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

[Nebu]

There is a HUGE contingent who WANT PvP to equal no XP game.  For them its the fun of playing amongst friends and whatnot against others that is fun, on an equal setting.  Its a meta game in and of itself.

These already exist.  They're called FPS.

I think Darniaq summarized the rest. 

[LK]

Something I've been asking myself lately that I haven't been able to answer is this: are the battlegrounds (wow, in this context) fun because they have predefined objectives and win/loss criteria (which limits the amount of time required by a particular battleground), or are they fun because they focus players into one area?

I think it's the former. There's a clear win condition to bring the whole event to resolution (even if Alliance on my battlegroup seem to ignore that in Arathi and Warsong and instead go for the straight grind). That's why I consider it sport.

I think it's a little bit of the latter too.  The fact that players can quickly join these battlegrounds and join a mini-game world with ease (especially with the introduction of Cross-Server Battlegrounds) has strong appeal.  It's different from going out and looking for your objective while questing.  PvP can learn a lot from Multiplayer FPS setup: I love my games a lot more when I can find a room I want to be in and can keep playing in it without sitting in the lobby or queues.

Because those BG twinks didn't have to turn in tokens for exp if they didn't want to - what the hell are they going to do with faction anyways?

You used to need Faction to unlock the tiers of purchaseable goods. It's a shame they tossed the ability to gain XP from turn-ins (thanks Lorekeeper, and welcome!) along with the need to unlock tiers. But I imagine they don't think people will be wasting much time in the current BGs come 1/16. Heck, even I plan to ditch the whole thing altogether until I hit 70, hoping by then they'll have more than 3 gimped BGs and the Arena thing for the harder core set.

If I remember correctly from the Closed Beta, the tiers are still in place.  You still gain faction and can use Honor Points to buy battleground specific equipment.  I've been running the PVE side of the game more than the PvP though (PvP is a frustrating experience sometimes for a Rogue), so that may not be entirely accurate, but I know the faction is kept in somehow.

Awww.... Lorekeep. ;_;

[Kinan]

Applicability of FPS matches approach to inherently RPG game is rather discussable. While its in no doubt provides a casual player with quick straight-to-action possibility, without connection to a role playing world it gets old fast. You can compare it with mini-games inclusion in offline RPG - they can be fun, but repeating them over and over becomes so annoying you can even abandon the game all together if you cant skip them. Of course you can always have a part of playerbase that like minigame more than the host RPG, and buy the game just for the minigame possibilities, but who would do that if you have those minigames available as separate, more developed titles?!

So you cant leave them out of context completely, and then you pull strings between capture-the-flag-10-min-action and become-champion-to-destroy-evil rpg incentive. WoW made the strings rather vague and for a lot of people BGs getting annoying during quite short time. W.A.R., as I understood, aiming to make the strings so strong, that the rpg part wouldn't even function properly without CTF GvG-type instances.

Will it work? No idea. :)

[eldaec]

There is a HUGE contingent who WANT PvP to equal no XP game.  For them its the fun of playing amongst friends and whatnot against others that is fun, on an equal setting.  Its a meta game in and of itself.

Yes, but you are talking about is pvp-as-a-fun-diversion *within* a community rather than RvR - which is competitive pvp between communities.

In the context of an RvR game, in-realm duelling for no risk is an easy way to implement this type of PvP as a side game (in particular group duelling would be a welcome feature). It's also the sort of feature that allows guilds to build community within a realm by running duelling contests in pve zones.

One on one duelling tournaments were common on my daoc server, and the amount of data they spewed out of a very controlled environment always spawned endless but relatively constructive discussions about character builds.

Anyway - the point I'm making is that you can get this without the need for complex arena systems so long as someone takes a few days out to implement a decent /duel command.

[Cheddar]

Right now nobody's BGing for XP. But they ARE BGing for honor points for gear and/or Faction (not sure there's any use for Faction currently). And we'll likely see this activity take a nosedive come the expac launch, while people check out more "world" PvP and grind up to 70 and the new different system awating them there.

Having played with a group of BG'rs who loved to BG, I have first hand experience into the seedy underbelly.  For them the Achievement was from designing kick ass templates and teams,  and generally steamrolling the opposition as many times as possible.  They had multiple alts (not enough buddies in vent for AB?  Grab your 19 twink and hit up WSG!), strategies, and lots of fun. 

They could do this at levels where they felt the playing field was level.  For me it was the most fun I had with WoW, especially the 39 level BG's. 

[Nebu]

As much as it pains me to say, most of the BG warriors in DAoC play there because they aren't competitive in the endgame.  I guess it's a self-sorting way of ensuring people get the level of competition that suits them. 

The toughest part about PvP is balance between fun a competition.  Sadly to many, the fun is in winning... not in the gaming experience itself.

[HRose]

You used to be able to turn in Battleground tokens for experience, but they've since been removed, so you can't level up via PvP.  There are actually a group of players that appreciate being unable to level your characters while PvPing.  I have a friend who keeps a character specifically at Lv. 29 and runs battlegrounds at that level, because to him and the people he plays with, the game feels much more balanced in the area.  Hence why certain blues at that level can sell for a good amount of gold.

Yes, but then why we don't really SUPPORT those choices and make them part of the game?

Why not players delevel characters dynamically to the max cap of the zone and PLAY WHEREVER THE HELL THEY DESIRE?

In DAoC, after a long time, they added slash commands (because DAoC is still one of those games who still relies heavily on those prehistoric slash commands) to stop gaining xp and rps, but they still don't allow to delevel your character and go play in lower level BGs.

There's another thread on this forum where people wrote than only a FEW BGs are active. This means that the BGs in DAoC are playable only in the case the level of your character matches the level of the BG that has some players in it. If instead characters could delevel and move freely between every BG you could have the possibility to move in the zone that has some activity and have some fun. Instead of being locked out.

If your character is at level 29 but the level 29 BG is empty, you could delevel to 20 and enter that BG, that maybe has lots of players playing.

[HRose]

Something I've been asking myself lately that I haven't been able to answer is this: are the battlegrounds (wow, in this context) fun because they have predefined objectives and win/loss criteria (which limits the amount of time required by a particular battleground), or are they fun because they focus players into one area?

DAOC battlegrounds had no predefined objective or win/loss criteria, but they were a hell of a lot of fun (with enough population).  The fact that there were no predefined win/loss/re-queue didn't seem to detract from that, but giving the battles some point might have made them more entertaining.

The basic difference between DAoC and WoW is that in DAoC the BGs are persistent. So you have to face a situation, go conquer the central keep and things like that. The persistence is a fundamental element to make PvP involving and motivating, it also creates a lot more the realm identity and community. You have to organize and FIGHT if you want to win. You cannot just exit and requeue. The victory depends on YOU, not on the luck of a matchmaking system.

Instead what works in WoW is the polish and attention that went into making the BGs. Mythic just builds a zone, adds a keep in the center and lets the players fight. Blizzard instead built a whole lot of little things and interesting points. They designed *content*, added tons of quests, variations and so on.

Simply put, WoW's BGs are executed 100 times better than DAoC's ones. But DAoC has a PvP structure that is much better than WoW PvP premises.

About the rest I always said that PvP = convergence and PvE = divergence

You couldn't care less if in PvE your group is alone in a zone. Hell, it's even better. But in PvP it's detrimental if the game has 100 zones where you can go fight (in fact Mythic NEVER understood that they should have REDUCED the RvR space).

My idea for WoW "world" PvP was to use "hotspots" working like magnets. You gain honor points from killing other players only at a radius from the hotspot. The more you fight closer to the hotspot the more points you get.

Why I think this could work? Because it just brings players to move toward a certain point and gravitate around it. Which means: convergence.

[tazelbain]

As much as it pains me to say, most of the BG warriors in DAoC play there because they aren't competitive in the endgame.  I guess it's a self-sorting way of ensuring people get the level of competition that suits them. 

The toughest part about PvP is balance between fun a competition.  Sadly to many, the fun is in winning... not in the gaming experience itself.

Not everyone has the same goals as you.

[LK]

You used to be able to turn in Battleground tokens for experience, but they've since been removed, so you can't level up via PvP.  There are actually a group of players that appreciate being unable to level your characters while PvPing.  I have a friend who keeps a character specifically at Lv. 29 and runs battlegrounds at that level, because to him and the people he plays with, the game feels much more balanced in the area.  Hence why certain blues at that level can sell for a good amount of gold.

Yes, but then why we don't really SUPPORT those choices and make them part of the game?

Why not players delevel characters dynamically to the max cap of the zone and PLAY WHEREVER THE HELL THEY DESIRE?

In DAoC, after a long time, they added slash commands (because DAoC is still one of those games who still relies heavily on those prehistoric slash commands) to stop gaining xp and rps, but they still don't allow to delevel your character and go play in lower level BGs.

There's another thread on this forum where people wrote than only a FEW BGs are active. This means that the BGs in DAoC are playable only in the case the level of your character matches the level of the BG that has some players in it. If instead characters could delevel and move freely between every BG you could have the possibility to move in the zone that has some activity and have some fun. Instead of being locked out.

If your character is at level 29 but the level 29 BG is empty, you could delevel to 20 and enter that BG, that maybe has lots of players playing.

Probably because it's a lot of work both programatically and design wise to figure the best way to delevel a character, try to figure out how to get the equipment formulas to work with all the possible variations (A Lv. 20 with Tier 1!), redoing spells and combat formulas (which in WoW isn't feasible for all classes.  Sure, you could deny access to higher ranks of spells, but Rogues for instance do not have multiple ranks of their abilities), then making sure the character can come out of this temporary status change in one piece without completely fricking up the character data.  Then there's if this type of functionality even works with the base of your game engine, which unless it's a part of your core design, I will assume in most cases that it's not, and that really weird things will happen if you temporarily de-level a character.

I understand what you want to see: levels separate people, let's all play together at the same level.  But the fact is an RPG is about character progression.  The more you play, the more powerful your character becomes (in most cases).  I know you want someone who's played the game for a month to be able to play with their buddy who just started using the same characters, but an entirely separate system would need to be designed and implemented separate from the leveling mechanic to get that to occur, and you might as well be playing a different game at that point.

Instead of all of this talk about de-leveling, consider something like this: When you enter a battleground, you no longer are playing the character you've raised.  Everyone is the same level, has the access to the same set of abilities, and the same set of equipment.  Now you're playing pretty much any multiplayer online first person shooter except with a different game type.  But the character you've raised is such a central part of the MMORPG experience that accounting for all the scenarios may not be worth the time and effort balanced versus content production and satisfying the masses.

Ideally what you want needs to be integrated from the start, but the leveling progression is already a tough thing to get right.  City of Heroes had that sidekick system, right?  How did that work out?

[LK]

The basic difference between DAoC and WoW is that in DAoC the BGs are persistent.

And trust me, persistance is a dirty word in instanced battlegrounds.  The original Alterac Valley was supposed to be a persistant environment, but many design problems arose that eventually lead to the scrapping of the idea.  To be fair to both sides who are competing, you need a good reset condition, and nothing serves this better than to end the battleground after a victory condition has been achieved by one side.

If you have a PvP world where one side has completely conquered the other sides territory or had a huge population advantage that influenced the outcome of the match, who would play the losing side?  This is why systems like Chromehounds and Planetside don't work out so well.  What incentive is there to start a game where you are already at a disadvantage? I think most people would go looking for another game to play.

[tazelbain]

> But the fact is an RPG is about character progression.
The sooner we can put a bullet through the head of this idea the better.

[Nebu]

Not everyone has the same goals as you.

I would think that they do have the same goals as I do in any game: to have fun.  Granted, everyone's idea of fun differs. 

Was this supposed to be a jab?

[HRose]

Probably because it's a lot of work both programatically and design wise to figure the best way to delevel a character, try to figure out how to get the equipment formulas to work with all the possible variations (A Lv. 20 with Tier 1!), redoing spells and combat formulas (which in WoW isn't feasible for all classes.  Sure, you could deny access to higher ranks of spells, but Rogues for instance do not have multiple ranks of their abilities), then making sure the character can come out of this temporary status change in one piece without completely fricking up the character data.

In fact we are discussing in this thread hypothetically for Warhammer. When you build a new game you can plan things to achieve what was hard previously.

About spells: not much work. Spells and skills are already "leveled", you just strip what is above the cap. Instead it's important to design a flexible UI where you can save "templates" and not being forced to rebuild your skill bars every time your character is deleveled. But it's a problem entirely solvable.

About gear: in my idea there was a "recruiting office" for a reason. A sword is a sword, it doesn't scale. But every time you go to a recruiting office to delevel your character you can access a "deposit" where you can go drop your current gear and grab the appropriate pieces for that zone. And if your deposit is currently empty, then the clerks of the office would hand you a basic PvP outfit for your class so that you don't have to go in naked.

Actually in my idea there would be separate advancement paths in every zone. So that you can then go to the recruiting office and they would give you special PvP sets (the "trophies" I explained earlier on the thread).

Instead of all of this talk about de-leveling, consider something like this: When you enter a battleground, you no longer are playing the character you've raised.  Everyone is the same level, has the access to the same set of abilities, and the same set of equipment.

Then play an FPS, or Dark Messiah.

[LK]

> But the fact is an RPG is about character progression.
The sooner we can put a bullet through the head of this idea the better.

An RPG without the stereotypical gameplay that's come to be associated with it would be an adventure game, right?

Character progression can mean more than leveling.  It can mean the emotional development of the character as you progress through the story.

[AlteredOne]

The basic difference between DAoC and WoW is that in DAoC the BGs are persistent.

And trust me, persistance is a dirty word in instanced battlegrounds...To be fair to both sides who are competing, you need a good reset condition, and nothing serves this better than to end the battleground after a victory condition has been achieved by one side.

For a more persistent version, I would love to see an alternative model where dominance in RvR/battlegrounds leads to SimCity-style "disasters" which challenge the dominant team.  Suddenly a dragon swoops down to pick members of the dominant side, or an earthquake knocks huge holes in your keep walls...  This would be particularly interesting in a PvP "world" game, where it is possible to invade enemy realms.  The right balance would be achieved by making it extremely difficult (scaling up to impossible) to take and *hold* an enemy homeland.  Hence it would be fun to attempt, but ultimately could not be sustained for various "logistical" reasons.  And of course, you need safeguards to ensure that certain areas are immune from pillaging, as it's never a good idea to have enemy realms slaughtering newbie players in the starting areas.  The challenge is making PvP both accessible and rewarding, without making it an elitist pursuit dominated by catasses.  Not having seen the new WoW "world PvP," it's hard for me to say whether they are hitting the right balance.

FYI the persistence of DAOC BGs causes some serious problems, as one side tends to take and hold all of the landmarks.  At its worst, the undermanned realms are trapped in their portal keep, farmed by the dominant "zerg" waiting for anybody to emerge.  This is why most DAOC BG lovers either roll stealthers who can avoid those situations, or have alt characters in multiple battlegrounds so that they can find one with a good fight.

[HRose]

FYI the persistence of DAOC BGs causes some serious problems, as one side tends to take and hold all of the landmarks.  At its worst, the undermanned realms are trapped in their portal keep, farmed by the dominant "zerg" waiting for anybody to emerge.  This is why most DAOC BG lovers either roll stealthers who can avoid those situations, or have alt characters in multiple battlegrounds so that they can find one with a good fight.

I had an idea for these kinds of situations where you could access some underground tunnels and reemerge in various points of the map.

But is this really a problem? I always liked these situations because they usually don't last for too long and you can still fight and have fun both in attack or defense.

What sucks is that you never gain any points in these situations because everyone results "recently ressurrected". Solve that problem and I doubt the players would complain about battles close to the home keeps. They are fun and they don't last too long because you can force easily who attacks to eventually retreat.

[eldaec]

As much as it pains me to say, most of the BG warriors in DAoC play there because they aren't competitive in the endgame.  I guess it's a self-sorting way of ensuring people get the level of competition that suits them. 

This is true, but if all those people could skip the grind, then they would be competitive in endgame rvr, because endgame rvr would be populated by people like them. Much as it was in the early years of daoc.

[eldaec]

> But the fact is an RPG is about character progression.
The sooner we can put a bullet through the head of this idea the better.

An RPG without the stereotypical gameplay that's come to be associated with it would be an adventure game, right?

No - an adventure game would be a story based game.


RPGs are about playing a character - and usually developng a character. Not always through a ladder of abilities each one strictly better than the last.

However, Dikumuds *are* about linear & vertical character progression. And WAR is a Dikumud first and foremost.

[Nebu]

This is true, but if all those people could skip the grind, then they would be competitive in endgame rvr, because endgame rvr would be populated by people like them. Much as it was in the early years of daoc.

I don't buy this argument at all.  It took longer back then to reach level 20 and enter the frontiers than it does to get to 50 and outfitted now. The "grind" today is almost non-existent, especially for established players... which comprise 99.9% of the current playerbase.

[tazelbain]

Not everyone has the same goals as you.

I would think that they do have the same goals as I do in any game: to have fun.  Granted, everyone's idea of fun differs. 

Was this supposed to be a jab?

No. Was your statement a jab?  Sounds like you said people who prefer the BG are just settling for the BG because they couldn't hack it in RvR.  By goal I meant strategy to have fun.

To have fun in PvP, my goal is:
a) ruin someones day.
b) punish someone.
c) gain recognition from my peers.
d) test myself against my peers.
e) get my team to overcome our enemies.
f) participate in varied combat against people.

The list is ordered is order from what I least identify to what I most identity with. I am sure their are other reasons also.  I sure other could article the desire for PvP politics and world building.  Maybe we can make a chart for PvP motivations.  Since I play more value on (f) I like the battlegrounds because you place more value on (e) you would prefer RvR.

[Nebu]

No. Was your statement a jab?  Sounds like you said people who prefer the BG are just settling for the BG because they couldn't hack it in RvR. 

My statement was not a jab, it was a statement based on observations over the past 4 years or so that the BG's have existed.  People that are successful in endgame PvP rarely play in the BG's.  Sure, they do it on occasion but it's certainly not the norm.  If you play in the bg's for an extended period of time you'll see exactly what I mean.  The level of ability among BG players is recognizably lower than in the endgame.  Especially among the solo or 8v8 circles.  This is what makes the BG's more fun for the masses.  The level of competition is softer so it's easier to be successful (meaning many have more fun).

Personally, my fun in the game comes from fighting the best players on the server.  Even if I lose every fight, I enjoy the challenge and often learn a good deal about strategies to help me be successful in future encounters.  I like fighting the "elite" players without being one myself... it makes the wins so much more enjoyable. The gear that I pvp in is FAR from the best and my suit is no where near perfect yet I'm still very competitive.  That's what I appreciate about DAoC: Your play and ability to react to situations matters as much or more than your gear in the endgame.  Especially on the Classic servers.

[Venkman]

It's not wrong to separate endgame RvR skill from BG skill. Again it's back to sports analogy. BGs are sport. RvR are those seeking more immersion. WoW really doesn't have the latter. DAoC does but doesn't have a zillion players either. A good game can be designed to attract both. Maybe WAR will.

Why not players delevel characters dynamically to the max cap of the zone and PLAY WHEREVER THE HELL THEY DESIRE?

Because along the way you arguably de-compel the advancement of other characters. Why bother hitting level 60 if the most fun you have is at 39? Without that compulsion to keep pushing forward, people are just having "fun". And fun does not retain unto itself without the compulsion to keep moving forward, because people can go off and have amply fun for free.

My idea for WoW "world" PvP was to use "hotspots" working like magnets. You gain honor points from killing other players only at a radius from the hotspot. The more you fight closer to the hotspot the more points you get.

How do you balance the sides though? Unless you disregard faction in these areas, it's a numbers game, and includes such ugliness as those out of battle adding to it, people exploiting zone limits, etc. I would like to see a real attempt at relevant world PvP, but we only need to remember back to the days before BGs, and the "world PvP" that exists today to see the problems. It's the very essence of why BGs are instantiated in the first place (among other things, like the polished-content thing you noted).

WoW isn't about compartmentalizing PvP and PvE. It's about compartmentalizing activities altogether, by compelling people into or away from areas. But there are some things that need absolute boundaries or you end up with a few players being able to ruin the game for a lot. This is why instantiation has become a solution for the genre, both PvE and PvP. You cannot guarantee that the people you want in an encounter are the people who show up. So you have to incorporate ways for that group to get what they want while not being affected by those who just want to grief and exploit.

For a more persistent version, I would love to see an alternative model where dominance in RvR/battlegrounds leads to SimCity-style "disasters" which challenge the dominant team

Yes. You can do this right so that the dominating player can get perks from winning the RvR/BG while suffering the penalty of such dominance elsewhere. It doesn't need to be world cracking or anything.

[tazelbain]

See different goal.  I will play less optimal builds for fun.  I go off and attack things I shouldn't to entertain myself.  I am have had a fair amount of success competing with the best before but it wasn't much fun.

>If you play in the bg's for an extended period of time you'll see exactly what I mean.
I think we have covered all the reasons why that ain't going to happen even if I am interested in how the new frontiers layout works.

[AlteredOne]

My statement was not a jab, it was a statement based on observations over the past 4 years or so that the BG's have existed.  People that are successful in endgame PvP rarely play in the BG's.  Sure, they do it on occasion but it's certainly not the norm.

When "success" in endgame PvP equates to massive time commitments, lots of decent players look elsewhere.  I cancelled because it's hard to find solo fights in real RvR, with an infant I don't have the time to run with a regular 8v8 group (going afk mid-fight for a screaming baby gets groups pissed off), and the old-school zerg siege fights are harder to find (although I hated them anyway).  Personally I had an RR7 and a few RR5s, but I preferred BG play.  Especially the BG stealthers tended to be twinked and smart, good competition.

[Nebu]

When "success" in endgame PvP equates to massive time commitments, lots of decent players look elsewhere.  I cancelled because it's hard to find solo fights in real RvR, with an infant I don't have the time to run with a regular 8v8 group (going afk mid-fight for a screaming baby gets groups pissed off), and the old-school zerg siege fights are harder to find (although I hated them anyway).  Personally I had an RR7 and a few RR5s, but I preferred BG play.  Especially the BG stealthers tended to be twinked and smart, good competition.

It sounds like we played a different game.  I don't commit much time if any... far less than people playing WoW that I know.  I enjoy as much or as little PvP as I like and I'm competitive with almost no cost up front.  The game is so different than it was in the past that the barrier to entry is lower than about any mmog available.  I agree that there are some good players in the BG's, they just don't present the same challenge.  Beating a well-played rr8 stealther at rr3 is a greater challenge than anything I've ever found in the BG's.  Doing it with mediocre (dare I say cheap) gear is even more fun. 

Seems like we play for similar reasons with similar playstyles... it's interesting that we see things so differently. 

[Shapechanger]

Something I've been asking myself lately that I haven't been able to answer is this: are the battlegrounds (wow, in this context) fun because they have predefined objectives and win/loss criteria (which limits the amount of time required by a particular battleground), or are they fun because they focus players into one area?

For me this answer differed from the other replies.

I didn't play it for either reason, perhaps because I came from DAoC and preferred that playstyle.  I played the BGs because I play to PvP, not to PvE.  And a long tread through PvE just to fairly PvP is tortorous to me.

As such, I would play in the BG.  With a BG character, when you are done with gear, you are done.  No new gear comes out every few months to invalidate what you did.  You get your set, and you go play.  Because WoW BGs had such a horrific twink problem, you'd carry a normal set of gear and weapon and items, and a twink set.

I liked that better because I didn't have to keep racing with the Jones' over gear, creating more and more PvE debt against my PvP time.

Developers never give 2 holy shits about the low level game.  When you play the low level game, you find a lot of more mature older players who also have families and schedules to be responsible for - and as such they know their limits and participate in an area where it works for their schedule.  The low level game where when a character is done it is done for a long time to come.... and the only Jones' you have to keep up with is having a good time.

[Daeven]

> But the fact is an RPG is about character progression.
The sooner we can put a bullet through the head of this idea the better.

Yes please. In the original Traveler RPG? Character advancement stopped after character creation. "Doing stuff" was more important that "advancement mechanics".

And for bonus points you could fall out of an airlock and die during character creation.

[eldaec]

Developers never give 2 holy shits about the low level game. 

They do in CoX.

With the result that it is the only game I'm aware of that maintains a healthy amount of level 1-10s playing to have fun, rather than just to power through to higher levels.


The low level game can be fun and can keep your vets interacting with the newbies. But you need to keep adding just as much new shiny to levels 1-10 as to 40-50, I suspect adding new classes every few patches helps a bit too (though CoX classes are more like DAoC spec lines). Whether someone can make that work in a PvP game would be interesting to see.

[AlteredOne]

Seems like we play for similar reasons with similar playstyles... it's interesting that we see things so differently. 

Probably just a personality thing.  I really couldn't stand playing a stealther past the BGs, hard to explain why.  For big-boy RvR I preferred tanks, but eventually I reached a point where I couldn't get decent pickup groups on a tank (whereas my SI-era hero got RR7 way back in 2003), and as I'm sure you know the zerg siege game is horrible for tanks.  Looking back on it, I probably should have just bit the bullet and made a 50 infilltrator, especially since my wife's legendary alchemist would have kept me nicely stocked.

[Arthur_Parker]

I only saw this today.

Linky

The fine folks at Kohnke Communications set up a teleconference to pass on some information about Warhammer Online. It was … an experience. On the Kohnke end, things were run by the ever-friendly Eddiemae Jukes. EA-Mythic offered up Senior Producer Jeff Hickman and Design Manager Paul Barnett to answer the questions submitted in advance by the press folks.

They’ve worked together before, and it was very obvious. Jeff referred to himself as the ‘fun’, while Paul is the ‘fact’. That was … pretty much the way of things, though I wouldn’t call Jeff’s presentation boring. Between the two of them, they talked extensively about the Realm vs. Realm combat, and got into a little bit of what makes Warhammer very much *not* World of Warcraft.


I’m not sure that the differences between the two games are a slam dunk at this point, but I walked away from the call with a distinct increase in respect for the title. Which, of course, is exactly what the purpose of the call was. I’m going to admit to ignorance on my part with some of the game’s nuances, prior to the call. Halfway through I hopped online and found that some of the details they were handing out were easly accessible on their website. So. Shame on me.

They began by talking about their ‘Public quest’ system. Instead of going to NPCs for quests, you are given quests automatically by entering an area of the world. ‘As you come into the public quest area, you are given the quest, everyone gets the quest, everyone participates at the same time’. I like this idea, insomuch as it removes some of the book-keeping involved in what is (supposed to be) an entertaining experience.

Their stress when talking about quests was on the violent, epic nature of the world. Paul Barnett put it like so: “What am I going to do in most games? ‘Get killed by an eight-year old finger ninja.’” Instead, you go and do ongoing quests that captures the spirit of the game right from the starter village. They were very high-level here, and despite their example of ‘a giant coming to smash up the town’ (which sounds entertaining) I’m not sure I buy ‘epic from the get-go’. I’ve yet to play a fantasy MMOG that didn’t have me killing rats at the start of things. Here’s hoping though, right?

“What did you learn from DAoC that you’re bringing to WAR?” Their off-the-cuff funny answer was ‘everything’. Specifically, and obviously, realm vs. realm combat in DAoC is the basis for that functionality in Warhammer. Jeff refers to DAoC in the past tense. It ‘was’ very successful. Mr. Hickmans sounds like he’s moved past Camelot. RvR in Warhammer, meanwhile, will have ‘four levels of RvR’, with many places and ways to participate. They touch on this more later, and this really does seem like it will be a defining feature for the game.

They briefly discuss Guild management. Most games they (rightly) claim, have pretty crappy guild support. Again, they’re basing everything on what they’ve learned from Dark Age. DAoC really does get this right, so I can’t see that they’re blowing smoke here.

They touch on the game’s diversity of character classes. They have ‘about 44 classes in DAoC’. This, they say, was very hard to maintain, but very rewarding. They’re bringing that to WAR, with 24 classes. Each class has a defining mechanic, and each race has its own unique classes. Mmmm… That’s a lot of classes. I never understood DAoC’s obsession with lots of classes, actually, but if they say it’s rewarding I guess that’s their bailiwick. To my mind, it seems likely to introduce confusion amongst the playerbase.

“How are you addressing the MMOG Grind?” Paul took this one, and went off on a (very British) rant about how ‘naf’ is the usual newbie experience a MMOG offers. Their goal: Make it fun from the beginning. If you have to get ten pelts, just kill ten wolves. More impressively, they claim that the war (RvR) is everywhere, even in the starting village. Players who are interested in PvP won’t have to wait to get to it; the war will come to them. Paul claims that players can experience Warhammer on many levels, and goes on to cite all four Bartle types (thought not by name) as having things to do in the game. It was a very entertaining rant, but avoiding the grind is very hard to get right.

“What’s compelling for a casual player?” The game is meant to be accessible for both PVE and RvR. Playing only once a week will still be fun, as you’ve got ‘fast action’. While I could see this being true about RvR stuff (especially after later comments), how is this game’s PvE going to be fundamentally different enough to offer the super-casual player a rewarding 2 hour experience?

Paul takes a moment to talk about the tone of the world, which he describes as very very dark. “Not spitting babies on sticks and rolling them in salt, or blowing out the torch dark.” This is a dark, grim world, with dark humor, in a perilous time. He apparently bangs his hands on the table and shouts ‘Darker Darker Darker’ to inspire the troops. It’s interesting to hear him talk like this. As far as I know, there’s no word of what rating they’re aiming for, but unless they’re going to be joining Conan in the ‘Rated M’ category I can’t imagine they’ll be able to fully follow through with some of the ‘darkness’ they describe here.

“How deep is the character system?” 6 races. Most of the races have two sexes. (Greenskins are orcs and gobbos.) As characters get more powerful, they start to look distinctly different (dwarven beards get longer). Even if a player has no equipment on, you’ll be able to tell the difference between a 1st and a max-level character. You can further customize your character during gameplay, by acquiring trophies. They’ll be discrete items you can actually place on your character somewhere. Trophies will be acquired from quests, from events, etc. There’s a screenshot on the website that seems to show a dead cat hanging from a player’s belt. This is one area I simply can’t find anything to complain about. Extra character customization is something you can never put ‘too much’ into, I think. Paul broke in and said “The goal is to be able to line up 10 different orcs, all of the same level and of the same class, and to have each and every one of them look different.”

“Character Class + Race = Different?” Every race has different classes associated with it, and even though some classes might seem similar, their hope is that they’ll be different ‘enough’. IE: Once you’ve played through the game with the Orcish tank, you can turn around and play the Dark Elf equivalent without saying ‘gaah this is exactly the same.’ Another admirable goal … but really, how many different ‘ways’ are there of soaking up damage?

At this point they went into the different ‘levels’ of RvR combat. I have to admit, I find their ideas compelling.

Skirmish RvR = Each zone has an RvR area, as well as PvE areas. You’re flagged just by entering the area. Your goal is to kill the other guys. Real basic, nothing fancy.

Battlefields = Objectives within Skirmish areas that are focal points for combat. A tower on a hill, can be claimed for the realm.

Scenarios = Story points within skirmish areas. Instanced. “Evenly matched point-based combat.” Enter the lobby, get matched up with others from your realm to fight the other side. This sounds exactly like what WoW calls battlegrounds, but they were quick to stress there is no CTF or other gameplay types: you’re killing the other side and taking their territory.

All three of these plays into the overall campaign (the ‘fourth level’ of RvR). The different nations and races face off against each other over their commonly held borders. While everyone can fight the opponents of both sides, some fights will have an extra ’something’ to them. They’re working on making racial conflicts somewhat like football rivalries. Minnesota vs. Wisconsin == Dwarves vs. Orcs, for example. By participating in Battlefields and Scenarios, you can ‘own’ zones, and ‘push the enemy back’ from their territorial lands. If your side works hard enough, you can capture the capitol city. You can even ransack the city, kill the citizens, and capture the king. The king can be taken back to your capital city, where players can buy rotten tomatoes to throw at him.

They went on to say that, if one side is good enough, this state could be kept up for quite a while. Just the same, the capitols themselves will be very hard to keep for a long time. The goal is to make the losing side suffer, but not to make their gameplay experience miserable. There are lots of ways in which capitols fight back (guerilla missions?), and holding one for an extended period of time will be quite a feat.

I never had the chance to fully get into the RvR offered by Dark Age of Camelot, but all of this sounds quite exciting. Even if half of the things they’re promising make it into the final game, it would be very different than most of the other massive titles I’ve played. I’m showing my lack of experience here; DAoC was just not that big a deal for me. I’m skeptical and all (of course), but still … sacking capital cities? It makes me want to drink the kool-aid.

“What rewards will RvR offer?” - According to Jeff, it’s not possible to split out RvR rewards from their compatriots on the PvE side. Everything you can get from fighting mobs is obtainable by killing other players. You can earn XP, level up, and even get loot. The items are looted off of dead players, but aren’t ‘from’ the dead players. Players will apparently have their own loot tables. This is completely awesome, and is something I’m eager to test out. I’ve had more than my fill of whomping rats, thanks. If I could have played Arathi Basin for quest xp, I would have been in that queue from logon to logoff.

The idea of griefing comes up, and their response is succinct: “As long as there is still skill involved in taking on another player, you can fight. If there is no challenge in killing a player, or too much, you can’t do it.” A level 40 character in a level 10 zone just wouldn’t be flagged; he doesn’t belong there.

They talk a bit about the size of the game, and state at launch they’ll have 33 zones, 6 capitol cities, 3 PvE dungeons, one big RvR dungeon (what’s that going to be like?), and ‘bazillions of scenarios’. They’ve obviously put a lot of effort into the scenario part of the game. They certainly seem popular in WoW, so no reason to think they won’t work in WAR.

Things are kind of wrapping up and Paul goes off on a tangent about “Playing the game how you want to play it.” IE: Killing members of a guild take their banners, putting the banners on your walls as trophies. Kill people, take their heads, putting them on your guild banner and wave it around. He was a big fan of the “I’m better than you” moments in gaming.

My overall impression: Impressed. I really wish I’d had the chance to play around with the game at GenCon this year. My summer was ‘naf’ to borrow a term, and I never had the chance to set up a PR appointment before hand. My bad, and now it looks like I really missed out on the chance of seeing something different. I still agree with the folks who say that WAR *looks* like WoW, but it definitely seems to have sufficiently different elements so as to set it apart from it is popular predecessor.

If nothing else, the idea of leveling up through the game via PvP (but having the option of not doing so) is the best thing since … Shadowbane.  Good game or not, here’s hoping the conflicts between the greenskins and the dwarves have a bit more staying power.

Thanks to Jeff, Paul, and Eddiemae for the interesting hour. I definitely learned a thing or two, and I’ve finally got a fantasy MMOG to add to my list of games I’m looking forward to. Good show.

I quoted the whole thing because a lot of the quotes were new, to me anyway.  It's long but worth a read if you are interested in WAR.

This is the bit I liked best and it's the first time I have seen it confirmed "The items are looted off of dead players, but aren’t ‘from’ the dead players. Players will apparently have their own loot tables".  I just hope the loot tables are actually based off the level, race and class of the defeated player.  It would also be nice to have the loot tables partly based on the items that the defeated player is carrying, a sort of cloned carried item might drop, but they would need to consider how to tackle the obvious exploits that type of system would introduce.

[Nebu]

Thanks for the post.  Having played DAoC since beta, this is one title I've been waiting for.  The text above reads well... I'm just too jaded to believe it will play as well as it reads.  I hope they prove me wrong, but it's going to take some convincing.

I like the trophy ideas.  I like the fact that you'll be able to differentiate people by appearance.  I like that players too high for an area won't be flagged (though I worry about the blue healer phenomenon etc.).  Giving players bragging rights that don't imbalance play is a great direction. 

[Trippy]

Developers never give 2 holy shits about the low level game. 

They do in CoX.

With the result that it is the only game I'm aware of that maintains a healthy amount of level 1-10s playing to have fun, rather than just to power through to higher levels.

That's cause in those games there's not a lot to do once you hit 50 that's different from what you were doing 1 - 49 and no meaningful form of character advancement other than perhaps collecting HOs (no, badge collecting doesn't count unless it's an accolade).

[eldaec]

Skirmish RvR = Each zone has an RvR area, as well as PvE areas. You’re flagged just by entering the area. Your goal is to kill the other guys. Real basic, nothing fancy.

This continues to worry me.

It implies there are areas where a dwarf can stand next to an Orc and they can't kill each other. And if they they can stand in the same PvE zones they can probably talk/trade.

They *might* mean that the structure is....

Dwarf PvE   /  RvR /   Orc PvE

With '/' being a barrier which is impassable by the opposing race (possibly movable through some RvR mechanic).  Which would make it all ok again.

[tazelbain]

This is the first time, I think, they stated how the 4 level of PvP fit together.  They are going to protect newbs the same way WoW PvP servers do.  Interesting how they are going make you go out to PvP areas to enter Scenarios, I suppose thats to get slackers like me to Skirmish and do public quests while I wait.

That article is worth it's own thread.