WAR - another newsletter - more RvR, less sport PvP

[eldaec]

Podcast 14:
http://mythicmktg.fileburst.com/war/us/media/flash/pp_RvR-Changes_BR1000.html

This video talks in more detail about the RvR changes trailed previously. As far as I can see it's all good news, though nothing too surprising after the announecments last month.

Grab Bag #21

Q: Are there any plans for abilities (either core or purchased) to impact non-combat game play? Abilities such as: (non-combat) travel enhancements, group assembly abilities, downtime reduction abilities, and other beneficial abilities to make the out-of-combat experience more fun?

A: We've absolutely discussed and looked at non-combat abilities, but combat-based abilities are a notably higher priority. We'd certainly like to flesh out ability lists with non-combat / utility / "flavor" items, but in a world at war, keeping the player alive and taking down some other poor sod have to be our primary focuses for now.

Q: 20+ abilities per career is a little low for a game of this size, but as long as there are 20+ different abilities, I guess I would be happy. I hope there's no fire1, fire2, fire3 type thing going on here…If the number is in fact 20 (not saying it is), that's only 5 base/core ability's and 15 ability's gained from spec? Or from spec, morale, and tactics combined?

A: Players will NOT be purchasing the same ability over and over and only getting rank 1, 2 and 3 versions of it. Each career will end up with around ~20 guaranteed unique actions between core and base abilities. After that, they can purchase additional supplemental abilities which will increase the player’s total number of abilities by about 10-25%, depending on how you choose to spend your mastery points. Overall we expect most players to have somewhere in the mid to high 20’s of action activates (this does not include Morale).


Q: Going by DAoC's specing rules (and it seems that this is the way you guys are describing it) the more we spec in X line, the base spells of X line get better. If X line has a CC spell, by increasing the spec of X, will it make the duration of the CC last longer like it does in DAoC?

A: When you increase your mastery, you'll “generally” see values increase, not time factors. In other words, the amount of hit points returned by a heal-over-time would increase, but the duration would likely remain the same. For effects like CC, it's not likely that you'll see direct increases to the time, but other aspects may increase (for example, a melee attack which stuns would keep the same stun duration, but the damage from the melee hit would keep on increasing). This is not to say we won’t consider increasing duration values, but we are starting with other aspects of the abilities first.

Q: I can understand how hard it would be to create several hundred skills and make them at least semi-original, but is there any fear of funneling people into taking those "cookie cutter" tree specs?

A: Well, here's the thing: we're fully aware that someone, somewhere, will sit down and write up a multi-page dissertation with graphs and numbers to "prove" that one specific mastery layout is "the best", and word-of-mouth will result in lots of people using that layout (for a few weeks, anyway, until the process repeats again). It's simply human nature, and that's fine. The Careers and Combat team's goal, however, is to ensure that every mastery layout is viable and functional, and suited to someone's play style. Trying to fight against the players who are going to actively go looking for "cookie cutter" layouts is fruitless (and as vocal as they may be on forums, they're honestly the minority). Instead, we're simply making sure that every decision is usable, even if it’s not optimal. We’ll constantly be adjusting each of the lines from Beta until the game shuts down in 3011. Also, depending on the type of situation and the current stage of balance, different builds will be considered “cookie cutter” for min/max players. There is very little we can do about that; it’s the inherit flaw in having specialization systems in general, and the primary reason we allow for respec.

Q: Will there be a situation where a gained Mastery ability is clearly superior to a baseline ability, be it through more damage or the same damage with added effects, or same damage with less energy, and so forth. Basically will (certain) mastery abilities replace the existing baseline abilities, or are they intended to be supplementary abilities?

A: The supplemental abilities are exactly that, they supplement the core and base ability set, and are not meant as replacements for those abilities. If they were simply replacements, then they'd essentially be "Smash Rank 2", and that's no fun. =) The supplemental abilities from any given mastery will generally be things that help focus the career more towards the theme of that mastery, provide new tools relating to that mastery, or open up more options for the player. One thing to note is that you might get, say, a heal or a nuke that is a lot better then your base one. However, it may have a longer cool down timer, or require the target to be below 50% health, etc., so it doesn’t just replace your defaults.

Q: Will there be any ways to get mastery points besides leveling up? Maybe add in a few quests throughout the world that let you get extra mastery points or for some other achievements, as well?

A: For now, you'll only gain them via increasing your rank. More than likely, you’ll never get additional mastery points outside of leveling. RvR and Tome rewards have their own ways of increasing player power beyond masteries.

Q: Will there be gear with + to masteries? Will masteries be able to go over level (or whatever they are capped at if it's not equal to level), with appropriate scaling in the power of skills?

A: The system has been designed to allow for flat bonuses to mastery level or bonuses to individual ability levels via items and item set bonuses. How far we take this has yet to be determined.

Q: Will players be able to access individual skills that must usually be purchased within masteries without investing points in that skill, such as through the use of items that have a + to that skill (similar to Diablo)?

A: No. If we hypothetically grant that you'd be able to increase your mastery level without investing points, you wouldn't gain access to supplemental abilities which would otherwise still be locked.

Q: Will all masteries for all classes be meaningful choices, or will there be some classes where the choices between masteries are along the lines of "sword, axe, or hammer", with just marginally different style effects?

A: The masteries all focus around the question of, "how do you want to play this character?", and are meaningful and impactful decisions. The difference between using a sword, axe, or hammer is fairly cosmetic. An example in terms of masteries might be closer to "defensive abilities with a one-handed axe and a shield, versus offensive abilities with a great sword, versus positional attacks and debuffs with hammers".

Q: Do individual skills within each mastery have multiple tiers as well? For example, if under "fire mastery" you have a supplementary skill called "fireball", could you put multiple points in this skill to make it more powerful, or do you just put a maximum of one point into any given skill, and then boost its power through raising the mastery?

A: The latter. You only need a single point to unlock an ability, and then it scales along with your rank and mastery.

Q: Will masteries contain anything besides actions, tactics, and morale? For example, any background/passive boost effects?

A: The supplemental abilities are currently a mix of actions, tactics, and morale. Remember tactics really are the major passive boosts in the game; you have the flexibility to adjust them on the fly instead of having to go respec your character to change them.

[Kirth]

Open world RvR getting more focus then instanced stiff, sounds interesting.

[tazelbain]

Impressive

[Morfiend]

I'm am still waiting on word on what the state of CC is going to be in PVP. It ruined DAoC PVP for me and a few of my friends, I really hope they go with "less is more". And for god sake, no AE Mez, ugh. If you have to do AE CC make it PBAE like in WoW.

[BigBlack]

To me, it's all about whether there's a CC class. CC class = constituency for more CC = game goes down the shitter. More open-world RvR is a good sign.

[Flinky]

http://mythicmktg.fileburst.com/war/us/media/flash/careermastery_BR1000.html

Podcast about the Mastery system. Small segment specifically about how they're dealing with CC, to quote;

"One thing we're trying to avoid with Casters in general is a Mastery focused around crowd control"

[eldaec]

To me, it's all about whether there's a CC class. CC class = constituency for more CC = game goes down the shitter. More open-world RvR is a good sign.

The stuff on the website suggests that CC is seen as a tank responsibility, the elf and orc tanks seem to have melee cc capabilities, plus collision detection makes tanks able to do CC in a much more balanced way than aoe-sleep could ever achieve.

This seems eminently sensible to me. In PvE tanks have always been cc classes through their aggro management tools, this keeps the PvE and PvP roles more joined-up.

[waylander]

I liked DAOC's open RVR system, but I do think there is a place for instanced PVP in this game.  I also don't mind the 20 abilities because the game only has what...40 levels or something?

The deal maker or breaker for me is going to be how fast the character advancement is, and how easy it is to solo or exp in small groups. If I need to reroll a new class that my guild needs in RvR or reroll due to a future nerf, a boring PVE grind would more likely make me quit than reroll.

Also RVR has to mean something in this game.  DAOC RvR, while fun, just never seemed like it mattered and no one really cared about relics after you captured them a few times. I'll keep my eyes on Warhammer, and hope that its more than DAOC reskinned with a WoW interface.

[Lounge]

If they implement a system of RvR similar to Daoc before ToA hit i'll be all over it.

I much prefer the battleground system they had vs instancing.  I much prefer the persistent goal based pvp they had with the battlegrounds, compared to the instanced stuff i did in WoW.  I'm also hoping they do something similar to Darkness falls where territory control in the open world is used to determine access.

[Kirth]

I never played DAoC but I did play AC Darktide and WoW pre honor system. That was fun PVP for me, out in the world never knowing who or what you will encounter or fighting over a objective (Southshore vs TM) so this 'open world RvR' they are talking about sounds really interesting. PvP in WoW lost its luster for me when Battlegrounds came out. 

[Simond]

If they implement a system of RvR similar to Daoc before ToA hit i'll be all over it.

I much prefer the battleground system they had vs instancing.  I much prefer the persistent goal based pvp they had with the battlegrounds, compared to the instanced stuff i did in WoW.  I'm also hoping they do something similar to Darkness falls where territory control in the open world is used to determine access.

Yes, because encouraging more people to join the already-dominant team is surely the way forward. 

[tazelbain]

The DF mechanic returning in WAR has been confirmed.

[Nebu]

Yes, because encouraging more people to join the already-dominant team is surely the way forward. 

One of the interesting things about DAoC is that is occasionally ran counter to this.  With incentives for enhanced rp's and faster leveling, many people were happy to switch realms and play the underdog.  I think it's up to how the developers operate the scheme that will determine success or failure.  If there's an incentive to play the underdog, I'm sure that many players will be all over it. 

[IainC]

Agree with Nebu. The more competitive players tend to prefer the underpopulated side as there was less competition for RPs. If you played an overpopulated side like Albion in DAoC, you'd mostly see allies and the few enemies that you met would be jumped on by all those allied players you'd been tripping over. For the underpopulated side, getting zerged into oblivion from time to time was a small price to pay for having a target rich environment.

[sam, an eggplant]

I'm impressed by EA's willingness to turn on their heels in the middle of heavy development and stop beta for a couple of months to so fundamentally retool gameplay. They're taking a lesson from EQ2 -- it simply doesn't matter how much your title improves over time. Nobody cares. Only the release matters; get it right or you lose.

[waylander]

Being on the underpopulated side can suck though, and its not all gravy for competitive guilds who go to the low pop realm. I played DAOC twice (Merlin at release, and Gareth up to the Mino Expansion).  On Merlin the three sides were fairly even while I played, but on Gareth the Hibs were just so massive that they rolled the other two factions combined.  Skill could only compensate for being outnumbered by 2-1 odds, but once the odds became 3-1 or greater you just got steamrolled each time you hit the zerg.

If the PVE isn't bad people may switch, but if leveling is a pain in the ass then you'll just see the perceived "leet realm" continue to grow.

Not sure how CC works in Warhammer, but it was easy to get around in DAOC if you had a skilled group.

[tazelbain]

Retooling seems like a stretch because they didn't put in any effort into World RvR.  It was just a bunch of control points to play tag with.  No wonder people hated it.  Of course since the beta is filed Mythic Employees and fans of DAoC, "control point tag is boring" gets translated to "keeps please."

Also "percieved value of World RvR" vs "fun-factor of control point tag"  are seperate issues.  If they had jacked up the victory points in World RvR, control point tag would still have sucked but at least people would have played it rather than ignore it.

We had some advancement in MMO-PVP since DAoC.  I know making RvR with strategic depth is hard, but can we at least get past mindlessly beating on doors? Please EAM, that one little favor for me.

[eldaec]

We had some advancement in MMO-PVP since DAoC.

I can only really think of EVE? Which isn't that relevant.

I know making RvR with strategic depth is hard, but can we at least get past mindlessly beating on doors? Please EAM, that one little favor for me.

The idea of having the tag points outside the keep debuff the defences made some sense in this area, any may help encourage realms to coordinate over multiple objectives (which several here have suggested as 'a good thing').

Personally I never played a tank, so mindlessly beating on doors wasn't something I ever experienced in daoc. But I do agree that it's a concern that in daoc people could feel sucked into that approach if they didn't choose to operate siege equipment, or carry a secondary ranged weapon, or have the ability to heal, or block the reinforcement route, or play a wall climbing class, or go cap the surrounding towers to make the capture easier. I'd be interested to know what people feel melee based classes should be doing in a siege if not one the above?

[Nebu]

We had some advancement in MMO-PVP since DAoC.

I can only really think of EVE? Which isn't that relevant.

Shadowbane & Planetside come to mind as well.

[eldaec]

I have trouble thinking of Shadowbane as advancement.

But Planetside has some interesting mechanics for keep capture which stop things flip flopping too fast and push as many players as possible onto the same keeps.

Plus it had Mosquitos. They were all kinds of awesome.

All MMOGs should have atmospheric flight and Mosquitos imo.

[Falconeer]

I have trouble thinking of Shadowbane as advancement.

How can you say that? It's a 2003 game and it still has the best "meaningful PvP" ever conceived and implemented in a MMO.

[IainC]

Of course since the beta is filed Mythic Employees and fans of DAoC, "control point tag is boring" gets translated to "keeps please."

Incorrect. I don't have access to demographic info from the US beta but ex DAoC players make up less than half the numbers for the Euro beta.

[BigBlack]

I think Mythic's biggest problem here is that they seem to be going with a "fixed homeland" system, whereby you're fighting over the border regions and all, but your Home Base is yours, period.  If you can't displace your enemy -- to where they end up in the hills as partisans, for instance -- what's the point?

The second big problem is hard-coding the teams, rather than letting people form their own alliances, betrayals, and intrigue as they see fit.

An 'alternate ruleset' server that fixed these problems, a-la AC Darktide, would probably eclipse the main servers in popularity.  Mordred and Andred had some potential to do that for the original DAoC, before they succumbed under the weight of the game's colossally, fundamentally fucked game design.

[eldaec]

It's a way of keeping score.

There is no more or less 'point' than there would be if you could occupy the noob grounds and kill trainers all day.

But there is much less capacity to make the game unplayable for new and casual players this way.

[Dash]

I think Mythic's biggest problem here is that they seem to be going with a "fixed homeland" system, whereby you're fighting over the border regions and all, but your Home Base is yours, period.  If you can't displace your enemy -- to where they end up in the hills as partisans, for instance -- what's the point?

It's like any other game, you play til someone "wins" then play again.  You dont need to try and fight back once your King is in checkmate.  Win in this scenario being defined as burning the other teams home city to the ground and getting various perks.  At least from what I've read.  I'm not in beta.

The second big problem is hard-coding the teams, rather than letting people form their own alliances, betrayals, and intrigue as they see fit.

An 'alternate ruleset' server that fixed these problems, a-la AC Darktide, would probably eclipse the main servers in popularity.  Mordred and Andred had some potential to do that for the original DAoC, before they succumbed under the weight of the game's colossally, fundamentally fucked game design.

i.e. full non-consentual pvp.  Hopefully someone makes that game for you or an alternate rules server of this game, or play EVE or the like.

[BigBlack]

EVE has it right in so many ways.  Too bad the core gameplay dynamics suck (IMHO).

[Ratman_tf]

I think Mythic's biggest problem here is that they seem to be going with a "fixed homeland" system, whereby you're fighting over the border regions and all, but your Home Base is yours, period.  If you can't displace your enemy -- to where they end up in the hills as partisans, for instance -- what's the point?

The second big problem is hard-coding the teams, rather than letting people form their own alliances, betrayals, and intrigue as they see fit.

An 'alternate ruleset' server that fixed these problems, a-la AC Darktide, would probably eclipse the main servers in popularity.  Mordred and Andred had some potential to do that for the original DAoC, before they succumbed under the weight of the game's colossally, fundamentally fucked game design.

It's kind of like WW2OL. You win, and then the game resets... what's the point? All the territory gained and lost is now forfeit.

The point is that unless you want to shut your servers down, every MMOG has to define where the reset line is. DAOC set it at the frontier borders, for example.

And while it would be interesting to see factionalization in WAR, it doesn't really fit the lore and setting. (setting aside fluff rationalizations for same side conflict... which is about tournament play rationalization more than setting...)

In short, you're not decribing the Warhammer setting.

[Jayce]

EVE has it right in so many ways.  Too bad the core gameplay dynamics suck (IMHO).

I haven't read all your posts, but every one I've read so far indicates that something sucks.  Is there anything you find acceptable?

I guess this is off-topic and pretty ad hominem, but I'm trying to figure out whether you have something to say that I should pay attention to or whether you're another one of the everything-sucks crowd.

[Merusk]

He loves AC, Darktide.  That's all he loves.  He's worse than WUA or Hoax when talking about MMOs and that says a lot.

[Righ]

Haha. WUA and Hoax got used as yardsticks for Hyu. Poor bastards. 

[waylander]

Mordred and Andred sucked because premade groups constantly ran through and killed people who were respawning at the bind stone in town. Groups tore through the towns because that's where they knew the players were most easily found. People got tired of that and quit, so the server populations tanked.

When designing an FFA PVP environment you always need to provide some safe havens for people, and provide them with enough resources to continue the war.  Modred/Andred failed to do this, AC Darktide, and Shadowbane failed to do this.  As a result all three of those environments tanked.

[Hoax]

Haha. WUA and Hoax got used as yardsticks for Hyu. Poor bastards. 

 

I blame sandy vagina syndrome from the RMT thread considering the source.

[Jayce]

Oh, BigBlack is Hyu?  Damn, I need to update my scorecard.

It all makes sense now.

[Merusk]

Haha. WUA and Hoax got used as yardsticks for Hyu. Poor bastards. 

 

I blame sandy vagina syndrome from the RMT thread considering the source.

 

No, sport.  You and WUA have some genuine insight from time to time but are still fairly limited and predictable when you pipe up.  However, you're still more valuable than the 'AC darktide was the only game that didn't suck' boy.

[Hoax]

I'd be less limited and predictable if I didn't have to repeat them same shit over and over.  Its not my fault that I'm still right and most of you still don't get it.   

Nice use of sport there though champ.