The vision behind the Archaean Multiplayer Online World is to create a virtual life. The ability for a player to actually live an alter ego in a computer generated environment, a world set in an astonishing fantasy realm. The freedom to make his own decisions in life and not be guided by mechanics to be a certain way, do certain things or think certain ways. The freedom to become what he envisions in his deepest dreams; be it an innkeep, merchant, heroic warrior or commanding warlord of the undead. The ability to live within a world filled with things we cannot experience in the real life, a world that adapts and changes by your own actions...
Our team member Logan interviewed Alex Carlson "Userbusi", Lead Designer, and Thiago "Darien Kane" Moraes, Associate Producer and World Designer for Archaean. This is the first part of the interview, the second one will be published tomorrow.

U: Alex Carlson "Userbusi", Lead Designer

D: My name is Thiago "Darien Kane" Moraes, which is a very fun name to say out loud. I'm the Associate Producer and World Designer for Archaean.

Q: Is first person point of view fully supported?

U: Yes

Q: What things are being done to help the newbie? A tutorial like Everquest use to have, etc?

U: There will be a tutorial of sorts, if we can call it that. Character creation is in itself a tutorial in terms of basic interaction with the system, and an introduction to what is going on in the world and how. There will likely be a mix of graphical, textual, and interactive demonstration/information, even for subjects usually expressed only in literature like history, and social contexts.

D: Comparatively speaking, Archaean is taking the shape of an enterprise that is somewhat beyond the horizons of contemporary icons as far as depth, or sophistication, are concerned. So we don't feel we would do justice to these traits if we hid one of the most enjoyable stages of character development beyond an artificial agenda such as that of conventional tutoring. Instead, like Userbusi said, we will be enabling players to take certain tangents in the character creation routes available at world start. We're quite proud of the metaphysical backdrop we've engineered for Archaean, you see, because it is not just a hip storyline hook or a solution for resurrection courses, but instead something that underpins every stage of the experience called life -- and beyond.

Q: In one of your interviews, you had stated that PK'ers won't exist (in the classical sense) because anybody could kill anyone if they were lucky enough. [Exact quote from interview with Parasite X: "A newbie CAN in theory kill a master swordsman in battle - just drop a rock on his head at the right time when he's not wearing a helmet. :) Realism - REAL realism. That is the difference that will completely wipe out PK'ing." Other than that, will there be anything coded into the game to prevent PK'ers from becoming a problem?

U: At the time it was stated, that was Niklas's best understanding of the situation. It is an incomplete statement in isolation. Our current approach is much more holistic, where the statement still has some degree of merit when acting in conjunction with other factors. That said, the PvP in Archaean is not artificially regulated. Code enforced solutions are problematic in that conflict between two human people is extremely contextual, and requires a great deal of social interpretation. This sort of interpretation does not lend itself to well to programming in general, and thus the typical solutions are usually very simple like a on/off switch, on/off regions, level limits, etc... This is not to say that there are no other avenues in which to seek solutions.

But there are other options. It is not completely impossible to design the fundamental gameplay of the world to change player psychology to a degree. As an example, one of the reasons that PK tends to be so maligned is that those that practice it are usually experts compared to the layman. Its not always true, nor entirely that simple, but its a general trend and enough for this example. One of the ways to lessen this malady is to simply flatten the competency curve for PvP. As opposed to having the treadmill of fighting against AI monsters in brutal, lethal combat, have players duel each other in training arenas with pads and sticks. Granted its not as grand as slashing a minotaur with a glimmering blade, but the duelists have their own advantages. They are not fighting to the death, but for some other, more ambiguous prize like pride, entertainment, a bet, etc... And in the end, both duelists can enjoy the experience and walk home alive.

D: We've been hearing that a lot these days, "PvP is completely unrestricted", but a true change of approach entails a true change of perspective. After many a long sessions meditating on this issue, our designers have come to a state of mind where they no longer think in terms of 'combat' or in terms of 'war mode'. We see an axe swing as an axe swing, not as an attack -- if it hits a wooden trunk on its way, so be it. If it hits flesh and bone on its way, so be it. The result: the engine won't even be able to recognize a combat situation, much less take action to prevent/ modify it.

Q: Any sort of reputation system built into the game for NPC's? PC's? Is it possible for PC's to get bounties from a game mechanism to go hunt down other PC's who have been naughty?

U: As with PvP, 'bad' behavior is not explicitly coded against. Instead it is contextual. If someone witnesses an act, in theory they can pass that information on as well as a description. This description though, will most likely be a pseudo-description. Its unfeasible to try to pull off recognition through visual processing in this situation. Vision checks, clothing, etc... will have to be included through logistics.

As for bounties, there is no reason any NPC or PC can't place a bounty. But the ability for such an action should not be exclusively assign to one party or another.

D: In a world-system that prioritizes consequential change upon the recognition of player input, it is no surprise that reputation-related mechanics rest at the apex of the gaming experience, and thus of the designing process. I like to refer to our reputation system as a three-dimensional structure, in that it doesn't rely on linear measurements to determine polar reaction (the proverbial 'Adored' - 'Hated' scale). Instead, we have several situation-tailored meters that, when combined, constitute a multi-layer reputation. The result is what, hundreds, thousands of possible products, calculating an accurate architecture of your circumstantial notoriety, and drawing input from variables that range from cultural affinity and services to vocabulary and clothing.

Q: What elements are in place to stop me from buying 2 accounts, 1 Mr. Respectable, and 2 Mr. Reprehensible, and keep my "woods guy" out slaughtering everyone, and use my good guy to resupply?

U: Even if we did manage to, by some miracle, accomplish such a feat, it would not prevent a friend from assisting said troublemaker. Whether the assistance comes from a friend or a second account is practically a moot point, as all we would have accomplished was making a tiny speed bump that can be overcome with a phone call.

D: I've always been an advocate that the simplest left-brain logic is often key to resolving design impossibilities with no viable counters or mending. We realize mulling cannot possibly be decelerated, so instead of bending to adversity, we'll try working with it. If this method we are currently discussing comes to fruition, mulling just might wither to the point of extinction.

Q: Are there classes? If so, are they the standard fare (warrior, rogue, healer, nuker)?

U: None. However nothing stops anyone from playing such roles.

Q: From what I have read on the various interviews (no FAQ did I see on your web page...) this game seems to be a skill based game. Is there a ceiling in place, so I cannot become the "best at everything" and have very real trade offs to choose?

U: The best ceiling is time, as there is never enough. In the simplest case, skill can be considered like logarithmic curve. There is an immense reward for the small, initial investments. But with time it can take an incredible amount of work for a marginal return. Furthermore there will be a time based decay for skills. The effect is a cap which behaves like infinity. It exists someplace, but no one ever gets there. Thus even the greatest remain imperfect mortals. Tradeoffs are enforced through time as all players have only so much time to invest. But there are measures to ensure that the disparity in playing time does not place players on totally different ball fields.

D: We realize this line of answer is repeated left and right by virtually every designer who is asked this question, and two years later, boom, you have an ordinary roll-based system that was thought to succeed just because it had a slower increase rate. This isn't the case here. Explaining this in depth would require us to disclose vital components of our skill system we're not yet ready to release, but rest assured that we're not doubling or tripling the efforts of past systems -- we are tearing them down limb by limb and building a wholly new beast.

Q: Your interviews seem to reinforce that combat is purely a secondary thing, that this is a 'world' rather than just a leveling treadmill where combat is a necessity. In all MMOLG's (Massive Multiplayer Online Games) currently out, a sufficient application of force (i.e. killing everything) solves anything. How will Archaean get around that?

U: One counter-intuitive way of facing the said "sufficient force conquers all" is to remove the problem. Or in our case, the deceased never come back unless someone goes through the trouble of resurrecting them. And another step is to remove the reward. Archaean is not being designed to support or encourage any sort of combat themed treadmill. Random animals in the woods drop no 'loot' aside from their bodies, and zombies don't carry gold. There are no skill improvements to gain through killing that cannot be attained through non-lethal dueling between two players. And of course there is the fragile mortality of the character itself to consider.

D: Its not really that combat is a secondary thing; its just that it isn't compulsorily primary. The very ideal behind Archaean is that we won't flag this or that as primary or secondary or off-limits. So if you ask me if the ideal Archaean customer will play to bake bread or to crush, I'll say, you can play to crush bread if that's what you're after.

Q: How will skills be gained? (Point system? Skill use?) How fast? Will macros for really dull skills be provided?

U: Skills will grow through use, though no explicit feedback will be given to inform the player they are now more skilled. We intend to keep the development of a character ambiguous to some degree at all times. Speed is of course relative. As far as macros are concerned, we have not been able to determine whether they will even be necessary. We have a few special ideas on how to keep the player entertained and occupied even if the character itself is doing something rather borish while a script or behavior is running.

Q: Will PC tradesmen be forced to compete with NPC merchants?

U: Well, unless the world starts without a single merchant in existence, then the players must. The ratio and dynamics of NPCs and PCs in the game world will simply have to be studied, and if necessary the team may tweak the NPC merchants to better reflect the status of the market or world. I.E. if there are too many merchants, some should naturally leave the profession even before they start losing money. We don't assume that software will be able to interpret and implement this for us.

Q: Will better gear be dropped from monsters than what can be made?

U: Unless the said gear is a part of the creature's body, or its some kind of magical exception, then someone made it. (Obvious exception being all items NPC's possess when the gameworld opens. It would be funny if all of civilization just appeared one day with no clothes, nor homes, etc...)

D: I'd say that from a designer's standpoint, the answer is a categorical no. That would be a violation of our commitment to keep all and every game element within the potential reach of the character. >From a player's standpoint, the answer is a virtual yes. This is so because even though players will try and strive for an omnipresent hand at item production, the systems we'll have in place will prevent many, if not most items, from being created without product-specific apparatus, process-based refinement of resources, particular performance of composite operations, and more often that not, a quasi-scientific approach to technology. There are few instances when I like to compare Archaean with reality, and this is one of them -- how many objects do you come upon on the street that you can produce yourself?

Q: Will there be item degradation?

U: Yes.

D: I can't possibly envision anything resembling an economy if there wasn't!

Q: Can players design and build... A hovel, a house, a keep, a castle?

U: Assuming nothing goes wrong, almost all in-game architecture should be feasible through construction systems. There will likely be some exceptions. Really odd, or magical, or environmentally problematic structures may not be replicable.

D: Note that crafting systems are being designed from the smallest possible fractional levels up - that is, you bake fifty bricks, pile them up and call it a fort if you so wish. The corpuscular quality of some architectural systems is not particularly new in circles of discussion, and by now we've heard every possible con one may think up regarding this approach. We are studying solutions carefully, but in the end, free action will take precedence over minor hassles.

This interview will be continued tomorrow