Tactica Online from Imaginary Numbers

[schild]

How often do I post about a new MMOG with any sort of excitement? Not often.

How often does a new MMOG come out that's a turned based strategy? Never. Will, not yet at least.

I've read through the website, located here, and I'm hoping someone who is more in the know on this subject can clue me in a bit.

I've been hard up for a TBS MMOG for a long time, and what I'm seeing, I like. There's something Magic: The Gathering about army building and the lack of class restrictions and other little bits give it a more arcadey feel than I would expect. Anyway, yea, I'm tired, but I'm posting this hoping all of you crazy cats can create some interesting discussion around this game.

Do you all want me to request an interview? Or maybe force the sneaky devs from Imaginary Numbers who read f13 to start posting?  I seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee you.  Anyway, someone here went to E3 and saw this, I'm sure. Right? Ok. Going to sleep now.

Edit: Also, from the looks of the FAQ and Features sections, it doesn't look like they're aiming to do more than feasible, like say Mourning, or uhm, Roma Victor.

[Dren]

I have no insider poop, but that looks really fun.  It does look like a 3d Magic the Gathering type game and I'm all for that.  The skill point system looks very interesting.  The guild structure might actually be worthwhile to partake in if you can seriously pool resources and even trade characters to build up unique and powerful team depending on your strategies/tactics.

Even if the graphics were subpar, I'd be interested in this type of game.  I'm imagining playing a game of Magic where you can develop each card to be a specific type/power/comination all on their own.  Then, you combine each of those "cards" into a powerful "deck" with a specfic strategy in mind.

I'd be interested in the details of how they do turn based with multiplayer.  I'm guessing there will still be a timer on each turn to make sure the action progresses along.

I'm also guessing this will be a MMOG along the lines that GW is a MMOG.  There will be huge 3D chat rooms where people can set up tournaments or single matches through some other system of "matchmaking."  I'd be happy with that, but I'd be interested in the details here too.

[HaemishM]

Yeah, this sounds like a Guild Wars type of situation, with hub areas where many people are, but with private areas where the combat takes place. I'd certainly be interested in this game, just on reading the FAQ. We need some TBS.

[Soukyan]

Looks quite interesting. They're using the Gamebryo engine (formerly NetImmerse) which is the same that DAoC uses. Ironically, they are also using the SpeedTree engine for their foliage (DAoC among others also uses this technology). So, what it appears is that they have a solid engine framework to build upon, what sounds like a solid gameplay plan and an enticing economic plan (for consumers). What remains is to find out what network technology they plan on using. Battle.net and Arena.net seem to have no problems. I would hope that they would use something similar to Guild Wars for content distribution - stream down more content as you play, dynamically load content as needed, stream new content while you play.

It definitely looks like something you should keep your eye on. An interview with them might be interesting closer to beta/release as they may be willing to expound more upon the game and provide more information once the game has solidified in implementation.

[WayAbvPar]

No leveling up required before you can compete, and no treadmill you have to endure before you get to the good parts!   

You had me at no leveling up required...

It sounds pretty interesting. An interview would be cool. Holla at us if you get a time set up so we can feed you some questions.

[Viin]

There's a Q&A from MMORPG.COM about this game:

In typical MMOs, players often become quite attached to their character as an individual. In single-player RPGs, players often become attached to a central character, while developing relationships with the other characters who join them. How do you believe the “group character” so to speak, of Tactica Online will impact player’s personal attachment to their characters and socialization within the game world?

Luke Carruthers:   

We do expect that players will treat most of their characters more like chess pieces than avatars though. They won’t form the same attachment to them, and it’s likely that it’s the external aspects of their persona – their rating, their titles, their impact upon the world around them – that will be important to them.

Players do have something of a central character though, which embodies them when they move around the shared areas of the game. They can customize this character to their hearts content, so their interaction with other players, and their participation in the game’s community, will be very similar to other online games, with the addition that there are lots of features – such as being able to teleport instantly to friends, wherever they are – specifically designed to enable you to play with the people you want to, when you want to.

Attachment to an avatar is often quoted as a reason players stay with a game long past the time they’ve ceased to enjoy it. We’d much rather they stayed around because they were still enjoying the game.

MMORPG.com reader Cridus wanted to know more about how terrain, formation and other factors will impact combat, as well as the level of technology present in your world. Will things like gunpowder be a part of Tactica Online?

Luke Carruthers:   

Muskets and black powder pistols are a component of every modern knight’s armory, and with the help of the alchemical sciences most guns can use much more than simple gunpowder to fire their bullets. A knight must be prepared for arcane mixtures that enable shot to explode on impact, or bullets that seek their targets like vengeful ghosts.

Similarly, while a simple soldier might not be expected to understand the use of terrain in warfare, the skilled tactician will make good use of factors such as water, cover, flanking, and fields of fire.

Don’t forget too, Tactica Online’s combat is all about skirmishes between small groups, and that rather than rough control of a group of units, you have total control over a unique group of individuals. There’s no “I should position my archers on the hillside so they have a longer range,” but instead “Johann, with his musket, should stick to the trees where he can take advantage of the cover to snipe at the enemy without being seen.”

Missions take place in darkened dungeons as often as open wilderness, city streets, the decks of a ship, or the hidden temples of a heretical sect, so there are different tactics suitable to different types of terrain, and different ways that one character might best be used on different maps.

My question is related to 'meaningful PvP', by that I mean, will we have player ran / controlled cities or capture points? Will their be quests that each of the factions come at from opposing angles? Such as perhaps the followers of faith wishing to protect a 'holy' relic, those of the magic path wish to use it as a spell focus, while those of the science wish to discover what makes it tick, etc. In short, will there be more to PvP than a simple 'because-you-can' mentality?

Luke Carruthers:   

Absolutely, the conflict between magic, science, and faith drives every level of the game, from individual missions to the overall story. Most missions have at least two angles to them – assassinate or protect the inventor, destroy the blasphemous tome or revel in the knowledge of the ancients – and in Tournaments an individual’s efforts make a direct difference on a major level to the game’s story.

The real meaning to PvP comes in the way that every single one of your victories contributes to the balance between the factions, though. The more successful you are, the more that the ongoing story will favor the faction your deeds support.

Being at the squad level, players don’t control cities, instead affecting the world in wider and more specific ways – enabling or preventing scientific discoveries, opening new lands for colonization or sinking ships before they leave the harbor. The path of history often hinges on the actions of a small group, and it is these actions that Tactica Online focuses on.

You often mention the need to re-educate fans about what Tactica is and how it is not simply another “MMORPG”, but almost a genre unto itself. Besides the obvious marketing hurdle, how do you intend to approach the dilema of this “re-education” so to speak and how it will impact new players when the game is live? Are you worried about the game being too foreign?

Luke Carruthers:   

We’re not so much concerned about the game being too foreign, as players thinking the game is one thing when it’s really another. That’s why we’re so adamant about not using the “MMO” label, it just conjures up assumptions that don’t apply.

While we combine different aspects of various genres, each individual piece of Tactica Online is already a well-respected gameplay mechanic in its own genre. Entrepreneurs often advocate innovating in only one direction at a time, and in that spirit we’ve taken the gameplay familiar from the squad-level turn-based games of the past, added the persistent world, story-driven missions, and constant updates from today’s traditional online RPG’s, and fueled it with the sort of combo system used in collectible card games. When combined they make something no one’s seen before, but each individual element is instantly recognizable to those familiar with the sort of game that inspired it.

Of course, it’s no small thing to try something that the market has a hard time classifying. The market is so crowded these days that unless you can get your message across simply, it’s hard for players to understand at a glance what sort of experience you can provide.

This is almost entirely a marketing issue. As soon as you sit down in front of the game, you get it, it’s easy to pick up – it’s just that it’s hard to describe in ten words or less. What do you do about this? You educate champions who in turn educate others, you encourage word of mouth, you put copious amounts of information on your web site, and you talk about it in interviews :)

[Luke]

Hi guys,

Great to see the interest! Insofar as I can, I'm happy to answer questions and expand on what we're trying to do. Much of our thinking accords with views that people have expressed here in the past - this is a game for 50,000 players, not 500,000, for example; it's intended to provide a focused experience for a niche audience; it's aimed specifically at one of the weaknesses of existing online games, the repetitiveness of combat - and I'd be interested to hear what you all think about our approach.


Luke

[schild]

You know, I think you're the first dev who managed to nail an opening in one of these forums. So uhm, congratulations and welcome to the boards.  :-D

[Trippy]

You're able to compete with everyone else from the beginning, and there's no need to level up your characters just so you can see new content.

That doesn't mean characters don't grow or change, but that this change is focused more on flexibility and the clever mixing of skills and equipment to produce new and powerful combinations, rather than increasing your stats.

I'm not sure I buy into that "no leveling required" thing. That's like saying in Guild Wars you don't need to PvE to PvP since doing the PvE stuff just gives you more flexibility which while technically true is not true if you want to compete with everybody else who has done the PvE.

Every character in Tactica has a Point Value, and you can only take teams of characters totaling the Point Value of a particular mission or battle into that combat - if a mission has a limit of 400 points, you can only take 400 points worth of characters on it.

Point systems are extremely vulnerable to the min-maxers and balancing is very difficult. Fortunately this is an online game so changes can be made easily, at least, whereas in games like table-top minatures you are stuck with things until the next revision/edition is printed.

[Daydreamer]

Hi guys,

Great to see the interest! Insofar as I can, I'm happy to answer questions and expand on what we're trying to do. Much of our thinking accords with views that people have expressed here in the past - this is a game for 50,000 players, not 500,000, for example; it's intended to provide a focused experience for a niche audience; it's aimed specifically at one of the weaknesses of existing online games, the repetitiveness of combat - and I'd be interested to hear what you all think about our approach.


Luke

Curious question: There seems to be a number of SRPG fans here, which I find odd since they are so diametrically opposite freeroaming, almost action-RPG like MMOs that we also play. What are your favorite SRPGs and MMOs?  How did you come up with the idea for combining the two?

[tazelbain]

I'll believe it when I see it.  A.net gave us the same song and dance and then put in the same tired treadmill in. I don't think MMOG developers are capable of not putting one in.  It's like they are bred and conditioned in a secret lab by Skinner himself.  And even if one developer manages to violated his programming, the Money Man is always standing by with a taser to enforce compliance.

Anyway, good luck number #6. 

[Hoax]

I'm less concerned about whether there will be a grind, because there has to be at least some grind.  The point is, if the grinding involves player vrs player and your not just fodder till you get ub3r skills/units/items/whatevers its all good.  No matter what in any game that bears the rpg tag you WILL be improving your abilities.  Therefore you must start with less abilities.  The problem lies in the fact that in order to improve them you have to whack Ai around for a month + before you get to the part most gamers actually care about.


Also Trippy is dead on, point systems are almost immpossible to balance with fixed unit stats and limited upgrades (see: the Eldar codex and its 50 pt wraithlords, starcannons in general ect.).  I much prefer a MtG style system (GuildWars, PhantomDust) where you can combine anything you want but can not have everything.  Sure you will go  through FotM/template syndrome but thats nothing compared to what mix/maxers can do in terms of destroying the fun in a game.

I just dont see how it could be possible to effectively balance so many skill/abilities because if you give them a fixed point system then people will only use "earthquake" with a "rock elemental" whose special powers involve boosting the damage of earth spells or whatever.  If you point cost the skill earthquake to reflect the boosted rock elemental's damage then it becomes wasted points on any other unit.  If you cost it for regular units (without the dmg bonus) people will flock to using rock elementals with earthquake because they see it as free dmg. 

If you were planning to cost each ability differently depending on what base unit is equipping it your in for a hell of a long beta test.

[schild]

I'm gonna argue here, that if you plan things correctly and they add a limit to epic style units and a point system, it should be relatively easy to balance. If PvP games also have a goal, having one SUPER DUPER TANK and 5 grunts and no points left simply won't be as good as a well-rounded army for completely objections. Also, super units should only be good in combat, a guy in a mech or uh a knight in huge platemail riding an ogre with the special ability of playing chicken with an entire platoon should not be able to forage for a rare medicine. That should be the job of a squire.

In other words, with enough consideration of uber gaming powertemplates (i.e. someone on staff or good beta tester  that can smell an ubertemplate a mile away) they should be capable of making it balanced. It'll be easier to balance than City of Villains (hello Leader. Talk about nightmare archetype for balance).

[schild]

My squad is currently a 400 point squad, and I'd like to keep it that way (you can only take a squad to a battle if it is at or below the battle's point total). I'm happy to trade one of my two 100 point melee fighters for a new support character, so I remove one of them from the squad (they aren't deleted, and I could always put them into another squad, or back into this one if the changes don't work out). Now to create the new character.

Calling up the character screen, I select the "Create New Character" button, and note that I have 14,000 experience available to spend.

Creating a new character takes 5,000 of that experience. It's worth a basic 20 points initially, prior to adding any skills or altering its statistics.

One of the things I'd like this character to do is increase the damage the other characters in my squad do, so I start with the Enflame Weapon skill, which will increase the effectiveness of my melee fighters by adding magic damage to their attacks. Deciding on the maximum expertise of 5, I add it to the character's skill list, increasing its cost by 30 points to a total of 50 points.

Continuing with the same theme, I next select the Rust skill, which reduces the effectiveness of an opponent's armor, as long as it's made of metal. With an expertise of 5 again, this adds 25 more points to the character's value, making the total 75 points now.

So there's definately a grind. A sort of win battles get experience points sytem. That said, it seems more like a fair ante for purchasing money. With Warhammer you work a real job in real life to make money to buy that damned pewter that you then in turn buy paint and color. Here, you gain experience through most likely various conditions and are able to spend them in army management.

The dev diary that above quote was taken from can be found right hyuh..

Now, things I'd like to see that I couldn't find on the website.

• An elaborate painting system to customize the entire army.
• The ability to create your own units and trade or sell them to other players. And the ability to create these units come from say, random no_drop loot that you'll get during battle and in the form of...hmm...a Fire Emblem style rune (or La Pucelle or FFT). Take your pick. Point being, it'd be neat to see completely different stuff on the playing board.

I can't stress how important it is for the people at Imaginary Numbers to at least play through a few rounds of the following two games: Phantom Dust (for the Xbox) and Culdcept (for the PS2). Hell, if you can't find them in Sydney, I'd be glad to help you all out, though you probably have a mess of importers down there.

There are elements to both of those games that could be morphed into useful gameplay options in an MMOG RTS (not necessarily Tactica, as I haven't played it yet):
Phantom Dust's deck building and power acquisition systems. (The rest of the game being realtime, it really doesn't translate well beyond those two things)
Culdcept's property and power management [in game]. (This is something of a TBS with major aspects of MtGO and Monopoly. It's probably one of the best Strategy games on a console to date, it's also available on the Dreamcast as Culdcept 2 in the states.)

Ok, I'm done rambling for now.

Edit: Before I forget to say it, limits are a good thing in this sort of game. I like the point system immensely as it will help with balance in addition to giving people goals and helping with deck strategy, much like the card minimums in MtG or rudimentary casting cost strategy in the amount of raw color systems on any card.

Ok, now I'm really done. I'm not really even sure if any of that made sense. I need sleep, but I can't help salivating over even the slightest hint of a modern online TBS.

[Luke]

I'm not sure I buy into that "no leveling required" thing. That's like saying in Guild Wars you don't need to PvE to PvP since doing the PvE stuff just gives you more flexibility which while technically true is not true if you want to compete with everybody else who has done the PvE.

Do you mean because you won't have the skills available to your characters, or because you won't know the game as well? If you mean the former, I can't argue with your example, but what if you started at level 20, with most of the skills available to you? This is the equivalent of what we start you out with (in a small concession to the RPG label we do have some skills you must earn through doing missions, and respeccing your characters costs experience, though perhaps three hours play a week will give you enough experience to change every skill in a six character team. I don't think of that as a grind, partly because it's so minimal, partly because you're not doing the same thing over and over again to accomplish it).

Iif you mean the latter, that's a different issue. To my mind, that's not about levelling, that's about practice, and while I can certainly understand the idea of having you level up a character as a means to learn the game mechanics, you can practice with a (nearly) full set of capabilities at least as well, as long as we have some other way to make sure you're not overwhelmed by them all. Best of all, when you're new your opponents will usually be players rated similarly to you, so that every battle is still won or lost depending on your performance on the day, and hopefully you're having fun while you're practicing.

Either way, what we are really saying with "no leveing required" is that you don't have to wade through weeks of the repetitive stuff to get to the game you really want to play.

Point systems are extremely vulnerable to the min-maxers and balancing is very difficult. Fortunately this is an online game so changes can be made easily, at least, whereas in games like table-top minatures you are stuck with things until the next revision/edition is printed.

Well yes, except I'd use the word amenable rather than vulnerable. Designing a better team (or building a better deck, or constructing a better army) is half of what these games are about, and min-maxing is just good team design's ugly cousin. Designing a team, like in MtG, is all about combos, not about whether 20pts into Earthquake is worth more than 20pts into Smite. That's going to be immaterial, within limits. It's whether Smite goes better with Consecrate and Indulgence to create an engine for your Wrath of Heaven, or whether Diffusion and Necromancy work better (Diffusion and Necromancy might work better if you had some good melee damage dealers, in case you were wondering. Well, except that Consecrate when combined with Indulgence will give you better defensive capabilities, unless your opponent is geared to deliver heavy magic damage . . .). In an average team, perhaps half your capability will come from the base skills you choose (such as being able to wield two guns, or use a two-handed axe), while the other half will come from the interaction of those skills (such as being able to make your enemies cluster, create a weakness to magic, and so give your Cloud of Fire a greater effect). That said, balance is obviously key to making this work, in more ways than one. Balancing the cost of abilities, balancing the various ways to achieve objectives, and balancing the rewards for good team design against the requirement that a game should be won when it's played, not beforehand.

Curious question: There seems to be a number of SRPG fans here, which I find odd since they are so diametrically opposite freeroaming, almost action-RPG like MMOs that we also play. What are your favorite SRPGs and MMOs?  How did you come up with the idea for combining the two?

This is a big question, resting as it does on what the actual definition of an SRPG is. I've quoted some in the dev diaries on the web site, but things like Jagged Alliance, X-Com, and Silent Storm were one big source of inspiration (which should convey that we think of Tactica Online as a strategy game, first and foremost). A bunch of console games, from Phantom Brave to Advance Wars, also figured. At least as influential were games like Heroclix and Magic: The Gathering. On the RPG side, Temple of Elemental Evil, Planescape: Torment, and the Baldur's Gate series all played their part. On the MMO front, one of our primary goals was to create an experience where you could mix with thousands of other people, but your play experience didn't have to be subject to their whims. CoH and its use of instancing influenced some of that thinking.

You'll notice I took that question a little differently than you asked it, I'm sorry. I'd rather talk about what inspired us than what we like, partly as a matter of professional courtesy, partly because I think it actually answers the spirit of the question better.

Where we came up with the idea of combining the two is easy - no one else is. From that, you can probably tell what sort of games our next couple of products will be, too.

And finally, there are extensive visual character customization capabilities, for teams, guilds, and individual characters. Not, perhaps, on the order of CoH, but you'll see a lot of different looks around town and on the battlefield. You can trade both equipment and characters, or share them amongst your guild, or take a character of yours into someone else's team.

Luke

[Trippy]

I'm not sure I buy into that "no leveling required" thing. That's like saying in Guild Wars you don't need to PvE to PvP since doing the PvE stuff just gives you more flexibility which while technically true is not true if you want to compete with everybody else who has done the PvE.

Do you mean because you won't have the skills available to your characters, or because you won't know the game as well? If you mean the former, I can't argue with your example, but what if you started at level 20, with most of the skills available to you? This is the equivalent of what we start you out with (in a small concession to the RPG label we do have some skills you must earn through doing missions, and respeccing your characters costs experience, though perhaps three hours play a week will give you enough experience to change every skill in a six character team. I don't think of that as a grind, partly because it's so minimal, partly because you're not doing the same thing over and over again to accomplish it).

Yes I meant the former. If you are already starting out new characters with a bunch of skills (which sounds better than the way Guild Wars does it currently) why still have missions? The exping sounds minimal which cool but that goes back to my previous question which is why do you need to do it at all?

Point systems are extremely vulnerable to the min-maxers and balancing is very difficult. Fortunately this is an online game so changes can be made easily, at least, whereas in games like table-top minatures you are stuck with things until the next revision/edition is printed.

Well yes, except I'd use the word amenable rather than vulnerable. Designing a better team (or building a better deck, or constructing a better army) is half of what these games are about, and min-maxing is just good team design's ugly cousin. Designing a team, like in MtG, is all about combos, not about whether 20pts into Earthquake is worth more than 20pts into Smite. That's going to be immaterial, within limits. It's whether Smite goes better with Consecrate and Indulgence to create an engine for your Wrath of Heaven, or whether Diffusion and Necromancy work better (Diffusion and Necromancy might work better if you had some good melee damage dealers, in case you were wondering. Well, except that Consecrate when combined with Indulgence will give you better defensive capabilities, unless your opponent is geared to deliver heavy magic damage . . .). In an average team, perhaps half your capability will come from the base skills you choose (such as being able to wield two guns, or use a two-handed axe), while the other half will come from the interaction of those skills (such as being able to make your enemies cluster, create a weakness to magic, and so give your Cloud of Fire a greater effect). That said, balance is obviously key to making this work, in more ways than one. Balancing the cost of abilities, balancing the various ways to achieve objectives, and balancing the rewards for good team design against the requirement that a game should be won when it's played, not beforehand.

Well MtG is maybe not the best example since building many deck types (e.g. Red DD/fast creatures) is all about finding the cards that give you the most bang for the mana costs (aka power curve min-maxing). E.g. if you have a 2/2 creature that costs 2 red mana and a 2/1 that costs 1 red mana (a la a red Savannah Lion) the 2/1 is clearly superior for that sort of deck. It sounds like you guys know what you are doing but even then it's a tricky problem. I used be a playtester and was the FAQ keeper for Legends of the Burning Sands back in the day and even those guys who were experienced CCG and game designers (the AEG guys) didn't always get the cards balanced properly. On the other hand, though I don't play Guild Wars anymore (the PvE game design annoyed me too much, hint hint) from what little I've read about the PvP game, the ArenaNet guys did a good job balancing the skills so hopefully you guys will be able to as well.

[Hoax]

"game should be won when it's played, not beforehand."

Time for me to go, your words are awakening my inner fanboi. 

Good luck with the game, I'm sure Schild will let us know once you need some testers.

Last thought on the point system, my concern comes from participating in WH40k at the higher tournament levels.  Armies are built entirely on preceived notions of point:stat ratios.  Hence my fear of point systems as a cause of cookie cutter, only 20% at best of all the unit combinations available are considered viable at the higher competition levels.

[Merusk]

The concept sounds great.  I can't wait to see how it's implemented and shakes-down.  I've missed my TBS games so very, very much.

Looks quite interesting. They're using the Gamebryo engine (formerly NetImmerse) which is the same that DAoC uses. Ironically, they are also using the SpeedTree engine for their foliage (DAoC among others also uses this technology).

Hm... so maybe DAoC's excessive use of Beige, Brown, Green-Brown and Taupe were actually symptoms of the engine, because I see the same problem in the TO screenshots.  DAoC's pallette killed that game for me from a visual enjoyment standpoint.

[Dren]

I wouldn't mind 6 hours per week to get enough exp to redo my team, but I only want to earn it by playing against other players in some way.  You can mix the PvP with elements of PvE, but don't do striclty PvE.  Then, you'll be too much like a me too in this world of PvE games.  I most likely won't stick around.

My perspective is that I have the kind of the PvE games right now, WoW.  I want a game like yours to play when I'm burned out on PvE.  I won't play a PvE game alongside another PvE game at all.  I bought GW for a PvP alternative to WoW, but found it to be too much like PvE so I've stopped playing it.

I'm imaging quests that you pick up based on the fact that somebody from another faction will play the enemy in that quest.  Once a match up is completed the quest starts (instance) and the fun starts.  There may be AI units with no alliance to either side randomly rooming or they may favor one side or another.  That would be acceptable PvE.  There could be all sorts of goals involved, but the main factor is that you are playing against a real life intelligence, not AI.

*Edit:  Stopped writing before I finished my thought. 

Winner of the quest gets 5000 exp.  The loser gets 2500.  Build up enough points and you can play around with team build, other stats, character development, whatever.  You play PvP to work on your PvP.  That is a grind I can live with.

[Hoax]

I'm less concerned about whether there will be a grind, because there has to be at least some grind.  The point is, if the grinding involves player vrs player and your not just fodder till you get ub3r skills/units/items/whatevers its all good.  No matter what in any game that bears the rpg tag you WILL be improving your abilities.  Therefore you must start with less abilities.  The problem lies in the fact that in order to improve them you have to whack Ai around for a month + before you get to the part most gamers actually care about.

If I quote myself does that make me a douchebag?

Without a doubt, we dont need any more PvE in the world, unless they are pirate npc's in which case I will allow it.

Its not that there should be no PvE though just that PvP should be a 100% viable alternative, unlike GW where you get no loot, very little xp and no new skills.

[Margalis]

Magic is a huge min/maxing game, it has the exact same problems as a point system, in that certain cards are vastly overcosted in some decks and vastly undercosted in others. For example if you look at something like that card that turns artifacts into mana from Mirrodin block, in a typical deck it sucks but in a deck built for it it's good. I don't think that in itself is a problem, unless there are simply too few good combinations. Mirrodin suffered very badly from that problem, where there were only a few competitive builds.

I have a lot more hope in an online game because you can make quick changes to things.

[HaemishM]

Lots of good stuff in here, probably a lot of stuff I'll chew on and post about later. All I can say is that I'm as close to being a fanboi of the game so far, just from what I've heard, than any game I've heard about in a while.

Also, I want to say Bully to you, Luke, for being a dev and having the courage to post as one. Don't mind me if I call you a pigfucker, it's probably going to happen sooner or later, just know it's not personal.   Also, plz2notfuckupthegame. Like Way, you had me at "No leveling required for PVP."

EDIT: I like points buy systems. Most of the miniature wargames I play or have played have points systems. Sure, they can be cheesedicked to death, but that's not a knock on points buys, it's just the way games are. Math systems can get gamed. The trick is to make most combos viable in some way.

[tazelbain]

Winner of the quest gets 5000 exp.  The loser gets 2500.

And people who ditch get nothing.  I hate these poor sport fuckers.

[Fargull]

What will be in place to stop someone from two-boxing them selves up in rank and xp?

Overall it sounds very promissing.  I know that it lists small squad combat, how large are battle expected to get, I noticed guild on guild is listed.  I agree with Schild on the ability to customize color and dress, if you can COH that point then damn people will go ape for it.

Will keep an eye on this one.  Thanks.

[Luke]

Yes I meant the former. If you are already starting out new characters with a bunch of skills (which sounds better than the way Guild Wars does it currently) why still have missions? The exping sounds minimal which cool but that goes back to my previous question which is why do you need to do it at all?

Missions give structure to gameplay, as well as medium-term rewards. Not everyone needs structure, and you don't technically have to undertake missions - you can challenge anyone else to one-on-one or multi-person duels, and there are tournaments as well - but they move you through the world's story, and, we hope, there's a lot of enjoyment to be gotten from them as a framing device to provide context for the combat.

For those who haven't gone through the web site, there is no PvE at all. Every mission, campaign, tournament, or casual duel is a battle against another person, no AI in sight. Not even pirates, sorry. This is partly because people just make that much better opponents in strategy games, and partly because, as several people noted, there are enough PvE games out there, and we want to provide a different experience.

We don't really care if someone wants to twink themselves when it comes to xp. In fact, the ability to do so is built into the guild tools, and we expect that for hardcore players xp will be largely meaningless. You can't do that with ratings though. The Elo system - the same one used in chess and most CCG's - is pretty resistant to that, especially on a large scale. The only way to get a high rating is to beat others who already have a high rating - beating someone who is low-rated won't increase you much, if at all, and beating the same person or small group of people over and over again will have a very limited effect.

On the size of battles, the limit is really how quickly you want turns to progress. You can have teams where each player controls one character, and if everyone is efficient, you can get to perhaps 30 players, in say half a dozen teams, before things start to slow beyond enjoyment. I'd guess most battles won't get to more than a dozen people, though.


Luke

[Malderi]

plz2notfuckupthegame

Echo'd.

Looks very, very nice. PvP-only games like Planetside rock, and this one looks to have far more tactics involved. I'm very much looking forward to it. Good luck with it!

[sidereal]

Minor addition to the min/maxing vs good strategy debate.  I think the fear of uber-builds and FotM doesn't come from a lack of appreciation for strategy, it comes from a desire for variety.  Magic has toed the edge for years, where there are enough viable combinations that you can regularly see different decks, and yet at the high end you can count the number of deck styles on one hand (a problem which WotC 'solves' with the rotating expansions, but let's not get into that.  Dear God, please let's not get into that).  It sounds like from Hoax that it's the same deal in 40k, and I don't doubt it.

One thing that has basically saved Magic for me and my friends is the forced randomness. . usually implemented in closed circles (everyone plays and trades from a randomly bought couple of starters and boosters) or draft tournaments.  Obviously here people have to exhibit some strategy to know how to put together a deck from who knows what, but variety is inforced by the fact there isn't infinite availability of cards.  Something like this in TO would be greatly, greatly appreciated and I think would drastically reduce the chance of hearing 'Oh look, another zombie/sniper team' or what have you.

[Pococurante]

For those who haven't gone through the web site, there is no PvE at all. Every mission, campaign, tournament, or casual duel is a battle against another person, no AI in sight. Not even pirates, sorry. This is partly because people just make that much better opponents in strategy games, and partly because, as several people noted, there are enough PvE games out there, and we want to provide a different experience.

I highly approve of this.  Please, become insanely popular and bleed off the customers who really shouldn't be playing in blended environments.  Publishers chasing the grail of blending just disappoint all demographics and over time their products become twisted carwrecks.

[Dren]

In my mind, I've already bought the box for this game based on your game theory.  Now, past the first month is really up to you on all of the rest.  Of course the "all the rest" is pretty challenging all on its own too. (Reference: Shadowbane.)

Oh, plus, don't change your direction either.  Hold true to the course please.  Evil Moneyhats will want you to.  Don't listen.  They're wrong.

[waylander]

We've (www.lotd.org)  been following Tactica for a while and the game does look interesting. I think the things that most guilds want to know is how the turn based system is going to work, why its more fun for us to use turn based, what can we achieve in the world, and why do those achievements matter to us or any other guild. Most of that is glossed over in the FAQ, and I'll see what the last two MMORPG interviews have to say.

Although D&D online is also coming out during the last half of 2005, we will certainly be watching Tactica to see if its something we'd want to try.

[HaemishM]

I think the things that most guilds want to know is how the turn based system is going to work, why its more fun for us to use turn based, what can we achieve in the world, and why do those achievements matter to us or any other guild.

Emphasis mine.

Please do not let this drive your design theory.

Yes, there should be achievables in the world. And yes, achievables should have SOME effect. But please, for the love of all that's holy in this world, if the winners just get stronger and stronger, you will have Shadowbane all over again. If the achievables are so much more important than just e-peen waving, the game will spiral into uselessness, because only the hardcore will ever play for long. What you will hear from these hardcore is "We want our victories to MEAN something," without ever realizing what it will mean is that only the wolves will play after a while.

Achievement has driven (into the ground) every MMOG we have. I'm not saying it should be ignored, I'm saying it should be VERY CONTROLLED so that the winners get more flexible, not more powerful.

[Hoax]

Although D&D online is also coming out during the last half of 2005, we will certainly be watching Tactica to see if its something we'd want to try.

*bo0gle*


@Sidereal:  Yes a very good example of this in 4th ed is the Space Marine special weapon selection for tac squads, not taking a plasma gun would just be stupid.  Which is sad because flamers are cool.  The metagame in 4th ed 40K after they changed the way armor works from saving throw vrs saving throw modifier to a 100% or 0% effective system meant that basically anything that is cheap and will negate power armor will be used, almost 100% of the time. 

GuildWars does not stifle innovative strats, I'm not sure why or how but it does not.  I'm sure some kind of metagame will eventually be flushed out but with such a plethora of options and so many counter abilities and interesting combo's I dont think it will ever become predictable like Table-Top or MtG becomes.  Basically I'm worried about Net-army building...


@Haemish:  I'm not sure I follow, there needs to be some sort of "player-world shaping" (somebody invent a buzzword, stat!) whether it be tied to a storyline, game-faction system.  A game of thrones ala SB setup, a basic guild-territory control system..  At least I feel like why make a MMO if your not going to allow the world to change based on player actions and I haven't seen that concept driven into anything.  Nobody has executed it with even a modicum of competence.

[HaemishM]

I never said don't change the world. I said don't make the winners so goddamn all-powerful that eventually no one can challenge them. Don't reward the winners so much that the winners become more powerful, just more flexible. In a game of territory acquisition, it should actually get HARDER for the winners to maintain their holdings, whereas in MMOG's, it's easier. Don't make it so that losers feel the only option for victory is cheating or quitting.

[Fargull]

Yes, there should be achievables in the world. And yes, achievables should have SOME effect. But please, for the love of all that's holy in this world, if the winners just get stronger and stronger, you will have Shadowbane all over again. If the achievables are so much more important than just e-peen waving, the game will spiral into uselessness, because only the hardcore will ever play for long. What you will hear from these hardcore is "We want our victories to MEAN something," without ever realizing what it will mean is that only the wolves will play after a while.

What Haemish said, that needs to be nailed to the forehead of all MMORG devs!

Anyway,

Are you going to have a self timer on the rounds with a default action selectable?  What I mean by this one, is say Bob has to answer a call of nature and gets up for five minutes, will the rest of us have to wait?

Thanks!

[Tmon]

At least I feel like why make a MMO if your not going to allow the world to change based on player actions and I haven't seen that concept driven into anything.

This from the May 14th Q&A here  http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setview/features/loadFeature/93/gameID/188 seems to answer the world change thingy.

...the conflict between magic, science, and faith drives every level of the game, from individual missions to the overall story. Most missions have at least two angles to them – assassinate or protect the inventor, destroy the blasphemous tome or revel in the knowledge of the ancients – and in Tournaments an individual’s efforts make a direct difference on a major level to the game’s story.

The real meaning to PvP comes in the way that every single one of your victories contributes to the balance between the factions, though. The more successful you are, the more that the ongoing story will favor the faction your deeds support.

Being at the squad level, players don’t control cities, instead affecting the world in wider and more specific ways – enabling or preventing scientific discoveries, opening new lands for colonization or sinking ships before they leave the harbor. The path of history often hinges on the actions of a small group, and it is these actions that Tactica Online focuses on.

Also this from the Tacticaonline site

...If players using Lore skills heavily are more successful than players using other skillsets, then the balance of the world will tip in favor of magic. The cause of logic and experimentation will be set back, the armies of faith will waver, and the supporters of the Old Sciences are more likely to be successful in their ventures, whatever they may be...

from here   http://www.tacticaonline.com/gameplay/itsyourworld.shtml

 Hopefully the balance will keep shifting amongst the three skill bases rather than having one gain so much advantage that there is no point to using the other two.  Not because I really care which of the three 'wins' but it would suck to have 2/3 of the available skills become useless.