Camelot Unchained MMO

Denaut · May 3, 2013

pyksel_sl said:
Wouldn't a more accurate and fair statement here be that "you" don't know what problem CU is trying to solve? Those that have been following most if not all the updates know what City State has sold us on thats it trying to solve. That doesn't mean that all problems have been identified or addressed. I'm genuinely not trying to be ignorant or a dick about the question but I am curious about your statement.

I didn't take this badly, it is a legitimate question. You are right in that I don't know what problem it is trying to solve, but that is because I think CU is a game in search of one. DAoC launched in a completely different landscape than we currently have, the hole that it filled (or I could say the problem that it solved) doesn't exist anymore. The form of the solution might be different, but that doesn't really matter, they can be radically different but fulfill the same desire. I'll give you an example of something that I've thought about a bit more.

Skyrim and Minecraft are the same game, at their very center they are about one thing...discovery. That is it, you can sum both games up with a single word. The tools, methods, mechanics, features, and so on they use to express this core are VERY different, but that is what both games are about. This is also why TESO is falling so unbelievably hard on its face, because it utterly lacks the essential discovery of Elder Scrolls. A good TESO game would encapsulate that in a very MMORPG way, but it would stilllfeellike an Elder Scrolls game. Often when you hear about a game having no soul this is the reason.

So, if you will permit me to answer a question with a question (Socrates would be proud), what do you feel the core of DAoC is/was? The answer should be short, ideally summed up in one word like I did above.

Flight · May 3, 2013

Denaut_sl said:
No, nothing formal. At the heart of it I think CU is flawed because it doesn't know what problem it is trying to solve.

I'd suggest that's a narrow way of looking at it. I was a Project Manager for IBM and various merchant banks owning and delivering hardware and software solutions in the ?5mill to ?30mill range, with all the bureaucracy that entails. Working as a contractor for other organisations where I was able to work in a less formal process I could deliver in 6 months solutions that would take IBM 2-3 years.

I think Jacobs knows exactly the game he is aiming for and it's target audience. And he's put a couple mill of his own money into it. This is the guy that co-founded Mythic and played a major part in bringing DaoC to market for a little over ?2mill in 18 months. He can make DaoC 2 and uses masses of the lore / locations / mobs etc and build on them freely, because Camelot was chosen precisely because there could be no issues over ownership of the IP.

The only part that concerns me is that they are looking at developing their own proprietary engine.

Denaut_sl said:
You are right in that I don't know what problem it is trying to solve, but that is because I think CU is a game in search of one. DAoC launched in a completely different landscape than we currently have, the hole that it filled (or I could say the problem that it solved) doesn't exist anymore.

This is a red herring. The hole that it filled not only still exists but has been defined and higlighted by most of what's come out in the last 5 years - an enjoyable MMO with well defined and well designed from the ground up PvP at its foundation that isn't a WoW clone.

Again, I'm not a Jacobs fan. I just think it's a bit silly to be writing off him delivering something which he has in the past with half the budget and similar time scales.

Gecko_sl · May 3, 2013

Flight_sl said:
I think Jacobs knows exactly the game he is aiming for and it's target audience. And he's put a couple mill of his own money into it. This is the guy that co-founded Mythic and played a major part in bringing DaoC to market for a little over ?2mill. He can make DaoC 2 and uses masses of the lore / locations / mobs etc and build on them freely, because Camelot was chosen precisely because there could be no issues over ownership of the IP.

The only part that concerns me is that they are looking at developing their own proprietary engine.

The engine portion worries me less than the design part, due to what's available out there and the amount of talent one can hire cheaply, especially overseas today.

Denaut, essentially he's delivering DAOC 2, focused almost solely on the PVP portion with a few additions. The problem he is solving is addressed towards what most of us PVP MMO gamers want: RVR.

Shadowbane, AOC, GW2, and many other games have hinted at providing what we are looking for: i.e., fun and meaningful small and medium group focused combat, but none have delivered it nearly as well as the original DAOC. It's why some of us are hopeful this will be better, even if we are realistic in our expectations.

iannis · May 3, 2013

Denaut_sl said:
So, if you will permit me to answer a question with a question (Socrates would be proud), what do you feel the core of DAoC is/was? The answer should be short, ideally summed up in one word like I did above.

Nerdsport.

To be honest though reducing these projects into that sort of idealistic abstraction doesn't seem all that useful. Or in the case of minecraft I would say even apt. That's two very different inflections of the concept of discovery. It's interesting, but it is just so vague that's all it can be.

Not that I think you're wrong -- you do need to be able to identify a focus in any creative project. Even a vague idealistic one. You absolutely have to be able to do that. But as a consumer if you toss Skyrim and Minecraft into the same category... I just have no use at all for those categories. It's a very project manager tact to take, that question.

Personally I think the problem that Jacobs is trying to solve is that his grandchildren need gas money. I hope DAoC2 is good... but who knows.

Pyksel · May 3, 2013

Denaut, the core of DAOC was and always will be RvR. It fostered so many good things such as establishing realm pride, Darkness Falls, the ever changing face of the battlefield with 3 faction combat, meaningful objectives, etc. I think people that are expecting DAOC 2.0 are going to be disappointed as Mark has been very clear and upfront that this isn't a spiritual successor but it's hard to believe that when a lot of his principles and discussions revolve around the inclusion of those features. I don't think that means he's conflicted in anyway, I think he's just being careful since EA owns the rights to DAOC.

driedcatnip · May 3, 2013

i'm just waiting for david allen's ks. this thread would pale in comparison.

Denaut · May 3, 2013

I am going to address you guys collectively because you said similar things.

What is it about small group PvP do you like, which parts of it don't you like? What actions that you as a player undertook before, during, and after a combat were satisfying, which were frustrating? How did it differ from similar games/servers like Rallos Zek, or WoW PvP Servers? What, exactly, is RvR? How did it differ from the MMORPG PvP that came before and after it?

These are legitimate questions, I am trying to get some insight about the kind of game you guys like to play.

Denaut · May 3, 2013

Flight_sl said:
I'd suggest that's a narrow way of looking at it. I was a Project Manager for IBM and various merchant banks owning and delivering hardware and software solutions in the ?5mill to ?30mill range, with all the bureaucracy that entails. Working as a contractor for other organisations where I was able to work in a less formal process I could deliver in 6 months solutions that would take IBM 2-3 years.

I think Jacobs knows exactly the game he is aiming for and it's target audience. And he's put a couple mill of his own money into it. This is the guy that co-founded Mythic and played a major part in bringing DaoC to market for a little over ?2mill in 18 months. He can make DaoC 2 and uses masses of the lore / locations / mobs etc and build on them freely, because Camelot was chosen precisely because there could be no issues over ownership of the IP.

The only part that concerns me is that they are looking at developing their own proprietary engine.

This is a red herring. The hole that it filled not only still exists but has been defined and higlighted by most of what's come out in the last 5 years - an enjoyable MMO with well defined and well designed from the ground up PvP at its foundation that isn't a WoW clone.

I meant the opposite, there isn't a formal process, but there are techniques you use. It isn't so different from being a salesman or an artist. There is no red herring, because there are tons of games that offer well designed group PvP of all kinds. I am trying to figure out what is different about them and DAoC, what made Dark Age tick, what made it different. If there was truly something special about it, then the only way to capture it again is to figure out what that was in the first place.

Denaut · May 3, 2013

Iannis_sl said:
To be honest though reducing these projects into that sort of idealistic abstraction doesn't seem all that useful. Or in the case of minecraft I would say even apt. That's two very different inflections of the concept of discovery. It's interesting, but it is just so vague that's all it can be.

Not that I think you're wrong -- you do need to be able to identify a focus in any creative project. Even a vague idealistic one. You absolutely have to be able to do that. But as a consumer if you toss Skyrim and Minecraft into the same category... I just have no use at all for those categories. It's a very project manager tact to take, that question.

That's fine though, because I am not tossing them together as a consumer, but as a designer. Normally consumers don't need to give a crap about what I am talking about, and really they shouldn't unless they are curious. But, if you as a designer want to bring something back, duplicate it, or translate it into a new space, this is an essential exercise. Minecraft is more than JUST stacking voxels, Elder Scrolls is more than JUST click combat and an art style.

Elder Scrolls is a great example because we have some very real examples to point to and discuss, which makes the exercise less abstract. You can't possibly duplicate all of the features, techniques, systems and other expressions Skyrim uses in an MMORPG because they simply don't work for mechanical reasons. So now what do you do? Do you declare the impossibility of an Elder Scrolls MMORPG? That might be the truth of it, certainly that would have been WAY better than what we ended up with.

But maybe it is possible to make a good Elder Scrolls MMO. The only way to do that is to break the game down into very basic human terms like core emotions and ancient behaviors. Those things are universal and they translate across mediums not just games. When you do this properly what you end up with is an MMORPG thatfeelslike an Elder Scrolls game, the consumer doesn't know why and it doesn't matter, all that matters to them is the game feels right even subconsciously.

Utnayan · May 3, 2013

Denaut_sl said:
So, if you will permit me to answer a question with a question (Socrates would be proud), what do you feel the core of DAoC is/was? The answer should be short, ideally summed up in one word like I did above.

Broken.

Jesus was this game broken.

So I am trying to figure out how this isn't all rose tinted glasses speaking when it comes to DAOC anyway.

1) Launched with post 35 itemization not in tact for 3 months.
2) RvR balance was completely fucked. (AE Mez)
3) The RvR portion of the game wasn't even functional until December of 2001 with relics finally able to be captured and those bugged keep doors finally unplugged.
4) After RvR was finally going and better balanced, it took about 6 months for them to fuck it all up with ToA and New Frontiers.
4.5) As a side personal note, for 3 months I could also lay on a double dexterity debuff which would render all and any mobs regardless of level, unable to hit us. (That was hilarious)

So in hindsight, without the rose tinted shit here, there was about a year to a year and a half where there was RvR but by then, population problems also sunk in.

The game was an unfinished unbalanced pile of garbage at launch almost all the way up to SI. Where the most memorable experience I took from it was watching a Midgard healer go AE Mez about 100 albions all bunched together while 7 of us took out the entire raiding force at the Emain Midgard supply fort.

So up until this point you really have a guy that took a lot of features and wrote them on a piece of paper to get people fired up. He had no fucking clue how to implement the first time, crashed and burned the second time, yet somehow with a white paper listing a bunch of PvP features collected over the course of the last two years, has the new stamp of approval.

It's fucking ridiculous.

Pyksel · May 3, 2013

Denaut, this is my personal list of what I feel made DAOC tick for me:

Realm pride which led to server pride which helped foster a community
Battlegrounds were persistent 24/7
3 faction combat
Keep combat and sieges
Long term goals that were realm wide (relics and relic keeps)
Short term goals (keep/tower sieges that gave access to Darkness Falls)
Personal goals (Realm Ranks led to Realm Points)
Personal recognition via zone wide kill spams
Class and realm balance was done around RvR, not PvE (until ToA came into play)
Leaderboards (ala: The Herald)
Guild recognition through the leaderboards and keep claiming (which could also be upgraded)
Crafters were needed for siege building and keeping doors healthy/repaired
Meaningful death penalty as it took awhile to get back to the action
Max group size was 8 with no raid interface which made group interdependence key especially when leading battlegroups
Individual combat, small group combat (8vs8), and zerg combat were all there
Combat was tactical through the use of proper crowd control, reactionaries, and positionals
First game I ever had /bow macro'd
...
There were certainly others but the above is what was most important for me.

Denaut · May 3, 2013

pyksel_sl said:
Denaut, this is my personal list of what I feel made DAOC tick for me:

Realm pride which led to server pride which helped foster a community
Battlegrounds were persistent 24/7
3 faction combat
Keep combat and sieges
Long term goals that were realm wide (relics and relic keeps)
Short term goals (keep/tower sieges that gave access to Darkness Falls)
Personal goals (Realm Ranks led to Realm Points)
Personal recognition via zone wide kill spams
Class and realm balance was done around RvR, not PvE (until ToA came into play)
Leaderboards (ala: The Herald)
Guild recognition through the leaderboards and keep claiming (which could also be upgraded)
Crafters were needed for siege building and keeping doors healthy/repaired
Meaningful death penalty as it took awhile to get back to the action
Max group size was 8 with no raid interface which made group interdependence key especially when leading battlegroups
Individual combat, small group combat (8vs8), and zerg combat were all there
Combat was tactical through the use of proper crowd control, reactionaries, and positionals
First game I ever had /bow macro'd

Not quite what I was looking for but we are getting somewhere and this is a good list. Essentially we are still talking about mechanics or implementations you like, these things are tools to cause different types and levels of decision making, which in turn elicits different kinds of emotions.

There are many games with some or all of these things. WoW PvP servers have (or had) many of those things, WoT, LoL, and countless other online PvP games all compromise a large part of your list.

2 games I can think of off the top of my head specifically have just about your entire list. Darkfall and Eve have pride, persistent battlegrounds, siege combat, different kinds of goals, name/guild recognition, PvP Balance, leaderboards, crafting, death penalties, shitty group management, all combat sizes from dueling to zergs. The only thing they don't have is factions in favor of a more developed guild system. Really that is the only thing from the list.

The point I am trying to make is that games aren't the sum of their mechanics. Deep down there is something that differentiated DAoC from other games at the time or similar games now, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why, despite having almost your entire list, are Darkfall and Eve not your game? What is different about them and DAoC that they don't elicit the same response? Mechanically they are almost identical, especially Eve.

Utnayan · May 3, 2013

Denaut_sl said:
Not quite what I was looking for but we are getting somewhere and this is a good list. Essentially we are still talking about mechanics or implementations you like, these things are tools to cause different types and levels of decision making, which in turn elicits different kinds of emotions.

There are many games with some or all of these things. WoW PvP servers have (or had) many of those things, WoT, LoL, and countless other online PvP games all compromise a large part of your list.

2 games I can think of off the top of my head specifically have just about your entire list. Darkfall and Eve have pride, persistent battlegrounds, siege combat, different kinds of goals, name/guild recognition, PvP Balance, leaderboards, crafting, death penalties, shitty group management, all combat sizes from dueling to zergs. The only thing they don't have is factions in favor of a more developed guild system. Really that is the only thing from the list.

The point I am trying to make is that games aren't the sum of their mechanics. Deep down there is something that differentiated DAoC from other games at the time or similar games now, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why, despite having almost your entire list, are Darkfall and Eve not your game? What is different about them and DAoC that they don't elicit the same response? Mechanically they are almost identical, especially Eve.

I think what most will get at is something that will be completely lacking in TESO. Persistent battles where the battles meant something and you were fighting for something. The way some of the games now have laid out PvP is more theme park design. Something you can get from playing a Call of Duty match, log out, and who cares. The impacts that RvR made in DAOC (When it actually was working correctly and up to ToA/New Frontiers) made an impact and emotional attachement to their faction and a reason to log in and "feel" the impact made on the world they were playing in.

A lot of that is lost in today's toolsets because accessibility takes the forefront. And that's a double edged sword. You either make content accessible for everyone, or you make players earn their way into the content and chase the carrot, which then gives more of a sense of belonging in the world and a purpose to the character they play.

The problem with DAOC and it's design wasn't that they didn't have good ideas, and they had good ideas with WAR too, it was the fact they couldn't deliver on a thing without having a major negative impact on something else that they should have had the foresight to see while going over the design docs. (Your post on mitigation)

Gecko_sl · May 3, 2013

Denaut_sl said:
The point I am trying to make is that games aren't the sum of their mechanics. Deep down there is something that differentiated DAoC from other games at the time or similar games now, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why, despite having almost your entire list, are Darkfall and Eve not your game? What is different about them and DAoC that they don't elicit the same response? Mechanically they are almost identical, especially Eve.

EVE is a completely different animal. Darkfall likewise does not promote group vs group combat and also is catering to a far different crowd than the DAOC RVR one. If you want me to simplify it more, EVE is a space based trading open world sandbox game. Darkfall just sucked. Something you won't see in any game since DAOC are small groups who knew and respected each other and spent as much time discussing their fights and fostering community as they did in game due to the nature of the design.

Psykels points are great, so I'll try not to repeat them.

DAOC arrived in 2001. Back then there were very few MMOs, I'm not sure if you were playing back then. This was long before WOW vanilla was released.

I was on Percival day one and still have a pretty good recollection of the game. As Ut mentioned, the game had a plethora of issues not limited to no diminishing returns on stuns, bugged Druid pets, left axe DPS issues, and the game was not itemized at the higher levels due to Mythic's belief they could roll out content incrementally and stay ahead of the game. It was pretty well understood Mythic was a small shop, which Ut also ignores in his attacks. The game also was rock solid upon release, unlike most other MMO game releases, such as Anarchy Online which was a travesty.

Even with the issues the biggest point isthe game was fun. The RVR design with theFrontierssetup was intriguing andpromoted group versus group combat, while having safe zones for PVE. There was significant danger, but you didn't have to abandon your PVE friends. The fact the game promoted groups meant that fights were not like EQ. Despite theclassissues, theirdesign had enough differentiation to make it by far the best class based system. Each had their own strengths and even the weakest had people who could do amazing things with them, such as the Albion Sorcerer.

The relic raids were a blast, even if they were technically challenged, and to this day blow away AOC. DAOC Frontiers remains in my opinion the best design for PVP in any MMO. WOW's PVP was not built with any actual valid group vs group combat in mind, but more to cater to casuals and arenas. This is the opposite of Frontiers which is pretty much your friends against the Midgard bad guys.

The realm setup was done in a way that while flawed fostered community. There is zero community in WOW or AOC.

Mythic were great at providing updates via their website, the Camelot Herald. They tried to balance as best they could but I think they were as overwhelmed initially as EQ was with the min/max potential of hard core gamers.

There definitely are some rose colored glasses, but Ut's approach ignores the many things DAOC did right. The only online game I've played longer than DAOC was EQ.

Denaut · May 3, 2013

Utnayan_sl said:
I think what most will get at is something that will be completely lacking in TESO. Persistent battles where the battles meant something and you were fighting for something. The way some of the games now have laid out PvP is more theme park design. Something you can get from playing a Call of Duty match, log out, and who cares. The impacts that RvR made in DAOC (When it actually was working correctly and up to ToA/New Frontiers) made an impact and emotional attachement to their faction and a reason to log in and "feel" the impact made on the world they were playing in.

A lot of that is lost in today's toolsets because accessibility takes the forefront. And that's a double edged sword. You either make content accessible for everyone, or you make players earn their way into the content and chase the carrot, which then gives more of a sense of belonging in the world and a purpose to the character they play.

The problem with DAOC and it's design wasn't that they didn't have good ideas, and they had good ideas with WAR too, it was the fact they couldn't deliver on a thing without having a major negative impact on something else that they should have had the foresight to see while going over the design docs. (Your post on mitigation)

The ironic part is that despite all of the strife, I am pretty sure pyksel, Grim, Gecko, others and I want the same kind of game, a game wherecommunityis the watch word. I wish, WISH I could get into Eve... but I just can't get past the moment-to-moment gameplay. It really bugs me that something seemingly so small in the grad scheme of things is keeping me from a game I know I would otherwise really enjoy.

Gecko_sl · May 3, 2013

Denaut_sl said:
The ironic part is that despite all of the strife, I am pretty sure pyksel, Grim, Gecko, others and I want the same kind of game, a game wherecommunityis the watch word. I wish, WISH I could get into Eve... but I just can't get past the moment-to-moment gameplay. It really bugs me that something seemingly so small in the grad scheme of things is keeping me from a game I know I would otherwise really enjoy.

I really like everything about EVEs design, since Privateer and Freelancer are two of my favorite games. EVE just is not fun to play. I don't like the Flight Modeling, and the gameplay.

Everquest had great community, but it's just not what many of us are looking for. It's more of a jingoistic, fun, Starship Troopers type of fun which DAOC nicely promoted. As in there are no dangerous classes, just dangerous people and by being one of them you can be infamous.

Pyksel · May 3, 2013

Denaut_sl said:
The ironic part is that despite all of the strife, I am pretty sure pyksel, Grim, Gecko, others and I want the same kind of game, a game wherecommunityis the watch word. I wish, WISH I could get into Eve... but I just can't get past the moment-to-moment gameplay. It really bugs me that something seemingly so small in the grad scheme of things is keeping me from a game I know I would otherwise really enjoy.

I too believe we want the same kind of game and being unable to get into the moment to moment gameplay is certainly one of the reasons I just couldn't get into Eve. I tried, boy did I try...multiple times as a matter of fact.

I think the bottom line is I have mmo fatigue and seeing this approach from Mark definitely rekindled some feelings that I haven't had for an mmo in quite some time. It's no more complicated than that and does me no good to try and convince anyone otherwise. I like a lot of his ideas, even his bat shit crazy stealth and camo ideas but the thing that really grabbed me was that he's trying to get back to the roots of focusing on the core RvR based gameplay that DAOC had. Is he just throwing out buzzwords that I want to hear with possible empty promises, absolutely! At least he's keeping it transparent and opening this up to communication and feedback from the folks that are supporting him. He's going about things much differently than I've seen other developers do for an MMO like this and that's the part that has enticed me.

Naturally I do have fears about the project; will it finish, how expensive will it end up being, what things will be compromised, can it deliver what's being promised, how much input will we really have as backers, etc. That's the risk that I am taking as a backer and trust me, once those forums open up I have a several page document outlining things I'd like to see but I'm no game developer so it's difficult for me to speak to the technical side of the inner workings of how one is made. That's why I think there's lots of value-add for those that are in the industry or have experience in it to put aside some of the differences to try and give it a chance and help make that game we're searching for. I know that's next to impossible to ask because it requires forgiveness and faith.

So what happens in the next 2 years is going to be interesting as this poses a high risk to permanently end his career in this space especially after putting this in the hands of backers to fund it. It's quite a bit of a different beast to drop $60 for a game vs. getting in on it from essentially the ground up.

General Antony · May 3, 2013

Fixed realm PVP is shit. A real PVP game should always have the ability to both group with and attack whomever you wish. And for political machinations and betrayal to actually have consequence, not winning must mean that you have lost something dear.

Utnayan · May 3, 2013

Gecko_sl said:
It was pretty well understood Mythic was a small shop, which Ut also ignores in his attacks. The game also was rock solid upon release, unlike most other MMO game releases, such as Anarchy Online which was a travesty.

You and I are on the same page more than you think. But I am sorry, I do not call a game which ships about 56% complete a solid launch. Could you play it? Yes. Just because I can log in doesn't make it a success. Anarchy Online also had a decent launch until the infamous patch 11 which completely broke everything.

I will agree with you that the infancy of the genre had a part to play with this. But it also set the stage to do the same damn thing and scapegoat to the "complexity" of the genre. Which frankly, bears SOME truth, but also bears a lot of bullshit. The games following shipped the same way because management pulling the trigger were told player leveling would stall advancement until development could add those features. And it never came true, because you know as well as I, we move past that faster than they can play catch up. It was 2 months post launch when all our guild could do was BAF trows in Spindehalla. I still remember seeing a boss mob in that dungeon, taking it down, and ... nothing dropped. Shit... Even EQ had this down. in vanilla. But we saw the same shit from them with cloth caps in expansions. Ship now, play later. (TM) That's considered a good launch? The entire end game non functional and all post 35 itemization and balance fucked? RvR completely fucked from a balance perspective, and the relic end game not finished? Today this would be akin to playing Bioshock Infinite and having everything crash to desktop after the Beach Boys theme.

They did with what they had, I get that. And maybe it wouldn't have been so bad had MJ not done the same fucking thing with a bankroll on the next game. Or have terrible design flaws in ToA and New Frontiers which destroyed what DAOC was actually good at. I don't ignore they were a small shop. What I also don't ignore is that instead of being transparent, they played the game everyone else did when the game was broken. This entire genre has been what ifs. And it has been like that because these same people make them, and in this case, it goes to a whole new level of facepalm.

I know where you are coming from. What I don't agree with is how it is being approached, how customers are now funding games through kickstarter where they shouldn't be, and the ultimate gripe of mine: If they cannot do this with millions of dollars thrown at them from a publisher, how the hell do you think they will be able to manage themselves without any reigns what so ever.

Publishers are good, and bad. Good in that they can fund, and keep people on track or they lose their jobs. Bad in that they sometimes can become victim to losing creative control. In this case, the creative control is a napkin. And the oversight is... no one.

Utnayan · May 3, 2013

pyksel_sl said:
So what happens in the next 2 years is going to be interesting as this poses a high risk to permanently end his career in this space especially after putting this in the hands of backers to fund it. It's quite a bit of a different beast to drop $60 for a game vs. getting in on it from essentially the ground up.

Careers never end here in this genre. They just find new homes. You know this.

Wait...

how expensive will it end up being,

Why do you care how expensive it will be?

At least he's keeping it transparent and opening this up to communication and feedback from the folks that are supporting him. He's going about things much differently than I've seen other developers do for an MMO like this and that's the part that has enticed me.

He SHOULD. You are fucking FUNDING IT. You should also ask HOW HE IS GOING TO IMPLEMENT IT. You are now the publisher. Ask the right questions to make sure your investment ships!

Camelot Unchained MMO

Trump's Staff

Molten Core Raider

shitlord

Musty Nester

Rasterizing . . .

N00b

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff

F16 patrolling Rajaah until he plays DS3

Rasterizing . . .

Trump's Staff

F16 patrolling Rajaah until he plays DS3

shitlord

Trump's Staff

shitlord

Rasterizing . . .

Vyemm Raider

F16 patrolling Rajaah until he plays DS3

F16 patrolling Rajaah until he plays DS3