War December Newsletter + Looks like it's coming to a console

[waylander]

Darniaq,

   In terms of PvP advancement, that was one of the things I wish I had thought more of for DAoC.  Our reasoning at the time was to build the communities through PvE advancement at lower levels so that people would have a chance to form friendships, groups, guilds and then they could go into PvP with experience with the game and lots of support.  I still believe it made sense back in 2001 and I worry that cradle-to-grave, PvP advancement systems in a hybrid game might work against the building of communities in a new game.  Obviously, time will tell.

Advancement through PVP should be just as fast as advancement through PVE.  So far I haven't been impressed with games that offered advancement through PVP, but put timers on how soon you can kill Johnny R0x again. If a game doesn't want Johnny killed every 10 seconds, the he doesn't need to respawn close enough to get back to the fight that fast.

If you design PVP advancement with some FFA environments, team based instances, etc you can accomplish the same social networking via PVP that you can with PVE.  Early in a game's life people are looking for guilds to join, and a PVP based social networking scheme can work well then.  Later as the game matures, new players need a good system for both PVE and PVP advancement so they can develop quickly and find guilds.

[Venkman]

I agree with all of that. Just one thing:

So far I haven't been impressed with games that offered advancement through PVP, but put timers on how soon you can kill Johnny R0x again

WoW uses diminsihing returns. The more often a player dies within a time-span (or maybe during an entire instanced PvP fight? which is the only kind I do...) the fewer honor points they reward, down to zero eventually.

[waylander]

I agree with all of that. Just one thing:

So far I haven't been impressed with games that offered advancement through PVP, but put timers on how soon you can kill Johnny R0x again

WoW uses diminsihing returns. The more often a player dies within a time-span (or maybe during an entire instanced PvP fight? which is the only kind I do...) the fewer honor points they reward, down to zero eventually.

Honor points or like DAOC realmpoints I understand diminishing returns. But if you tell someone they can level up via PVP, then there should be no difference between killing a player every 5 seconds or killing a mob that's on a 5 second respawn.  Just make it equal to leveling via PVE is all I'd ask.

[Fargull]

Looking over the official site, there is mention of four levels of RvR and the points that seem to step into the light as I see their impact.

Skirmishes (incidental PvP combat) where ganking will be the primary focus?
Battlefields (objective based battles in the game world) what will influence my desire to roll along with this?  Will I have a greater ability to gain as a character over just skirmishes?
Scenarios (Instanced, point-based battles balanced with NPC dogs of war) sounds like this will be a pug place if the Battlefields are ruled by guilds.  Will this be more entertaining due to the NPC dogs of war, will advancement be quicker through this route and the end result be the lack of focus or interest of the battlefield?  Thus you run into what are becoming known as (premades) in the wow instances.  Groups setup by the opposing faction...  is any of this really a bad thing?  Will perhaps some scenarios be solo based, infiltration or storming the ramparts.
Campaigns (The invasion of enemy lands culminating in the assault on their capital city) no matter what this sounds like something that will come about as a raid type of senario from the other MMOGs, which I am sure will have lots of fun, but also invoke those whom think the best motivation is to let the masses know they will clean their armor with your tears...

I really really liked RvR in DAOC, much more so than FvF in WOW.  If a forum is setup, I would be happy to contribute.

[shiznitz]

I am not an avid PvPer, but I would think it would make sense to provide exp incentives for PvPing in controlled environments. Ganking randomly in the world should be less exp than 6v6 in an instance. In fact, you should get PvP exp even if you die in an instanced battle to encourage people to participate. Obviously, there might have to be some kind of timer or other penalty to prevent people from exping through repeated deaths on purpose.

[tazelbain]

It is hard to give an constructive advice not knowing the mechanics. SO I'll give advice based on what we see in WoW, Guild Wars, and the stuff you released

Quitters (people who leave early) and Leachers (join but don't play) need to handled in a way minimize the occurance and give aid to the team when it does occur.  I understand not all these are poor sports but they really need to dealt with.  Its not hard see that a few Leechers could ruin the fun for everyone else.  If people can get something for nothing, they will.

Voice chat and organized groups really separates the haves/haves nots.  In the Slashdot Interview someone talked about easing new players in to PvP.  New players aren't going have VC, but they are going to jump in and  play against people with it.  They will step on the field, get obliterated and leave your game.  Not sure what to do about it but it seems like a real problem.

Focus fire/zerg should be eliminated with the proper use of maps and objectives.  Bunching all your troops in one area should be the surest path to defeat.  If a team has all of their players bunched in one area, it should mean vital areas elsewhere go undefended. I know some people think bunching is inevitable, but it isn't, you designed your game to encourage it if it happens.  If the most effective tactic is the most boring, they with do it and hate you "making" them.

Casual PvP please.  When I stumble in at 4am after night of Blackjack and hookers, I want to be able to hop in to the game and get in a fun fight without guildies and without having to worry about being stomped by an uberguild. Not saying the whole game needs to be like this but there should be a handfull of places to go with no preparation.

Above you mentioned you were worried about a lack social interaction with pure PvP advancement. Socializing is going happen naturally.  Instead of thinking about mechanics to force people together, it is better to minimize things that pull people apart.

[Cheddar]

If a private forum is created make sure I have access.  I have avoided reading about WAR do to its early stage, but it is nice seeing Mark allow us some feedback and parlay.  

Really, things around here are relatively sane.  Our benevolent overlords do a good job and rif raf tends to get discouraged by all the big words and punctuation.  Perhaps they could rename the UO board (snicker).

[Sky]

World od Warhammer iz gunna R00oooOOCK!

Sorry. A diku-based game with war in the name and elves, orcs and dwarves in a fantasy setting?

Good luck, Mark.

[eldaec]

   Agreed.  You'll be happy to know that "No Buffbots" was part of my design document for WAR and they will not be part of the game.

/happy_dance

That was one of the mistakes/issues we could have handled a lot better and it is a lesson learned.

To be fair, even buff bots worked out much better than the EQ five-minute-buff-cycle that DAoCs conc buffs seemed intended to 'fix'.

Focus fire...should be eliminated ............... If the most effective tactic is the most boring, they with do it and hate you "making" them.

Well, yes, the problem is that...

1) You can't determine the best tactic up front - as a developer you'll never be as good as your players at working out the best tactic. Trying to do so attracts unintended consequences. All you can do is try to build an environment that has enough options so that the best tactic varies over time.

2) The problem isn't focus fire, the problems resulting from focus fire mostly come from rewarding organisation (which is probably something you want to do anyway), as well as the lack of collision detection and the limited importance placed on gaining positional advantages (high ground, flanking etc), which in other games act as a natural brake on focussing of fire (total war is the best example I can think of).

[Venkman]

I would like to see terrain-based advantages.

Honor points or like DAOC realmpoints I understand diminishing returns. But if you tell someone they can level up via PVP, then there should be no difference between killing a player every 5 seconds or killing a mob that's on a 5 second respawn.  Just make it equal to leveling via PVE is all I'd ask.

I would rather there not be a way to grind PvP points at all, in much the same way I'd rather there no longer be a way to grind XP on the PvE side of things. Grinding sucks, period. It's only "fun" insofar as it becomes a shorter or more guaranteed path to acquisition. And that's little more than changing your odds at a slot machine. It doesn't make it more "game", just less "work". Design it out of the system altogether.

This is the current problem with PvP in WoW in my opinion. Players believe they can grind Honor Points just by killing other players. They know diminshing returns is there but don't seem to care. I attribute this to two things: 1) laziness; and, 2) the fact that winning a BG in WoW doesn't reward enough Honor Points.

To me that links back to every discussion about grinding mobs vs quest rewards. WoW got this right for the most part. A player can exist entirely on quests alone, from 1-60 (unless they PvP alot), and they can advance at a fairly good clip, enough so that grinding mobs is an alternative, but not a requirement (outside of faction farming, which is separate too).

I'm not niave enough to think WAR won't have XP :) However, I would like to see XP balanced such that the quest resolution and encounter resolution give the bulk of XP. As long as they aren't four hour epics (one reason I prefer Arathi Basin over Alterac Valley for those times when I've only got 30 minutes to play). This way Leechers and Quiters can't benefit from leaching and quiting, respectively. It sucks for someone who has a to emergency AFK. But as a married father of two young kids, I have had to do this myself, and have long since accepted it. Other mature clear-thinkers do as well.

Based on Fargull's outline above, it sounds like WAR is headed down the right track here. Proof will be in first contact with real players though :)

And if a WAR forum is set up, I'd love to join too.

[Modern Angel]

One of the things GW got right was setting up some pvp for casual players: random arenas and (to a lesser extent) hero arenas. What they got wrong was that there wasn't much incentive for the achievers to do those.

What I want to know is if pvp matters. Is Alterac Valley (or the equivalent) going to still be raging two years from now? There's a sweet spot people are aching to itch between pvp that doesn't matter enough and pvp that matters TOO much. People want some dynamism even if they don't realize it's what they're begging for. When someone says, "Goddamn, this AV grind is too much. I figure I need thirty wins to get my sword. I hate this... time to queue up" they're actually saying, "This is boring as Hell but I have too much time invested to admit I hate doing the same thing over and over."

So don't make it the same thing over and over. Don't make it hurt Shadowbane style to lose but make the give and take matter. They're craving it.

[stray]

One of the things GW got right was setting up some pvp for casual players: random arenas and (to a lesser extent) hero arenas. What they got wrong was that there wasn't much incentive for the achievers to do those.

It has nothing to do with achievers. You could try enticing players with all the carrots in the world, and heavily pvp minded players still wouldn't give a damn. It's instanced, small team pvp, not much better than dueling in front of Stormwind. It's made for no one but "casual players". You'll find that most PvP focused players are also "world" enthusiasts. That's why they don't care about the GW model much. They want war and politics, not just a pointless diversion. They'll play shooters for that.

[Nonentity]

It sounds like it could be a forum I could contribute to in some way.

One way I've found to get good discussion going is to kind of egg the conversation on a certain way by having different threads for specific things you want to see discussed, or specific mechanics. Lord knows we've covered the mechanics of that-which-will-not-be-mentioned many times over.

One of my concerns is the balance that will be kept between advancing through PvP and advancing through PvE. The PvE content is always there, waiting for you to do it and be consumed, whereas the PvP content might not always be there. You happen to log on one day with your brand spanking new character, and there's nobody else currently playing in the other starting area. So you're forced to go back to doing PvE.

Are the rewards for time invested being returned in the PvP areas? There's no guarantee where there will be people there to kill or not for the time you put into it, whereas you're guaranteed the shiny loot and weapons going the PvE route.

I would also have the question of how the loot would be scaled accordingly between the PvP and PvE areas, but I suppose that's a question to ask and balance further down the road.

[tazelbain]

Well, yes, the problem is that...

1) You can't determine the best tactic up front - as a developer you'll never be as good as your players at working out the best tactic. Trying to do so attracts unintended consequences. All you can do is try to build an environment that has enough options so that the best tactic varies over time.

FF is going to always be the best tactic by default.  But I don't think is really that hard to break it up.  If controlling a single spot means victory than bunching is going to be only tactic.  The more spots that are needed to be controlled and further the spots are away, the less effective bunching is going to.

2) The problem isn't focus fire, the problems resulting from focus fire mostly come from rewarding organisation (which is probably something you want to do anyway), as well as the lack of collision detection and the limited importance placed on gaining positional advantages (high ground, flanking etc), which in other games act as a natural brake on focussing of fire (total war is the best example I can think of).

But its the wrong organization to reward.  Standing around listening to your leader call targets so you spam kill button isn't fun.  Good organization should more than getting 500 to do the same repetitive task.  It should be deciding strategy and tactics and delegating to your team so your objectives are achieved.  But if there is only one tactic,one strategy there is no meaningful decisions to be made besides getting as many bodies on your team as you can find.

[garthilk]

Mark,

Great to see you alive and well and posting. I think you bring up a lot of good points. I know there's a few hundred EA employee's in beta, but I wonder how useful is the feedback from the brass at EA Mobile? Or EA Sports? Wouldn't more seasoned MMO veterans, whom were willing to give constructive feedback be better? Now I know some of the QA leads etc are good examples of how EA employee's make good testers. The other question remaining would be about the console. Just four months ago you said that it wasn't the right time for a Warhammer console game, what changed?

[tazelbain]

It has nothing to do with achievers. You could try enticing players with all the carrots in the world, and heavily pvp minded players still wouldn't give a damn. It's instanced, small team pvp, not much better than dueling in front of Stormwind. It's made for no one but "casual players". You'll find that most PvP focused players are also "world" enthusiasts. That's why they don't care about the GW model much. They want war and politics, not just a pointless diversion. They'll play shooters for that.

I think you are narrowly defining pvp-minded to include play styles you want and exclude play styles you don't want.  WoW and GW style PvP seem to vastly number any other PvP style in the American market and that's clearly what this game is aiming for.

[Modern Angel]

One of the things GW got right was setting up some pvp for casual players: random arenas and (to a lesser extent) hero arenas. What they got wrong was that there wasn't much incentive for the achievers to do those.

It has nothing to do with achievers. You could try enticing players with all the carrots in the world, and heavily pvp minded players still wouldn't give a damn. It's instanced, small team pvp, not much better than dueling in front of Stormwind. It's made for no one but "casual players". You'll find that most PvP focused players are also "world" enthusiasts. That's why they don't care about the GW model much. They want war and politics, not just a pointless diversion. They'll play shooters for that.

I absolutely agree with that assessment but I also think that because of the way GW ended up going it drove all those world enthusiasts out leaving only achievers, casuals and people inexplicably in love with their brand of pve.

That's precisely why my GW guild fell apart. A bunch of guys move from Shadowbane (not me; the one bane I was ever in on SB was the worst play experience I've ever had in a PC game. Ever) because GW promised the moon and the stars to pvpers and it turns out to just be a pleasant diversion accompanied by endless nerfs.

So there's what set GW apart from WoW (once upon a time) and what seperates WAR: pvp-centric gameplay. Except GW fucked up in not realizing precisely what you said, that the pvp guys who will stick with you want dynamic, fluid situations where they can make an impact. And that's where it ties into this WAR discussion. Don't suck, Mythic. If you offer the new DRAKWALD FOREST EPIC PVP BATTLEGROUND and it's just Alterac Valley with a new skin those pvpers won't stick with your game. They can get that shit (and have gotten it) in WoW for two years.

It's like the guys from my current WoW guild and GW guild (they don't share any members. I have fifty plus people ready to jump tomorrow if WAR offers a different sort of game than either GW or WoW but if it's the same? Free month and done. The market's not wide open anymore; we need to be enticed with new stuff.

[shiznitz]

Mark,

Great to see you alive and well and posting. I think you bring up a lot of good points. I know there's a few hundred EA employee's in beta, but I wonder how useful is the feedback from the brass at EA Mobile? Or EA Sports? Wouldn't more seasoned MMO veterans, whom were willing to give constructive feedback be better? Now I know some of the QA leads etc are good examples of how EA employee's make good testers. The other question remaining would be about the console. Just four months ago you said that it wasn't the right time for a Warhammer console game, what changed?

It is important for a new MMO to appeal to MMO noobs. That said, it is highly unlikely that game industry employees haven't ever played an MMO. Just because some guy has spent 3 years working on Madden games doesn't mean he doesn't play WoW.

[waylander]

It should be obvious to any who know me that I'm about as anti-grind as they come since I moved into the real working world a few years back. But if they are going to provide advancement through PVP and Mark is concerned about developing social networks via PVP channels, then I don't see why co-op quests or other things can't do the same thing.

The biggest problem people face in an MMORPG, IMHO, is finding a good group of friends to game with or finding a quality guild.  To me the newbie experience should orient you to the game world, the combat, and help you integrate into the player community. That also includes finding a guild.  Too many games rely on people to go trolling forums to find guilds, or the 500 idiots sitting around spamming "X,Y,Z Guild is recruiting, go here, etc to join up!".

A strong guild system (recruitment, management, etc) is central to these types of games. Someone who comes up only through a PVE track might get so disgusted with idiot PVE guild e-drama that they might just quit the game. So I think some way to have a PVP centric social networking design is important, but has to be good enough to help people find PVP oriented guilds that are looking for people.

[Cheddar]

Hmmm, they have oodles of jobs open in my neck of the woods.  Too bad its up in Fairfax.  :P

[dornam]

I surely don't want advancement through RvR be "the same" as advancement through PvE.

We all know that grinding mobs will be part of the game and probably be the fastest style of leveling up.

Good and fine, no problem here.

But grinding PvP is what I absolutely not want. I don't want to kill a player char every 5-10s for hours and hours, surely NOT.

I want RvR to be meaningful, I want combat tactical and strategiy because it's that what seperates RvR from PvE. And that means running around a lot, looking for the enemy, trying to engage them at critical choke points like keeps or bridges and it means 90% running/looking and 10% fighting!

Fighting without pause, on and on and on, is simply meaningless grinding WoW style where people suicide their chars into the enemy because it's faster than sitting and regging. Thats not fun, thats not WAR, that's ridiciulous!

So death must be meaningful and people should take at least 5 Minutes to get back into action so that they learn to avoid death and put up a good fight were defense and tactics matters just as much as DpS.

If it means that I level slower through RvR than through PvE, then that is just what it means. But please don't kill RvR just because some people think that they must kill 1 opponent every 50 seconds all day long.

[tazelbain]

> 90% running/looking and 10% fighting!
You already have DAoC to fill your running around needs.

[stray]

What exactly do you want then tazelbain? Whenever the subject of pvp comes up, it seems like all you do is criticize. Offer something yourself.

All he's saying is he wants pvp oriented objectives. Basing advancement or pvp rep in general through pk grinding will never work out well. Player "spawns" can't be depended upon like mob spawns, and thus, xp rates would be almost impossible to adjust and make equivalent to pve grinding. Secondly, it doesn't encourage teamplay. If the most efficient way to get rep is through player killing, then all you get is a bunch of individuals on the battlefield.

[mmofreak]

Props to MBJ for taking the time to respond to those issues, don't wanna sound like an ass-kisser but it truly is nice seeing the head honcho of Mythic communicate with the peeps who are following WAR's development.

And that means running around a lot, looking for the enemy, trying to engage them at critical choke points like keeps or bridges and it means 90% running/looking and 10% fighting!

Fighting without pause, on and on and on, is simply meaningless grinding WoW style where people suicide their chars into the enemy because it's faster than sitting and regging. Thats not fun, thats not WAR, that's ridiciulous!

I strongly disagree in regards to 90% spent running and only 10% fighting, that would make WAR just one big Emain = not fun. Though I do agree that the fighting should be nothing like WOW, dying and then running back into the fight to suicide again 15 seconds later is utterly retarded. Dying in RvR should sting to some degree, perhaps not to the extent it did in DAOC, but without a doubt much more than it does in WOW.

[Venkman]

Until there's a system where characters don't die within 15 seconds of showing up, I'll take the no-decay/quick-runback any day. I don't expect that from WAR nor any diku-like game though, because it would mess up the whole kill-to-advance formula at it's foundation.

[tazelbain]

What exactly do you want then tazelbain? Whenever the subject of pvp comes up, it seems like all you do is criticize. Offer something yourself.

All he's saying is he wants pvp oriented objectives. Basing advancement or pvp rep in general through pk grinding will never work out well. Player "spawns" can't be depended upon like mob spawns, and thus, xp rates would be almost impossible to adjust and make equivalent to pve grinding. Secondly, it doesn't encourage teamplay. If the most efficient way to get rep is through player killing, then all you get is a bunch of individuals on the battlefield.

I want objectives too, but I really don't want to run around 9mins for a 1 min battle.

Since you are calling me out, I'll repost my comments for Gamers know not what they want...

I think the only to handle it is to make it a big game of chess. The pieces would massive NPCs that duke it out and players struggle to tip the balance in their teams favor.  Eventually leading to one side winning.  I.E the Battleship White Bishop assaults the Black Knight Fortress.  Black players would attempt disable the battleship's systems and help destroy it at the same time defending their fortress.  This would add more strategic elements because different match-ups that would play out differently and players would have to decide which match to help with.  Add a finite resource system to craft new pieces.  After the game is over pass out special titles, certs, and armor looks to encourage them to stick around for the next game.

I trying to put my figure want I find distasteful about Eve's PvP, the best I come with is...
I don't want to be another point in the blob.
Politics and the political state are opaque to the spectators and the majority of the players.
Something about the target system felt alien to me.


Mass PvP should be more like the NFL.

I agree, but that would never happen in a digital medium. Imagine playing Madden where every player was controlled by a real person. It wouldn't be any better than any other pvp game. Even if all of the individuals knew how a football game should work.

I didn't mean literally :)
It should be:
A) winnable
B) transparent, everybody plays with their cards up.
C) watchable, you should able to watch it figure out what is happening.
D) broken up discrete objectives. plays -> drives -> points -> wins -> championships
E) parity
F) room for individuals to shine, and because of C people can see them.

I was talking about a MMOFPS, but it'd mostly work here. To try to bring this back on topic to WAR, I am exicited about WAR because its going to bring high-level structure to instatized PvP the same as playoffs in NFL. No politics, no zerging, no ninja raids, no problem.

[eldaec]

Until there's a system where characters don't die within 15 seconds of showing up, I'll take the no-decay/quick-runback any day. I don't expect that from WAR nor any diku-like game though, because it would mess up the whole kill-to-advance formula at it's foundation.

In daoc the system in practice worked as 'die and you are out until the battle is over - or sooner if your team is battle-rezzing, unless your side loses control of the area and can't retake it quickly, then you're out for 15 minutes'.

15 minutes was too long, but the principle of a bigger penalty for a team loss worked well.

The only people running for 10 minutes and playing for 1 minute were the roaming 8 man gank squads - and I never really cared much what they were up to.

Daoc also had more rvr than just fighting going on. Being successful in the 1 minute, meant having discussed the plan in the previous 9 minutes, and having coordinated with the other groups and guilds in your zone to figure out what was going on.

Where rvr really shone was the cat herding aspects. Fact is, despite all the moaning about class balance, buff bots, and realm abilities, the realm that dominated and the guilds that dominated were those who were able to get organised quickly. Organisation > ToA loot. And I don't just mean the RvR guilds who had fixed teams roaming emain, I mean when people would take command of random keep sieges and so forth. Of course, organisation could also make ToA straightforward to get through, so the two were related. But DAoC was fundamentally a cat herding simulator.

[Venkman]

Tazelbain, You mention NFL and that raises a good point.

Part of the problem with PvP of the past, why it had such niche appeal, is because it mattered too much in general, or was too punitive in mechanic. Even a perfectly functioning Shadowbane for example would never be 200k accounts in size. Same as Eve. The core experience is too immersive for the masses.

Better to treat PvP as sport, like WoW BGs, the gaming leagues in Europe, FPS games in the US and so on. So if WAR treats PvP as sport and adds a layer of relevance beyond the grind-for-new-gear-a-different-way mechanic of WoW, I'm all for it.

In daoc the system in practice worked as 'die and you are out until the battle is over - or sooner if your team is battle-rezzing, unless your side loses control of the area and can't retake it quickly, then you're out for 15 minutes'.

Sounds like WoW is using this idea for Arena battles at level 70. Regardless, I think it works as long as players can't get one-shotteed. If they can, it sucks, unless the match is so short there's no real longterm relevance to it.

I didn't play much PvP in DAoC, and quit before ToA came out. All I'll be seeing is whatever they learned from it and applied to WAR :)

[Sairon]

I'd also be intrested in joining in on the private discussion 

Diminishing returns is a hack at best for the underlying problem, any system that's based strongly on XP from killing player opponents will have problems. This of course is because of the fact that you can't guarantee that a player will behave in the same way as a mob and put up a fight. I also think the key lies in controll of strategic positions mandating the XP earned in some way. This requires sufficiently large instances to prevent "Let us capture it first, then we'll let you capture it right after without us defending, rinse and repeat" though. I think a lot can be learnt from looking at WoW and the failure that is their battlegrounds. Alterac Valley the last time I played it consists of the 2 sides ruining past each other and commence PvE in their opponents base in order to win the battleground before the other team, there's no PvP conflict anywhere since a long fight means less honor than just loosing and then joining a new instance.

EDIT: Clarification and typo

[stray]

Part of the problem with PvP of the past, why it had such niche appeal, is because it mattered too much in general, or was too punitive in mechanic.

I don't disagree that past games were too hard to get a leg up in (or too hard grow a new leg too, for that matter), but as for "mattering too much": I think any mmo that claims to be "pvp oriented" should do no less. The way I see it, there are different "tiers" of competitive gameplay. Say, 1 vs 1 fighting games or 16 vs 16 multiplayer first person shooters. MMO's should be in a third category. I don't exactly what that other category is, but it should entail more than just trying to be those other two. People don't expect multiplayer fps's to behave like fighting games (or vice versa), do they? The same should go for MMO's. They should be something in their own right. They should cater somehow to the idea that these games are massive and persistent.

The effects of pvp should be seen more than just on the battlefield -- simply because there's more in the game world than that battlefield. In a multiplayer game, you can get away with that -- because the battles themselves are the whole "story". In an mmo, a battle should just be a chapter in a much larger saga.

Besides, not a single one of these have been good at being multiplayer games anyways. There are better alternatives found elsewhere for that.

[Johny Cee]

Where rvr really shone was the cat herding aspects. Fact is, despite all the moaning about class balance, buff bots, and realm abilities, the realm that dominated and the guilds that dominated were those who were able to get organised quickly. Organisation > ToA loot. And I don't just mean the RvR guilds who had fixed teams roaming emain, I mean when people would take command of random keep sieges and so forth. Of course, organisation could also make ToA straightforward to get through, so the two were related. But DAoC was fundamentally a cat herding simulator.

Alot of truth in this.

Population was a factor,  but organization was as important.  A realm with a couple of good rvr leaders that everyone (elite player, casual rvrer, and mostly pve guy) could respect tended to do well.

[Nebu]

Some lessons learned having played DAoC since beta:

1) PvE isn't your strong suit, keep this in mind. PvP in DAoC is among the best I've experienced in an mmog.  I hope War continues this tradition.  If I can get to the endgame quickly doing nothing but PvP, that's a win.  The endgame will retain more players than the grind to get there.

2) This is a big one with me:  PLEASE err on the side of less damage.  Players enjoy long, epic battles.  Noone enjoys dying in 5s or less.  Keep damage in check.

3) Balance Melee vs ranged.  This has been nearly accomplished on the classic servers over 5 years after release... I hope it's like this in War from the beginning. 

3a) Adding archers as casters-that-pay-for-their-spells (aka arrows) is weak implementation.  Make an archer unique and useful to the game dynamic or don't bother adding them at all. 

4) NOONE likes being unable to act and/or react.  Remove stun.  Remove stealth.  This will go a long way to keeping the playerbase content.

5) Make sure your hardware is up to the task.  Stating that circle strafing and lag jumping is "good play" is a poor way to say "we can't do anything about it so live with it".   If you can't handle epic scale battles on your end, then make sure that you limit the scale of conflicts on the player's end.  I can't emphasize this enough.

6) Consider the layout of terrain and fortifications LONG AND HARD before putting them into play.  The addition of water was bad.  Adding towers to bridges was worse. Placing towers within the range of siege equipment to keeps?  Not sure what the thought was there. At least you're beginning to address these in DAoC.

7) If you're going to have some bonus for "capturing the flag" (i.e. relics in DAoC), make sure that the bonus isn't unbalancing.  A 20% bonus is obscene when given to the realm that already has enough power to capture the flags.

7a) In the vain of above: Create incentives to play as the underdog... else you'll see many people jumping ship to play with the winning side.   

8 ) Players like a carrot in PvP.  It gives them an incentive to keep logging on when the play isn't as fun as they might have hoped for.  Realm abilities was a nice way to diversify this carrot, but got out of hand with the addition of so many classes.  The titles were also a nice touch, but most were meaningless.   WoW incentives leave most people flat... I'd rather be able to do something cool than buy an item. 

9) Battlegrounds are fun, but they can also be a distraction.  When a portion of the playerbase would rather participate in the BG's than the endgame, you may want to ask yourself "why?".

I'll come up with more when I can think straight...

I also want to thank MJ for including me in a few of the DAoC expansion betas.  I had written up my reactions, but some "technical issues" kept them from being added to the site.   

[Tegatana]

Mark,

Great to see you alive and well and posting. I think you bring up a lot of good points. I know there's a few hundred EA employee's in beta, but I wonder how useful is the feedback from the brass at EA Mobile? Or EA Sports? Wouldn't more seasoned MMO veterans, whom were willing to give constructive feedback be better? Now I know some of the QA leads etc are good examples of how EA employee's make good testers. The other question remaining would be about the console. Just four months ago you said that it wasn't the right time for a Warhammer console game, what changed?

Tegatana looks at his deck of MunchKin Cards and plays the "Take me Take me!" Card....

Choosing Beta-Testers is HELL, from the WAR perspective, i am all for a selection out of the WAR community (i am involved at a german WAR-News-Page as well... http://war.mystics.de), but i am also a veteran at MMORP-Publishing and involved with the "Shadowbane-Beta" back in the Time Swing-Entertainment was still the Publisher for Europe. I worked for SWING Fulltime and running and coordinating the external Beta was "Hell" (partly to the condition of Shadowbane i have to admit). 99% of all comunity Testers do NOT Test or give "valid" feedback.
As a Dev, you are in great trouble...you cannot test an MMORPG without lots of testers, but lots of testers do NOT test..... choosing the "right" ones is very tricky, for people get very tricky themselves if they see a chance to get a spot into beta (not to test, but to sneak peak...).

My Ideas for encouraging Testers to "TEST" by awarding them and banishing them for NOT reporting bugs were shot down by management, but i still believe its a good way to get community testers to actually TEST.

The IDEAs for the early phases with community testers:
-close all accounts of community testers who didn t report a single bug in a month!
-set up bug categories and AWARD the best finds in any categorie on a monthly basis (i.e. set prizes for best economy bug, best PvE bug, Best PvP bug, best Crafting bug, wierdest grafic bug etc.pp)
- force the AWARDS with the GUILD-Beta!  As bad as it sounds, in any competative game like WAR with RvR, some guilds WILL hold back bugs with the intention on using them in release....any guild will deny it but it WILL happen (and happened in the past), a lot :-((   The only counterpart is banning the WHOLE guild for not reporting bugs and give carrots to guilds who really test and report. AWARD whole GUILDs for reporting (most bugs reported, best RvR bug reported by guild XY etc...). This will maximise the bugs reported and may even lead to (positive)competition between guilds even before release. Imagive the fame the guild will get for beeing AWARDED 3 times as the best Beta-Guild of the month  )


Tegatana
http://war.mystics.de

.... still waving the "Take me! Take me!" card

[schild]

Lemme guess, Warhammer google alerts?

[Modern Angel]

Lemme guess, Warhammer google alerts?

Signs point to yes. Sneaking suspicion that this is why Jacobs wanted a more private forum.

I'm not even going to get a reassurance that the release game is going to be faster than that hideously slow, stand and smack each other beta footage I saw, am I? :(