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

[HRose]

But you need to keep adding just as much new shiny to levels 1-10 as to 40-50

I'm a strong supporter of this and it's also why I'm for "sandbox" games that move away from a strictly linear progression. Too many designers forget that the game should be considered as a whole and being worked on every part. Not just the last, newer bit.

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.

This is something already in DAoC. So it's really nothing amazing or interesting, as what matters is how these quests actually work and how they connect to the structure of the game.

It may as well suck greatly, think for example if these public quests are nothing more than massive grinds that yield almost zero benefits. Knowing Mythic and similar features added to DAoC this may as well become a system completely ignored by the players. So, if relevant or not, depends on how they do it.

They are just saying that when you enter "Alterac Valley" then the quest to go kill the other faction general opens up in your quest log (or control the mine, or save your generals, or pick up armor scraps). I don't see this as a relevant innovation.

“What did you learn from DAoC that you’re bringing to WAR?”

Well, I'll let them speak for themselves: "Scenarios offer different game play, ranging from Deathmatch to Capture the Flag to Assault."

That's what they seem to have learnt from DAoC.

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.

In particular after they released the first screenshots and it was obvious that they were aiming for WoW lightweight mood instead of the mean face of the Warhammer world.

I have to say their graphic style improved a lot, and one thing I don't have any problem to say is that Mythic has some of the VERY BEST artists out there. I also like a lot the more realistic loot of the armor. More metal, iron, leather, wood, skulls, sharp stuff. Realistic stuff, not the exaggerated, plastic-like style of the gear in WoW.

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.

See the quote above: "Scenarios offer different game play, ranging from Deathmatch to Capture the Flag to Assault."

It is taken from an interview that is two weeks old at max.

But really, and in particular to Artur Parker, this says NOTHING new. The whole thing is just a patchwork of things that they revealed long ago mixed with a bunch of claims not backed up by actual explanations about how they intend to accomplish some of those goals.

By the way, I also think the 33 zones are not "real". I wrote about this months ago on my site but the suspect is that they count the starting zones twice. For example you start in the dwarf zone and at the other side there's the greenskin/orcs zone. They count this zone as two (one for dwarfs, one for greenskins).

So, in theory, for the single character:
- tier 1: 3 zones
- tier 2: 3 zones
- tier 3: 3 zones
- tier 4: campaign (divided into 9 contested zones and 6 capitals)

Basically for each tier there's one PvP zone. With the possibility to travel to the other battlefront (so three zones in total).

[HRose]

This is the first time, I think, they stated how the 4 level of PvP fit together.

Nope, and we discussed this even on this forum in a thread opened by Arthur Parker ;)

It was way back just after the E3. There have been no real news since then.

[tazelbain]

Ya, I have seen that picture, but I wasn't sure what the circles where.  It looked to me like it was campaign and the circles were scenarios.

I find it humorous that they would use "skirmish" as a euphemism for random PKing.

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.

‘bazillions of scenarios’ has me wondering how they are going to handle lobbies.  What if there isn't anyone in the opposing lobby because they are in a lobby of a different scenerio. Both fight NPCs?  Not a fan lobbies, but if you don't have to wait too long it is okay. At least with a bunch of scenerios, hopefully there will be variety.

[Arthur_Parker]

But really, and in particular to Artur Parker, this says NOTHING new. The whole thing is just a patchwork of things that they revealed long ago mixed with a bunch of claims not backed up by actual explanations about how they intend to accomplish some of those goals.

This is the first place I have read that players will have their own loot tables.  It's been said before that you can gain items in pvp but the system they intend to use might have been purely via pvp quests rewards.  So the idea that you can enter a pvp area, kill someone and loot their corpse to generate a reward item is new.

This is the 2nd item in the past few months you have commented on something I have quoted and linked to and said "there's nothing new!", maybe that's fine in your language but it's starting to piss me off.  If you don't find it interesting, skip it and stop saying "that's not new!" you said it before and it's annoying, I'm not trying to entertain you.

[eldaec]

By the way, I also think the 33 zones are not "real". I wrote about this months ago on my site but the suspect is that they count the starting zones twice. For example you start in the dwarf zone and at the other side there's the greenskin/orcs zone. They count this zone as two (one for dwarfs, one for greenskins).

Given that the only thing that really defines a zone these days is the shiny and the name, it's as real as any other definition.

If the first area is made up of three areas delineated as clearly as Forest Sauvage and the PvE zone next to it, then I'd happy to think of them as zones.


Another question the whole zone and race structure asks is 'how do you do expansions?'

You do not want to add more pvp zones, because spreading the population breaks pvp. But building such a strong rvr focus and then saying 'oh it's a pve expansion' seems odd - plus the inevitable new races need a battlefront.

Adding new races is also hard, because with classes tied explictly to a single race, you need 4  new classes for each new race (maybe you can get away with 2 or 3 and copy 1 or 2 from another race?), and you'll need to add a race to both sides.

So to do the obvious first expansion 'add a new area, and a new race for each side' in the most straightforward way would require 2 races, 8 classes, a 33% increase in PvP landmass, and the equivalent of 11 new zones of PvE content, just to fit in Skaven/Bretonnia or Wood Elf/Chaos Dwarf.

The races themselves and the pve content aren't a problem, but you can't go on adding PvP landmass indefinitely, and adding 8 classes a year is...  very brave.

Maybe they'll just add new races to existing battlefronts (Wood elf joins high elf, chaos dwarf joins chaos) - then you can maybe add a one or two new classes available to both races on that front.


Or maybe they'll realise that 2 is wrong number of realms and add tomb kings as a third - Hah! I wish.

[Arthur_Parker]

Another question the whole zone and race structure asks is 'how do you do expansions?'

You do not want to add more pvp zones, because spreading the population breaks pvp. But building such a strong rvr focus and then saying 'oh it's a pve expansion' seems odd - plus the inevitable new races need a battlefront.

Adding new races is also hard, because with classes tied explictly to a single race, you need 4  new classes for each new race (maybe you can get away with 2 or 3 and copy 1 or 2 from another race?), and you'll need to add a race to both sides.

So to do the obvious first expansion 'add a new area, and a new race for each side' in the most straightforward way would require 2 races, 8 classes, a 33% increase in PvP landmass, and the equivalent of 11 new zones of PvE content, just to fit in Skaven/Bretonnia or Wood Elf/Chaos Dwarf.

The races themselves and the pve content aren't a problem, but you can't go on adding PvP landmass indefinitely, and adding 8 classes a year is...  very brave.

Maybe they'll just add new races to existing battlefronts (Wood elf joins high elf, chaos dwarf joins chaos) - then you can maybe add a one or two new classes available to both races on that front.

If you check Daeven's comments about Skaven it's about zone control changing hands and warpstone, his comments are immediately before Mark Jacobs decided to reply here for the first time.  It's about a year from release and we know Skaven will be one of the first two new races added, so I'd guess Mark is thinking along the same lines and maybe starting to sketch in details to his expansion plans, it would probably be better to add the next two races without adding another battlefront of 11 zones for the population spread reasons alone.  Skaven live under every major city so it makes sense to add them to existing zones if there are advantages in doing that.

[HRose]

This is the 2nd item in the past few months you have commented on something I have quoted and linked to and said "there's nothing new!", maybe that's fine in your language but it's starting to piss me off.  If you don't find it interesting, skip it and stop saying "that's not new!" you said it before and it's annoying, I'm not trying to entertain you.

It wasn't an offense. Whether things are new or not is a fact, whether I find them interesting or not is subjective. I just said that those things weren't new.

Then you can continue posting what you want. They aren't new to me but they may be as well to other people.

About the number of zones. I'm not saying they are lying. It's just that I try to describe how things should work from the player's perspective, in particular for PvP.

[Arthur_Parker]

It wasn't an offense. Whether things are new or not is a fact, whether I find them interesting or not is subjective. I just said that those things weren't new.

If you can't link to a post on f13 confirming that items in WAR can be gained in pvp via loot tables based on defeated players then that information is "new".  That's a fact.

Then you can continue posting what you want. They aren't new to me but they may be as well to other people.

If you accept that the information might be of interest to someone, then there's no reason for you stating "that's not new!" every time I quote a WAR article is there?  Just accept the fact that not everyone else in the world creates a website just to stalk Mythic.

[Venkman]

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.

It depends on the zone design. If you funnel players like WoW does through world geometry, it won't be so obvious.

I like Zonk. He's experienced but not jaded, still able to maintain objectivity but with /. behind him able to get people talking too.

I never understood DAoC’s obsession with lots of classes, actually, but if they say it’s rewarding I guess that’s their bailiwick.

I never did either, same with SWG, same with AoC, same with EQ2 (both in the archetype days and in the post Pub 19 world). I understand players find open templates confusing, but I can't see 24+ classes being any less confusing either. There just aren't that many abilities required in these games, and therefore they're driving a system replete with specialists. Unless they duplicate abilities across a lot of classes, people are rightly going to feel fairly focused. The cornerstone of the play experience is what your character can do. Players know their characters well. If they see ahead of them an arduous grind just so they can try some other specialty, and then see they'd need to do that at least 15+ times to get the breadth of the game, they're just not going to.

What continues to drive my interest in WAR though is this: "Everything you can get from fighting mobs is obtainable by killing other players. You can earn XP, level up, and even get loot". That plus the three different types of PvP outlined previously do indicate something pretty different, sort of WoW PvP++. Just as long as I can find a class I like either in beta or I guess right at launch.

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.

It's been awhile since I played CoV, much less CoH, so I imagine you'll know this better than I, so I have a question:

How much of that "fun" is because the bulk of new and interesting abilities one gain from templates come before 14? Or is it more dependent upon the fact that the advancement-to-time ratio is much MUCH better in the lowbie levels? Or, is it because of the emergent experiences like costume parties, given that they could have shipped an entire SKU on the character-builder screen alone?

[eldaec]

How much of that "fun" is because the bulk of new and interesting abilities one gain from templates come before 14? Or is it more dependent upon the fact that the advancement-to-time ratio is much MUCH better in the lowbie levels? Or, is it because of the emergent experiences like costume parties, given that they could have shipped an entire SKU on the character-builder screen alone?

People in CoH really do play the 1-10 thing - it's not just costume parties.

Adding a single power in CoH can often substantially change the way a character is played - you don't just get strictly better versions as you level up, you get altogether new powers (generally more swingy and dramatic powers balanced by higher costs, but not just strictly better replacement powers).

So saying the bulk of new stuff comes before 14 would probably be a somewhat unfair oversimplification. The experience of adding a new power and building it into your playstyle is what makes CoH/V fun, and while you do get new powers all the way up to 50, the rate they arrive at gets slower and slower as you go on. Eventually the additional effort to add the next power outweighs how swingy and dramatic they can be at higher levels, and just starting up again with powers from another set becomes more attractive.

[LK]

All this talk about City of Heroes has gotten me to give it a shot.  Last time I played was Beta.  I hope it's improved!

[Venkman]

All this talk about City of Heroes has gotten me to give it a shot.  Last time I played was Beta.  I hope it's improved!

It has. Have fun!

People in CoH really do play the 1-10 thing - it's not just costume parties.

...

So saying the bulk of new stuff comes before 14 would probably be a somewhat unfair oversimplification. The experience of adding a new power and building it into your playstyle is what makes CoH/V fun, and while you do get new powers all the way up to 50, the rate they arrive at gets slower and slower as you go on. Eventually the additional effort to add the next power outweighs how swingy and dramatic they can be at higher levels, and just starting up again with powers from another set becomes more attractive

But I see an inherent contradiction there. Maybe I'm just reading you wrong. But you seemed to imply earlier that the 1-10 thing is so fun, that's a lot of what people do. To me, that reads two ways:

1) It is fun. I totally agree. I must have rolled 20 or so characters and played them to 8 or 10. That's good for attraction.
2) The fun wears off thereafter, due to content, grind, no endgame, whatever. That's not good for retention.

It's kinda like those average level curves. I can't find them, but basically at one point I put together a post (somewhere, maybe Grimwell, maybe blog) that showed the general level curves of WoW and EQ2. As expected in a diku, the number of listed characters at level 1 was higher than the level cap, gently slopping between 1 and whatever. But whereas EQ2 showed a slight spike at the cap, indicating there were more people at the then-50 level cap than at level 49, the WoW chart showed a huge spike. The reason is apparent to anyone who's played both for any amount of time: it's much easier to level to the cap in WoW.

What retains players better? An arduous leveling up that steadily decreases both the pace the breadth of rewards through the cap, or an easy one that does the same thing. I say "leveling up" instead of "grind" because both games focus on quests as advancement, so really is "quest grind". More percentage of subscribers have quit well before the cap in EQ2 than those who hit the cap in WoW.

So back to CoH: are people playing through all that content from 1 to 50 and then the Hero classes? Or are they by and large focusing on the 1-10 game because that's the most fun? And, has this contributed to the reason why CoH did nothing but decline in subs from launch, sorta at odds with how the genre had worked to that point (and in some cases since)?

[Nebu]

I never understood DAoC’s obsession with lots of classes, actually, but if they say it’s rewarding I guess that’s their bailiwick.

I never did either, same with SWG, same with AoC, same with EQ2 (both in the archetype days and in the post Pub 19 world). I understand players find open templates confusing, but I can't see 24+ classes being any less confusing either. There just aren't that many abilities required in these games, and therefore they're driving a system replete with specialists. Unless they duplicate abilities across a lot of classes, people are rightly going to feel fairly focused. The cornerstone of the play experience is what your character can do. Players know their characters well. If they see ahead of them an arduous grind just so they can try some other specialty, and then see they'd need to do that at least 15+ times to get the breadth of the game, they're just not going to.

A large number of classes seems great from a marketing standpoint but a nightmare from a gameplay view, I'll explain. One of the biggest things a large number of classes gives is the illusion of replay value.  I say "illusion" because players will eventually come to realize that the new classes really don't add anything new to the game, they mostly (with the exception f brand new classes introduced in expansions) are just a reissue of other classes with a new jumble of abilities.  I like the large number of classes in DAoC from a replay standpoint in that their difference are just subtle enough to change the pvp experience without really being game-breaking. 

From the design perspective, it's near impossible to balance this many classes leaving a portion of the playerbase feeling disenfranchised.  Interestingly, this isn't always a bad thing... players that take the time to play a different class may find that they dislike it and opt to try yet another class.  This brings replay value (read subscription retention) to the more devoted members of the playerbase. 

The last interesting observation is that over the last 5+ years, the playerbase seems to prefer fewer classes but don't quite realize it.  Most of the balance issues brought forth by team leads and the players are issues that make Class X more like Class Y.  I guess it's just intuitively obvious that if classes have the same or similar enough abilities, they will be balanced with regard to eachother.  While players like having different names and realms for their class, I think they would be ok with them having nearly identical power sets as long as they looked differently enough. 

[tazelbain]

>adding 8 classes a year is...  very brave.
If Guild Wars didn't exist, I'd agree.  I know you are going to say GW isn't RvR.  Not being RvR, affects what you balance for, not how much. If you don't keep throwing new skills, new strategies it'll get stale.  Plus it creates replayablity.  Every race is going to have a tank class.  Are they really going to be distinct? I bet you dollar to donuts GW Warriors will have more variety that all tank classes in WAR combined.

[eldaec]

So back to CoH: are people playing through all that content from 1 to 50 and then the Hero classes? Or are they by and large focusing on the 1-10 game because that's the most fun? And, has this contributed to the reason why CoH did nothing but decline in subs from launch, sorta at odds with how the genre had worked to that point (and in some cases since)?

Are people playing through all that content 1-50? No. They're getting as far as they feel like, then starting again - you notice the player base focus switches from 'having fun' to 'pure bloody mindedness' around level 30.

Are they by and large focusing on the 1-10 game because that's the most fun? Well, 1-30 really, and imo, they focus there because getting new powers is fun, and that happens less at higher levels. An individual level 40 mission considered on its own is more fun than a level 15 mission (more interesting bad guys, more interesting team mates, more interesting powers available), but a level 40 mission doesn't contribute as much to the thing that is the *most* fun - getting a new power.

Has this contributed to the reason why CoH did nothing but decline in subs from launch? Maybe. But if so, that leads to the horrific conclusion that you really do need endless progression to keep a game sticky.

A large number of classes seems great from a marketing standpoint but a nightmare from a gameplay view, I'll explain. One of the biggest things a large number of classes gives is the illusion of replay value.  I say "illusion" because players will eventually come to realize that the new classes really don't add anything new to the game

Personally, I like the flavour of many classes. This isn't based on a dry analysis of mechanics - I just like having a group list with 8 different classes, and I like that the mechanic variation from an Armsman to a Reaver to a Mercenary makes battles subtlely different. I also like that the idea that a large number of classes gives you room to give everyone two jobs (which makes groups easier to build).

I also don't like the idea that if I am a cleric, the heathen midgardians could possibly also be clerics. Because my realm is clearly the 'good' realm with 'good' professions, and obviously anyone in a different realm is a perverted infidel - and so not an honourable cleric.

That said, I'm probably even more sold on the CoH/V approach for this. Few classes, many many spec lines.

[Nebu]

That said, I'm probably even more sold on the CoH/V approach for this. Few classes, many many spec lines.

Giving each spec line a unique class name does help everyone feel more like a "special snowflake" though.  Never underestimate the value of that!

[Venkman]

Too many classes is bad. For many reasons, from design to balance to the fact that so many get confused by lots of options they end up collectively defining a far narrower set for everyone to focus on anyway. We saw this in EQ1, EQ2, DAoC, UO templates and SWG. It'll happen in AoC and VG too. Players focus, forcing devs to forcing, leaving others behind, minimizing their relevance, redirecting players to focus where others are. I call it a waste of resources. 10 classes max. Anything else is gray area with diminishing relevance.

Has this contributed to the reason why CoH did nothing but decline in subs from launch? Maybe. But if so, that leads to the horrific conclusion that you really do need endless progression to keep a game sticky.

That's exactly what I'm seeing. And I'd be very interested in anyone who could prove otherwise. But "endless progression" isn't just about new items and quests. That is proven by your points about post-30 CoH. It's not just that there are new things to get. It's whether they are worth getting.

WoW character customization for some classes continues to change all the way to 60 and beyond. It really compels people to keep going because a level 60 character is very VERY different from a level 10. The Talents system is a minigame unto itself. Add that to gear and faction rewards, crafting, and then PvP rewards and raid stuff if you do that, and there's as many ways to change your existing character as there are new characters to role. That's not really hyperbole either. The only people who may suffer from "yep, same old same old" are those restricted to only one, maybe two, types of activities. Faction farming is faction farming regardless of template for example. But that PLUS everything else PLUS ample character recustomization, it's all good.

Then there's the social component. I don't know anyone who singlemindedly plays these games to simply maintain what they've got (and no, logging in to UO/SWG to refresh a house is not "playing", that's just disinterested hording). Most have SOME goal in mind, whether it's to grow their SL furry business or to gain new gear in WoW or to finally get a YT-1300 in SWG: JTL. All very different mechanics, but all driven by the same desire.

So, I DO absolutely think "endless progression" is a key component of retention. I just think it has to be managed carefully. New zones and new Kill X/Collect Y quests alone won't cut it.

[tazelbain]

If CoX stoped at 30, I'd have stayed longer.  Soul crushingly slow advancement is worse than no advancement.

Anyway lots of distinct classes., please.  I know Mythic has had trouble before, but I chalk that up to having two masters (PvP and PvE).  Say screw you to PvE, balance for PvP, buff/nerf npcs so they put up a good fight.  Guild Wars  has shown there are a wealth of untaped classes (sets of skills that provide a distinct play style) to choose from.  Hell GW has invented more than 24 new classes on their own.  I am sure that if they put they mind to it Mythic can do the same.  Balance is always going to be a problem. I'd rather it be a interesting problem of balancing earthquake warriors with corpsebombing necros than adjusting damage mitigation tables of plate tanks with scale tanks.

[Daeven]

If CoX stoped at 30, I'd have stayed longer.  Soul crushingly slow advancement is worse than no advancement.

I really enjoyed CoH/X. The fact that new powers would completely change gameplay was fantastic. (Hurricane is still my favorite game power bar none). Unfortunately, the core game play of 'do more missions' just got tedious. And yes, 'advancement' eventually became just plain tedious. This was the Matrix's fatal flaw as well. do the same stuff, over and over and over and nothing ever happening. Especially for someone who only have a few hours a week to play one of these. Instances that take 4+ hours to complete? You're kidding, right?

[Venkman]

Hell GW has invent more than 24 new classes since it.

There's a world of difference between being a player that controls a few, dozens or scores of classes in a multi-1000 point 40k game and a single player playing a single one of those classes for the entirety of their time in an online world. I'm no expert at 40k, but it seems to me that each "class" has three, maybe four abilities. Now imagine yourself going from 1 to whatever with only four ever abilities to which to look forward.

Unless you're talking about "classes" invented for other GW stuff? I don't know anything at all about that, so would like to learn.

But my point is really that it's not about the number of classes as much as it is justifying it to a person and having the dev team to support. Look at any game with 16+ classes. NONE ever keep consistent balance (impossible anyway, even with 8, so not important). More importantly though it is impossible to ensure each class gets equal attention from the devs, no matter the team size nor money. The dev process does not work the way players play. There is no "Mage Dev" or "Priest Dev". And players always play more and harder than devs will.

So you end up with things like SWG Smuggler or any four of the least played classes in DAoC, or Beastlords from EQ1 for a time. They don't get the attention because people already voted them off the island of relevance in whatever activity is being discussed. So they get no attention so no play so no attention. It's a huge waste.

I'd rather have 8-10 classes with broad abilities, specializing in some things. I really do think this is something else WoW got right. But CoX did to, in a more advanced way by allowing people to pick and choose. Hard to learn at first but hella easy to pick up latter.

I really do wish CoX was better than it was. They just go so many cool ideas just enough right. If they wrapped that in a compelling IP and had $75mil to test for years and get the content in, I really believe that'd be the ftm acronym.

[tazelbain]

wrong GW.

[Threash]

Shadowbane had tons of classes and they were all pretty well balanced.

[Venkman]

wrong GW.

Bah. Thanks for fixing your post too :)

And I agree GW's class combination system is compelling. But then, that's only 20 levels and either full-on raiding for rare skills or PvP in BG-like environments right?

[tazelbain]

Not sure what the number of levels has to do with skill variety.
As far RvR and BG, GW still revolves around killing people.  RvR/BG that wouldn't change that.  You'd have add stuff for seiges and probably have to ton down large area spells.

[Shapechanger]

I've always described Warhammer as having 4 classes, and six versions of each class.

There is basically 1 Melee Offense, Melee Defense, Ranged Offense, and Ranged Defense per race.

Each Melee Offense would differ from the next races Melee Offense, yet at heart they are the same class.

So for instance, for Ranged Defense, what I would typically call the 'healer', you'll have the Dwarfen Rune Priest, the Goblin Shaman, etc...  each will approach the role differently but with unique twists.


This should make the skill breadth per class much greater, and yet allow some diversity in each role based upon race chosen. 

Most importantly, it makes it much easier to balance RvR when it is based upon a 4 class template.

Furthermore, it does not use a cheap and boring way out by making only a handful of classes wherein each faction faces off against the same classes.

[tazelbain]

> I've always described Warhammer as having...
What? Do you do this for a living?

[Trouble]

PvP causes the biggest balance complaints ever. Trying to do "different but equal" is a very difficult road to travel. See WoW Shaman vs. Paladin.

[Shapechanger]

tazelbain: lol 

Hey I was following Warhammer back when Climax was working on this game.  Fall before last when Mythic announced they were taking it over, I jumped for joy.  I've put *a lot* of time and effort into WAR community posts and ideas.


'Different but equal' IS difficult.  As Mark Jacobs once said (loosely) "the pvp will never be completley balanced, it's a continual work in progress". 
Just the same, 4 classes with 3 subsets per VS 4 classes with 3 subsets per is a lot more difficult than Blizzards 9 same VS 9 same, that has to be the pansiest way out on PvP balance I've ever seen.  So you got your PvP class balance by using identical classes on each side, here is a cookie. 
But it's also a lot easier than DAoCs 14 classes VS 14 classes VS 14 classes, that's just insane taking something like that on.  Especially with stealth metagame mixed in.

I think the 4 class base with the different type for each race can work reasonably well depending on how the beta is approached... (IE, no concentrated PvP beta like Guildwars Alpha will result in many PvP exploits as outside players create custom PvP groups to spec, because they were not found in a natural levelling process beta that does not allow either the time or impetus to level competitive premade groups.

But see my beta test thread about that... it more or less suggests a special closed PvP beta akin to Guildwars Alpha - wherein select testers with mandatory all call attendence twice a week log in and can custom-create characters of any class level gear spells etc and then build competitive 'pre-set' pvp groups accordind to plan or design and compete against each other for rankings...
The idea here is that a standard beta is a 'watch how you level and exploit bugs' experience.  The devs get no F'in clue though out of this how during live people are going to design their premade PvP groups - that is in-house testings job.

the problem with relying upon inhouse to do all this is inhouse is vying for promotions, working with friends, etc.  They are not going to recommend trashing or scrapping ideas they know someone is championing because office politics interfere.  Plus, a company is LUCKY if they have 30 of these guys.
You pull in 500 outside testers into a special closed PvP only beta test and wham you have 500 sombitches willing to go the mile to find out whatever they can to get a higher all call ranking than the other team.

Ultimatley, that is how ANet did the Guildwars Alpha and it produced a very clean PvP slate without much in the way of premade expoits after release.  Was a good plan.  Maybe I'll make a thread here.

[tazelbain]

There is a big difference between 4 classes with 6 skins each and 4 archtypes with 6 classes each.

My main point is Mythic shoudn't wuss out of creating lots of classes with lots of variety because balance is hard.  If Mythic is really serious about PvP, they need cowboy up.  A PvP game needs lots of distinct classes/skills so the combat puzzle isn't solveable.  This is the core mechinics.  No matter what they do with Campaigns, Scenerios, and Battlefields if this part isn't deep, nothing else can be.

[eldaec]

If Mythic is really serious about PvP, they need cowboy up.  A PvP game needs lots of distinct classes/skills so the combat puzzle isn't solveable. 

I definitely agree with the sentiment of this.

People who insist that to keep PvP balanced the only way to do it is to have almost no character variety within archetypes are both wrong and unambitious.

Espeicially in a dikumud where character development is the thing you do most.


I'm not completely sure that classes are always the only or best way to provide that variety though.

And I still think they are awfully brave if they add the implied 4 classes with every new race.

I've always described Warhammer as having 4 classes, and six versions of each class.

There is basically 1 Melee Offense, Melee Defense, Ranged Offense, and Ranged Defense per race.

Each Melee Offense would differ from the next races Melee Offense, yet at heart they are the same class.
.....
But it's also a lot easier than DAoCs 14 classes VS 14 classes VS 14 classes, that's just insane taking something like that on.

Reading the bumpf on what we have so far, the difference between Zealot, Priest, Shaman, and Rune-guy look at least as big as the difference between Healer, Cleric, and  Druid in daoc. Actually they look bigger; they all have a healing role and like daoc they all seem to have 'another' job (damage/tank/buff/debuff etc), but the unlike daoc healing roles appear to differ in ways that will be extremely relevant (similar to EQ2 healers, who, depending on class specialise in direct heal, HoT, ward, or proc-heal - which one is better depends on your situation, and you get big benefits from having one of each on your raid).

Once the game is well understood, nobody building a character to be effective is going to be picking shaman just because 'they're all the same and I want to be a goblin'.

I suspect the decision making process will be exactly like a daoc-alb choosing between the 4 or 5 different tank classes they can pick from.

[Typhon]

If Mythic is really serious about PvP, they need cowboy up.  A PvP game needs lots of distinct classes/skills so the combat puzzle isn't solveable. 

I definitely agree with the sentiment of this.

Completely disagree for two reasons:

1) The time and energy it takes to balance more classes just doesn't add enough to the game to warrant the expenditure of effort.  I'd rather see them work on siege warfare, housing, collision detection, crafting, randomized loot, player character customization or anything else then go through year after year of balance discussion and tweaking.  I'd also rather see either no hybrids, or all hybrids.

2) No developer can balance player perception.  Your lowest common denominator player cannot accomplish the necessary level of thought to come to the "different, but balanced" conclusion when that player is losing in a given scenario to another class type.  Listening to players is important.  Deliberately adding noise to what your player base is trying to tell you makes little sense.

In my opinion this is another case where WoW has broken down accepted thought, in this case the thinking is that "more classes = better".  Better to have fewer classes, but allow a bit more customization/differentiation within the class itself.  As long as one configuration within a class is nominally powerful, the class can be considered "balanced".

However, I think WoW should act as a cautionary tale in regard to giving the same class different abilities depending upon race.

[Sairon]

Class balance is always a tricky issue. I don't think you should strive for perfect balance, since that never can be achieved for several reasons. I think you should focus on making sure all classes has their uses. It's not terribly important that class x does slightly more dmg than class y under the special circumstances z. Another key is making the classes varied, that way there will always be situations where class x is better than class y, even if class y is considered overall more powerful. I've said it before, but I think the main reason for why a lot of people have problems sticking to WoW is that it lacks depth, and the reason for that is that they've chickened out in all matters like these. More classes = more combinations = more varied gameplay.

[Venkman]

More classes just means more classes for players to not play as much as others.

What is it about more classes that really has some convinced this is a selling point? Imagine WoW classes in the WAR type PvP environments. Would people not play because there were only 9 classes? No. Because it's not just about the classes, but how you customize them along the way. A Shadow Priest and a Holy Priest are fundamentally different experiences, for example. Calling them both "Priest" doesn't begin to tell the story. WoW arguably has at least 18 classes (if you consider deep-speccing in two of the three talents in any tree because the third is usually considered a support tree). Happy?

[Sairon]

More classes just means more classes for players to not play as much as others.

What is it about more classes that really has some convinced this is a selling point? Imagine WoW classes in the WAR type PvP environments. Would people not play because there were only 9 classes? No. Because it's not just about the classes, but how you customize them along the way. A Shadow Priest and a Holy Priest are fundamentally different experiences, for example. Calling them both "Priest" doesn't begin to tell the story. WoW arguably has at least 18 classes (if you consider deep-speccing in two of the three talents in any tree because the third is usually considered a support tree). Happy?

Well that's nothing spectacular at all. You can apply the same logic to pretty much any MMO to date. So because there's for example 3 diffrent lines to specc into in DAoC there's number of classes * 3 in DAoC as well? And in Shadowbane you could pick runes that altered your stats ( same as 99% of talents in WoW ) and brought you new skills, so by that logic there's number of runes * number of classes * number of races ( since race also greatly affect your build, in contrast to WoW where it doesn't )? No matter how you twist and turn WoW is pretty bland when it comes to character customization.

[Venkman]

I'm not talking about raw customization. I'm talking about what players want. My point is that the number of classes are less important than the ways in which they can be customized. This is because, again, the more classes you have, the more will fall below the threshold of supportability.

Maybe when I see a team capable of delivering 20+ unique and compelling classes that don't result in 6 of them being boring as hell to play and 4 others being ok but not getting enough attention, then I'll change my mind. I just feel it's hard enough to get right 10 of them that it's only asking for trouble to try for double that. It's not about people or dollars. It's about how much you can stretch the matrix to integrate them. And it's about the ability to manage all of the variations calculations fast enough to make it not a turn-taking game for the players.

It's a lot easier to make 1,000 classes when they only do three or four things in an offline game. Realtime is different though, as you know. Either it hasn't happened yet, or I'm not aware of it. I invite insights into games that got it right across the board.