costs (outside of an annual $10 domain registration fee). And it's pretty obvious I don't make my living doing this.

I use the money to pay for some of my gaming. When my blog was more popular (my traffic is down 50%+ this year), I made enough for a monthly subscription to an MMO. Recently, I have used it to micro-transact in games like Battlefield Heroes and Domain of Heroes.

However, since I've not played a subscription game in a while, I have pocketed a good amount of the money made (actually its sitting in my Paypal account). My most recent game purchases have been covered by bonuses I've gotten from work.

The Amazon.com referral links pay out via Amazon gift certificates. When I earn enough for my first gift certificate there, I will purchase more games, books, and movies to write about on this blog.

For the most part, the money earned here can be viewed as an investment back into the blog. However, it still leaves me sitting on a pile of cash that I haven't spent and I am going to work out a percentage to donate to Child's Play (my favorite charity). Going forward, charity will have a lot to do with the money made here after my minimal new web costs are covered (I am bringing some new stuff online in the near future).

Feedback

Surprisingly, most people that left feedback were fine with bloggers monetizing their blogs as long as it wasn't intrusive or contradicting(for example, gold seller ads when I am against gold selling). Chitika has been good about running legit advertisements, but they rarely match search ads to anything my readers would be interested in.

The Amazon.com referral links are more targeted. If I talk about a game, I will usually link to the games page on Amazon. If I review a book or movie, I will also link to Amazon. Or when Amazon runs deals like $3 in FREE MP3s, I will link to the promotional page and collect referrals as people cash in the free codes. This is hit or miss, but is the least intrusive of all advertising and the most honest.

With the feedback gathered, I think I am going to move towards straight Amazon.com referral-based advertising and be more open about my links. Along with the charitable giving, I am hoping this honesty will spur some purchases!

Lastly, I am going to take down the in-line text ads, as well as the search based ads from Chitika on the main page. I'm always open to advertising opportunities, so some form of automated advertising may return in the future.