Mythic-EA shuts down Warhammer beta, tells players to come back later

[Merusk]

"Community" of that sort in MMOs is for fuckers without friends, or people who want to enforce their way of seeing/ doing things across a wide swath.   Screw that, it's a game and a hobby, I don't need some council of asshats deciding how I should be doing things.  I'm much happier without "server community" in WoW than I ever was with it in EQ.  Micro-communities, AKA "guilds" and "friends lists" FTW.

That's been troubling me for years, glad I finally said it.

[BigBlack]

One issue regarding Halaa in WoW, for instance, is that the fundamental game rules have to be there for these things to work well.  In MMOs where players have more defensive and escape capabilities that allow them to survive a bunch of people chasing after them (i.e. being able to physically dodge projectiles, being able to portal around a lot), control of areas is a lot more fluid, and guerrilla tactics become a lot more effective.

In games with mezzes, roots, and stuns, with projectiles that you can't physically dodge, zerging becomes a lot more effective.

From my experience, this has a huge effect on the quality of PvP.  I see no reason to opt for a PvP system that allows the many to easily capture and defeat the few when they encounter them.

[HaemishM]

It's a large jump to say that WoW proved instanced PvP, when I played the instanced PvP in WoW was looked down upon by PvP veterans and was mostly just seen as another PvE grind for loot.

PVP vets are NOT the main audience. They are a niche. See Shadowbane for an example of a game that catered to them. They are not the mainstream. Sport PVP is for the mainstream. World PVP is not.

[Kaa]

In games with mezzes, roots, and stuns, with projectiles that you can't physically dodge, zerging becomes a lot more effective.

Well, not really. Mezzes, roots, and stuns (aka CC) is vital if a smaller group is to have the capability to defeat superior numbers.

As to WoW, it's heavily class-dependent. A coordinated group of rogues and druids can cause major havoc even in the face of overwhelming odds.

Halaa on my server, by the way, is usually not a big deal. Whoever wants it and can assemble a dozen people can usually take it easily enough. Nobody bothers to defend it unless they're completely bored.

Kaa

[Threash]

Halaa was only a big deal while people wanted the rewards, once the population outgrew them it simply became a matter of whoever felt like taking it could do it, solo even.  Another world pvp failure.

[Ningauble]

"Community" of that sort in MMOs is for fuckers without friends, or people who want to enforce their way of seeing/ doing things across a wide swath. 

Strange that I have the exact opposite reaction, and would rather compete alongside or against a much wider array of people, and I find that the "elite" guilds revel in the fact that they became arbitrators of who has access to end-game content and who doesn't.  At any rate the guild-oriented social structures are so ingrained into the culture of these games now that regardless of how the devs implement it they will exist, the question is will there be an alternative for people who don't want to or can't coordinate their play schedule around a tight-knit guild.

[Khaldun]

I love the idea of world PvP but it only makes sense in the context of a world-centered MMO rather than a character-centered one, an issue I know I harp on a lot. If the world is dynamic and linear in its dynamism (e.g., things change in response to player actions, and those changes don't automatically revert to some default state every time the server reboots or over a time cycle), then it's not such a big deal if another realm is more powerful than your realm, etcetera--because even that's going to produce some kind of interesting dynamic change in the world. I don't mind being the Rebellion as long as interesting new kinds of stories or actions open to me as the member of a small and embattled faction. If on the other hand, it's character-based, then logging in as the member of a small, embattled faction is like constantly revisiting a 4th grade playground to have your face shoved into the sandbox repeatedly by the local bullies. Nothing happens to the world: it only happens to you.

[Nebu]

World-centered pvp offers a few advantages over sport pvp to the casual player. 

1) The ability to overcome small group dominance with numbers.

2) A playground where the goals are constantly shifting.  In DAoC you would get very different pvp experiences nightly.  Keep takes to relic raids, skirmishes to tower capture, etc. 

3) Ability to solo, group, or zerg all with meaningful roles and outcomes.

People "like" sport pvp because it's what they're used to in fps games and WoW.  I think world pvp could become mainstream if the incentives were properly created to make it fun for all playstyles.  This is the area where Mythic fell short in DAoC, but I think they weren't far off.

[eldaec]

If you have PvE safe spots then ultimately all of your PvP areas are glorified battlegrounds as your opponents can quit fighting at any time and run back to Empire/Trammel/whatever.

I think you are misunderstanding the key feeatures of DAoC style RvR and why it is different from Guild Wars style sport instances. Apologies if you do understand and played DAoC.

DAoC RvR:

Large world area with scattered PvP objectives.
You fight over towers, keeps, resource points, choke points, relics kept in keeps, realm goals involve holding these objectives.
You fight or run away from whomever you come across in the process.
Ultimately the game is about an enormous bundle of cats trying to herd themselves toward some useful realm goal.
System is inherently inclusive in that the realm is always better off if you include more of the realm in any organised effort.
System is inherently more time consuming to play, but harder for uber teams to dominate.


Guild Wars Sport PvP:

Small instances with (usually pre-made) teams for fixed numbers.
Each instance is won or lost, and realm objectives involve stacking up wins, while avoiding losses.
You fight the specific team you matched against, having any level of intelligent team matching tends to be highly dependent on a large population to pick from. Something you don't really have in WAR since Mythic like to keep populations at around 2000 for community building reasons.
System is inherently exclusive, because players use up a resource by entering (spaces on team) and ante up realm victory points, meaning noob players entering the system actively drive the realm objectives backward.
System is inherently quicker and easier to start playing, but when it is the key achiever end game (like in Guild Wars and WAR, but not WoW) it is also much more likely to be dominated by uber teams.


The key last two points are why I'm all in favour of including sport pvp, but why I think the idea of making it the core RvR system is a bad one.


DAoC-style open RvR really doesn't play anything like Guild Wars or WoW instances.

[eldaec]

"Community" of that sort in MMOs is for fuckers without friends, or people who want to enforce their way of seeing/ doing things across a wide swath.   Screw that, it's a game and a hobby, I don't need some council of asshats deciding how I should be doing things.  I'm much happier without "server community" in WoW than I ever was with it in EQ.  Micro-communities, AKA "guilds" and "friends lists" FTW.

That's been troubling me for years, glad I finally said it.

While I have sympathy for that view in general, when talking about RvR systems, and in a thread like this, people need to give disclosure on whether they actually played DAoC to the end game before they say it.

DAoC actually acheived a sense of realm level community.

Almost no other MMOG I have ever come across has even tried to do so. (ATitD is the only one I can think of right now)

[Nebu]

It doesn't change the fact that DAoC-style RvR was still niche while GW and WoW-style pvp is more mainstream. 

I'm not sure what it would take to make RvR mainstream, but perhaps i's just not possible.  I prefer RvR to sport PvP, but it's easy to see that I'm in the minority.

[Sairon]

It's a large jump to say that WoW proved instanced PvP, when I played the instanced PvP in WoW was looked down upon by PvP veterans and was mostly just seen as another PvE grind for loot.

PVP vets are NOT the main audience. They are a niche. See Shadowbane for an example of a game that catered to them. They are not the mainstream. Sport PVP is for the mainstream. World PVP is not.

Niche perhaps, but loyal. iirc DAoC is still alive and kicking after all these years and it's not because of the causal PvP gamers. Also, there's no reason for why it would be impossible to create a world PvP environment where the causals can have fun to, perhaps not getting access to all the content but that have never been the case in any MMO ever anyway.

Labeling Shadowbane as a failure because it tried to do world PvP right is a bad example, that game failed mainly because of other things.

[Fordel]

It doesn't change the fact that DAoC-style RvR was still niche while GW and WoW-style pvp is more mainstream. 

I'm not sure what it would take to make RvR mainstream, but perhaps i's just not possible.  I prefer RvR to sport PvP, but it's easy to see that I'm in the minority.

It would take people figuring out why X realm ends up with more people, or better people or more dedicated people etc... Once you solve that (no idea how, it is obviously not a simple problem) you have to make sure all your sides are mechanically balanced (another not so simple thing) and that no one side is artificially, no matter how small, given an advantage. Then you have to ensure the side that wins doesn't always win and the side that losses doesn't always lose. In a way, you must reward failure and damn success, but not so much as to get people going "this is fucking stupid".

So yea, probably a dreamworld.

[Sairon]

It doesn't change the fact that DAoC-style RvR was still niche while GW and WoW-style pvp is more mainstream. 

I'm not sure what it would take to make RvR mainstream, but perhaps i's just not possible.  I prefer RvR to sport PvP, but it's easy to see that I'm in the minority.

If WoW would've had RvR instead of sport PvP it would be considered "mainstream". I think it's mostly a misconception created because of the fact that there's been no good MMO who has tried doing world PvP right for a very very long time. Not so long ago DAoC was one of the major games and it's pretty much centered around RvR.

[Kaa]

In the context of RvR did anyone try to do forced balancing?

What I have in mind is the situation when the game evaluates the strength of the sides in an RvR subzone (something along the lines of numbers x levels x gear) and then starts spawning NPC guards friendly to the underdogs. If reinforcements arrive and you're not underdogs any more, the guards despawn.

Kaa

[Nebu]

If WoW would've had RvR instead of sport PvP it would be considered "mainstream". I think it's mostly a misconception created because of the fact that there's been no good MMO who has tried doing world PvP right for a very very long time. Not so long ago DAoC was one of the major games and it's pretty much centered around RvR.

RvR doesn't fit with the feel of WoW.  I consider RvR a much more "sandbox" approach to pvp which is about as far from the more directed, linear feel of WoW as one could get.  Maybe I'm wrong, but the mainstream likes to be pointed in the direction of what's next.  DAoC (in its current form) is very much about getting a toon to 50 and geared in a couple of days so that you can spend months in the sandbox.  Though some days there's a fine line between an RvR sandbox and the sandbox my cats use. 

I may be giving Mythic too much credit, but one of the greatest aspects was that it was easy to join the losing realm if you enjoyed playing the underdog.  Having 3 realms to choose from gave the game a large amount of replay value.  In the latter days of the game, the price of rerolling in a new realm became so small for an established guild that it offered players the option to play in whatever realm tickled their fancy.  I guess that this draws a finer line between RvR and sport PvP since the barrier to entry became so small that hopping realms made the PvP experience more changeable.

[Arthur_Parker]

And EQ had very limited PvP because UO had few limits to PvP. Origin thought world PvP was a good idea right up until about a month after EQ launched.  :-D

I'm not interested in having an argument for the sake of arguing and the nested quotes my eyes, so sorry I'm not going to reply to all that.  I'm not championing world pvp, I'm pointing out the flaws in instanced pvp compared to world pvp.  In short, I think there's a middle ground between ganksville world pvp and instanced pvp and I suspect it's going to involve the old form of instancing, different server rulesets.

[Sairon]

If WoW would've had RvR instead of sport PvP it would be considered "mainstream". I think it's mostly a misconception created because of the fact that there's been no good MMO who has tried doing world PvP right for a very very long time. Not so long ago DAoC was one of the major games and it's pretty much centered around RvR.

RvR doesn't fit with the feel of WoW.  I consider RvR a much more "sandbox" approach to pvp which is about as far from the more directed, linear feel of WoW as one could get.  Maybe I'm wrong, but the mainstream likes to be pointed in the direction of what's next.  DAoC (in its current form) is very much about getting a toon to 50 and geared in a couple of days so that you can spend months in the sandbox.  Though some days there's a fine line between an RvR sandbox and the sandbox my cats use. 

I may be giving Mythic too much credit, but one of the greatest aspects was that it was easy to join the losing realm if you enjoyed playing the underdog.  Having 3 realms to choose from gave the game a large amount of replay value.  In the latter days of the game, the price of rerolling in a new realm became so small for an established guild that it offered players the option to play in whatever realm tickled their fancy.  I guess that this draws a finer line between RvR and sport PvP since the barrier to entry became so small that hopping realms made the PvP experience more changeable.

Before battlegrounds arrived there was the infamous tarren mill fights, and while they were laggy as hell due to WoW not really being designed for world PvP, a lot of people did find it a lot of fun even without any rewards. I agree that DAoC style RvR wouldn't fit in that nicely with the game, but I think there could've been room for an intresting world PvP lite system.

[Arthur_Parker]

DAoC succeeded because it ignored EQ and made pvp a central part of the game

How long did it take for DAoC to go from Launch to the beloved RvR people remember so fondly?

I hated the grind in DAoC and quit after the exp nerf, so I don't remember the RVR that fondly.  I was referring to the fact that DAoC was different enough from EQ in listed features to make it a success in terms of initial box sales.

[HRose]

It doesn't change the fact that DAoC-style RvR was still niche while GW and WoW-style pvp is more mainstream. 

The exact opposite.

DaoC's RvR (minus the grind) is far, far more accessible than GW PvP.

GW is more selective and exclusive. While in open world PvP everyone is integrated.

The difference is that one is mostly ignored, while the other has seen thousands of iterations. Just fewer risks because most of the work was done already.

It's not that one has more potential, it's just that big companies just don't want to take risks, so it's far easier to stick with the beaten path and don't try anything else. It's the one reason why games are so derivative, and it's not because anything else is going to work.

And till no one tries you can't say which one works best.

[Bunk]

I'll weigh in on the side of world pvp as my preference, as that debate seems to be what this thread has evolved in to. I understand the advantages of both, and don't have a problem with the plan to implement both in the same game. Generally though, I suck at pvp even if I do enjoy it, and that makes "sport pvp" pretty much a waste of my time.

I'm loath to drag AC1 Darktide in to the discussion, because of all of it's negative connotations, but it did have some things that worked. As someone above mentioned, open pvp areas work better when you are not dealing with stuns, roots, and everyone having the same run speed. It was effective to have little guerilla groups make hit and run attacks on enemy guildtowns in AC. In WoW, you're going to get rooted and run down as soon as you meet any real resistance.

Now we're not likely to get what we had in AC or UO pvp, because looting is gone the way of the dodo, and crowd control has been ingrained in to the diku mold now. So, how will it work?

Here's my armchair design for you all to pick apart:
 - multiple persistant zones that are open pvp, but are not required zones for those that wish to carebear or level
 - multiple targets or resources in each zone that offer a tangible benefit to those holding them
 - as one side holds a given target for an amount of time, progressively increase the pve resistance to that occupation, giving the losing side a better chance of being able to reclaim it. For example: lets say the Orcs take The Fort becuase they outnumber the elves 2 to 1. The Orcs will hold the fort a while due to numbers. Over a course of days, the nearby spawns of elf patrols will keep increasing and getting tougher, maybe they elf players can even direct some of these spawns at the fort at times. Eventually, the Elves should be able to take the fort, and despite having smaller numbers will be able to hold it a while due to the tougher elf spawns helping them. If the balance swings to far, the elf spawns will start dropping off and the Orc resistance spawns will start appearing to swing the balance again.

I have no idea if that would work, be fun, or be remotely tunable - but I felt like throwing it out there.

[eldaec]

It doesn't change the fact that DAoC-style RvR was still niche while GW and WoW-style pvp is more mainstream. 

I agree that noone can ignore the fact that sport pvp is easier to market, and in that sense is more mainstream.

I'm not convinced that it will retain your typical WoW graduate though.

It might well dig out it's own Guild Wars type demographic. But that wouldn't be any more mainstream than DAoC 2 would be able to retain.

How long did it take for DAoC to go from Launch to the beloved RvR people remember so fondly?

Well, right at launch everyone *really* loved rvr, becuase you didn't have to be level 50, and nobody knew wtf to do, so the opposition was likely to do random shit and give you opportunities to win.

Once the servers matured daoc had a real problem in how much grind you had to do to get to 50, that wasn't a fault in RvR per se, but must have lost Mythic a lot of subs from people who didn't have the patience to pve in order to get back the RvR game they had been playing when everyone was level 20.

[Venkman]

It's a large jump to say that WoW proved instanced PvP, when I played the instanced PvP in WoW was looked down upon by PvP veterans and was mostly just seen as another PvE grind for loot

How many people doing PvP in WoW were part of the "we want world PvP" crowd that preceded them?. WoW allowed more people to dabble in more engaging fights than anything that came before it, due mostly to the purpose of PvP in those earlier games. This is connected to the major growth games in this genre, the casualizing of it.

As has been said though, Arena PvP in WoW is different from BG PvP. But Arenas are the major leagues to BGs minor. And that's two of four completely realized endgames in WoW, rare for the genre. WoW does not have staying power because of just one thing.

And GW is different.

If WoW would've had RvR instead of sport PvP it would be considered "mainstream".

I think that's backwards. WoW didn't do RvR because they wanted to try to go more mainstream. Blizzard is first and foremost a bunch of gamers making the best playable game they can make.

2) A playground where the goals are constantly shifting.  In DAoC you would get very different pvp experiences nightly.  Keep takes to relic raids, skirmishes to tower capture, etc.

3) Ability to solo, group, or zerg all with meaningful roles and outcomes.

Both in WoW BGs as well. The only difference is that lack of persistence. But that's also the advantage. You may lose this fight but you might win the next one. How long did dominant forces in older-era DAoC servers remain such? And how much could players actually win on a personal level if they were never part of the winning team? In WoW, even the losers win.

And till no one tries you can't say which one works best.

Or you could say no one is trying because they think they know what works best already :)

[AcidCat]

I think any world pvp game should have 3 factions, which tends to be more upredictable and less likely to produce one uberfaction that dominates. I think this is a good choice that PlanetSide made.

[Nnyan]

While I can understand why anything that is not typical may be cause for concern to some people it seems that these people are not currently in the beta.  Everyone that I know that is in the beta (myself included) thinks that this is a good thing and are not worried at all.

@MarkJacobs  Thank you for your post and don't listen to the very vocal haters/doom and gloomers (who are in a minority).  Based on the early beta stage of WAR it's doing fine, and I can't wait to see the next stage of beta 2!

[schild]

While I can understand why anything that is not typical may be cause for concern to some people it seems that these people are not currently in the beta.  Everyone that I know that is in the beta (myself included) thinks that this is a good thing and are not worried at all.

@MarkJacobs  Thank you for your post and don't listen to the very vocal haters/doom and gloomers (who are in a minority).  Based on the early beta stage of WAR it's doing fine, and I can't wait to see the next stage of beta 2!

Please don't stalk devs to kiss ass.

It's fucking shameful.

[Typhon]

I played DAOC in the most successful PvP Midgard guild on our server.  If you weren't in a big guild your contribution was what our guild told you your contribution was in any engagement of any significance.  Being told what to do, whether you like it or not, is too much like a job for most casual people to tolerate.  The alternative, in world RvR, is to suck as an "R" (which means losing all the time).

So, barring someone coming up with some ingenious new type of gameplay there are a couple of choices

• take orders and win (and put up with the egos of the leaders of big guilds who get confused about how important they are)
• run around like chuckle-heads and lose
• play sport PvP

Of course the same rules apply to sport PvP as well, but now that WoW has segregated ordered-sport-PvP from casual-sport-PvP everyone will attempt to adopt the same model because if you aren't catering to the casuals, you hat isn't made from money.

For the record, I had alot of fun in DAOC while it lasted.  Also for the record, I don't think I'll ever join a big guild again - games should not be like jobs and I won't kiss some petty tyrants ass to go on this PvP raid or that one.

[AcidCat]

Everyone that I know that is in the beta (myself included) thinks that this is a good thing and are not worried at all.

Well, I would counter that by saying that people I know who are in the beta do think it is a good thing, but are still quite worried about what the final product will be like.

[Nebu]

I would say that people both of you know in the beta should respect the NDA that they agreed to. 

[BigBlack]

In games with mezzes, roots, and stuns, with projectiles that you can't physically dodge, zerging becomes a lot more effective.

Well, not really. Mezzes, roots, and stuns (aka CC) is vital if a smaller group is to have the capability to defeat superior numbers.

Well, not necessarily.  In a game where player skill plays a big factor, and where there's an emphasis on defensive capabilities, a smaller group should be able to fight effectively through attrition -- take out one or two guys from the attacking force, and then retreat before they can inflict losses on you.  The key is making it far easier to attack an aggressive player than to attack is a fleeing player.

Also, it's pretty hard to add twitch skill into the mix when you have a skill that freezes someone into place.  For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of allowing many AOEs in a PvP environment for this same reason.  Or having distinct, separate classes to where you need to have an interlocking 'team' with distinct roles like CC, nuker, tanker, etc.  I think those sort of systems work better in PvE.

[Kaa]

Well, not necessarily.  In a game where player skill plays a big factor, and where there's an emphasis on defensive capabilities, a smaller group should be able to fight effectively through attrition -- take out one or two guys from the attacking force, and then retreat before they can inflict losses on you.  The key is making it far easier to attack an aggressive player than to attack is a fleeing player.

I don't really think so. The larger group can inflict attrition losses quicker and easier through focus fire. Even if it's hard to catch/attack a fleeing player, once your smaller group stops for any offence, it becomes vulnerable.

Also, it's pretty hard to add twitch skill into the mix when you have a skill that freezes someone into place.  For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of allowing many AOEs in a PvP environment for this same reason.  Or having distinct, separate classes to where you need to have an interlocking 'team' with distinct roles like CC, nuker, tanker, etc.  I think those sort of systems work better in PvE.

Skill is not the same as twitch. I play Unreal Tournament for twitch and I play MMORGs for slower pace of fighting and tactics. If you want to rely on twitch skill and don't want classes to specialize and depend on each other, I suspect you're looking for an FPS.

Kaa

[eldaec]

As has been said though, Arena PvP in WoW is different from BG PvP. But Arenas are the major leagues to BGs minor. And that's two of four completely realized endgames in WoW, rare for the genre. WoW does not have staying power because of just one thing.

I agree completely, and contend that by making sport pvp the 'real' end game and primary realm war driver in WAR, Mythic are making their sport pvp into arenas or guild wars, not WoW BGs.

Sport PvP for dabbling is absolutely an accessible way to allow people to play quick and dirty pvp without the cat herding overhead of real RvR.

It's only when Sport PvP is the achiever end game, that the exclusivity problems kick in.

My only concern here is that Mythic have open RvR as the low impact area to mess around in, sport pvp as the primary achiever/end game system. It should be the other way around.

[eldaec]

I think any world pvp game should have 3 factions, which tends to be more upredictable and less likely to produce one uberfaction that dominates. I think this is a good choice that PlanetSide made.

I tend to agree, and find it bizarre that most WAR forums seem delighted about the 2 realm thing for balance reasons.

WAR seems to solved the balance problem the same way as WoW. As far as I can tell, the 2 realms have the same 12 classes copy/pasted with alternate art. (not in beta, so it might just be that the descriptions sound identical).

[Megrim]

Well, not necessarily.  In a game where player skill plays a big factor, and where there's an emphasis on defensive capabilities, a smaller group should be able to fight effectively through attrition -- take out one or two guys from the attacking force, and then retreat before they can inflict losses on you.  The key is making it far easier to attack an aggressive player than to attack is a fleeing player.

I don't really think so. The larger group can inflict attrition losses quicker and easier through focus fire. Even if it's hard to catch/attack a fleeing player, once your smaller group stops for any offence, it becomes vulnerable.

Also, it's pretty hard to add twitch skill into the mix when you have a skill that freezes someone into place.  For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of allowing many AOEs in a PvP environment for this same reason.  Or having distinct, separate classes to where you need to have an interlocking 'team' with distinct roles like CC, nuker, tanker, etc.  I think those sort of systems work better in PvE.

Skill is not the same as twitch. I play Unreal Tournament for twitch and I play MMORGs for slower pace of fighting and tactics. If you want to rely on twitch skill and don't want classes to specialize and depend on each other, I suspect you're looking for an FPS.

Kaa

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

oh lawd

[HRose]

- as one side holds a given target for an amount of time, progressively increase the pve resistance to that occupation, giving the losing side a better chance of being able to reclaim it.

No need for PvE.

Using PvE to balance PvP is a bad idea because players don't want to engage one to enjoy the other. In general they prefer that PvP is under their control more than a spawn system (Wish had a similar idea, btw).

You can balance territory control by using the mechanic of the rubber band. My old idea for DAoC is that defense resources are a fixed number. The more territory you control, the more you have to spread thin these resources, so showing vulnerabilities.

In DAoC you upgrade keep levels. In my idea keep levels are a pool of points that you distribute on your number of keeps. The more the keeps, the weaker they have to be.

So the more territory you control, the harder will be to defend it. Giving the losing faction a progressive advantage as they can "hit and run" till you have to retreat.