Warhammer Newsletter - March

[garthilk]

Well by now the first of the newsletters are being sent out and hopefully folks will receive theirs before the beginning of April. This month's newsletter contains quite a bit of clarifying information and a bunch of new information as well. Also included is the usual assortment of grab bag items, videos, developer diaries and blogs. Some stuff worth reading in this one. Anyway, here's the lineup.

Pauls Video Blogs
Sanya's Grab Bag
Zone Overview - Troll Country
Concept Art - Chaos Architecture
Screenshots - TONS of new screenshots
Podcast Education - Types of RvR
Bonus Video - What it's like to work on an MMO?
Video of the Month - Loading Screen Video

[Nija]

If that is the video of the month I'd hate to see #2-10.

[Merusk]

Screenshots - TONS of new screenshots

Good to see they're continuing the DAOC tradition of horse-faced homly women.  :-D

[tazelbain]

So, um, the flying discs are exactingly like normal movement in every way.  Pointless and retarded. Good show.

That victory point scale thing is no surprise but it should work out well.

[eldaec]

So, um, the flying disc are exactingly normal movement in every way.  Pointless and retarded. Good show.

Mythic were pretty clear from the start to anyone capable of even the most basic reading-between-lines that this was only a flavour thing. You know, like in Warhammer.


Reading through the bumpf, I'm a little disappointed they didn't give out another 2 career descrpitions. People don't seem to have noticed on 'other' boards, but it looks a lot like the careers are pretty much the same on chaos as on order, and another tank description would have given us a decent idea how they are managing tanking. We already know the dwarfs have a debuff tank and orcs have a cc tank, I'll be surprirsed if these concepts aren't duplicated in opposing realms, and so there is probably only one more unique tank type left.

This also means at least 5 months (ie. August) before they can possibly have described all 12 classes. Who else wants to bet on a 2008 launch?

[eldaec]

From the video...

'Scenarios (that is, instanced combat presumably dominated by organised gank groups) will be the most varied, most balanced, most fun form RvR, and so will carry the most victory points'.

Most varied? Only if they are somehow different from anything that has been achieved before in other games?

Most balanced? Only if you have a magical balancing algorithm from fairy land that takes account of your out-of-game-organisation level?

Most fun? I seriously doubt it.

Most victory points? /sigh.

[tazelbain]

You think somehow overland won't be dominated by zergs and gank groups?

Objective based PvP pretty new to MMO, so I suspect there is plenty of new ground to cover.  But Murderball didn't look particularly inventive.  I am just hoping that they are saving the more complex scenerios for the higher teirs.

It sounds fun it me, but I like instanticed PvP.  And Mythic is betting the MMO market does also contrary to the wailing of the Double Mega Hardcore. 

[eldaec]

It's the double mega hardcore that gain the most from sport-pvp instances and were screaming for them in daoc (the casual crowd were keen on them, but mostly as a way to get the double mega hardcore out of their way, so they could play real RvR). If the game is aimed primarily at that double mega hardcore crowd, rather than trying to expand the more casual early-daoc type market, then I guess it does make sense.

But in that case, why bother splitting the community into realms if the 'real end-game' is going to be sport-pvp rather than rvr?

Every man for himself is probably more in keeping with warhammer lore than the current alliances anyway.


One very real problem I do see, is that the details given suggest that by entering an instance each side is effectively 'anteing' a certain amount of realm victory points advantage. As we only have two sides, this looks quite literally like a zero sum game. The problem with a zero sum game, is that every time a team below the median skill and organisation level of the opposition enters an instance, they are driving their realm backwards. It implies the realm would have been better off if that team had never entered the instance. Unless some mechanism can be designed to neutralise that effect, it could well poison internal realm communities. Which is bad, obviously.

At the low levels you can end up with accusations that guild X is an alt guild for someone on the other faction who is losing instances on purpose.

At the high levels you can end up with double mega hardcore guilds asking noob guilds not to take part in instances, and blaming noob guilds for entering instances when the battlefront falls back.


Sport pvp is open to being gamed, and needs a mechanism to ensure there is no way that additional weak players can ever dilute your effort and drag the battlefront backwards.

[Numtini]

At the low levels you can end up with accusations that guild X is an alt guild for someone on the other faction who is losing instances on purpose.

Not to be confused with Guild X IS an alt guild for someone on the other faction...

[Venkman]

Separate sub-topic: I was impressed by those screenshots. It's not as low-end as WoW but not as much a resource-hog as EQ2./VG Seems to be in that comfortable middle-ground between heavily stylized but not too cartoony, and maybe performance-wise scalable to a wider number of computer setups.

[HRose]

It's the double mega hardcore that gain the most from sport-pvp instances and were screaming for them in daoc (the casual crowd were keen on them, but mostly as a way to get the double mega hardcore out of their way, so they could play real RvR). If the game is aimed primarily at that double mega hardcore crowd, rather than trying to expand the more casual early-daoc type market, then I guess it does make sense.

It would make sense but it would also be a VERY DEEP hole where to fall. I'm also baffled by this artificial way to push instanced PvP (through points boost). Exactly as they ruined DAoC's RvR by making keeps irrelevant and rewarding instead dedicated 8vs8 ganking groups.

I guess they still don't understand what made DAoC great in the past (where RvR truly built the community, consequently destroyed by total bias toward 8vs8 specialized groups).

They are even contradictory when they hype the game as "it's war", when it's quite obvious the game is about artificial battles close into instances with a "projected"-fake type of PvP progression (grind "x" instances and trigger map switch!).

[Venkman]

I understand that (I think), but was there a chance old-style DAoC RvR was ever going to have mass appeal? People can deride the WoW BGs all they want, but until BC launched, that was the easiest way for casual players at the level cap to continue their gear progression. They weren't going to end up with Tier 3 stuff, but they could still make meaningful progress at all. Because it was a point-accrual system that allowed for PUGs.

The WAR system is different of course but still seems based on the same concept of sport-PvP, which some don't like for the lore/immersion reasons, but which I feel is exactly what an IP-based game from EA needs to be. It can be fun for a lot of people in ways that weeks of prep-work and bot-required old-style RvR was never ever going to be (because it was tied to a game that had an accountbase I guarantee EA would consider a "failure" for WAR).

You guys know the WAR system far better than I'm going to anytime soon. But I am interested at the abstract level in the way this seems to be trying to have mass attraction and appeal. Of course, Eldaec's points above would be a problem, but I'm focused mostly on the theory side.

[tazelbain]

Of course we are going to see gaming, accusations and sabotage.  It always happen any where players care about the outcome.  That's a good thing and Mythic will have to do their do-diligence to minimize their effect.

[eldaec]

I understand that (I think), but was there a chance old-style DAoC RvR was ever going to have mass appeal? People can deride the WoW BGs all they want, but until BC launched, that was the easiest way for casual players at the level cap to continue their gear progression. They weren't going to end up with Tier 3 stuff, but they could still make meaningful progress at all. Because it was a point-accrual system that allowed for PUGs.

Key point is that WoW BGs work because they do not matter a whit to the double mega hardcore. If the double mega hardcore cared about them, then random group formation would not be sustainable, since the organised end of the player base would (rightly) complain that winning them would have more to do with lucking out on group formation than anything else. Once the premades are in, how would a casual participate meaningfully? WoW BGs are not a useful comparison.

A more relevant comparison would be with Guild Wars. And there nobody is ever going to suggest that randoms will be able to take part in the high end competition, but surely the point of RvR, and the only reason to bother doing RvR, is if you can use it to get the casuals involved in the meaningful end of pvp play? If you don't have that, why bother splitting your community into realms?

Now, if instances were the 'fun casual' low-impact form of pvp, and didn't count for as much as the real RvR battlefield, then this situation would be reversed, casuals could play instances occasionally to relax, while the double mega hardcore wouldn't feel they had to dominate the instances (like WoW). In fact you'd find the hardcore trying to drag numbers out into meaningful RvR (ie. Building community again), which is better than the probable alternative of the hardcore discouraging the 'unworthy' from joining meaningful sport-pvp. Casual players can have fun in meaningful RvR, even with the hardcore around them, because casuals outnumber the hardcore - and because victory is more about strategy than tactics; OTOH casual players will always tire of meaningful sport pvp, because if it is meaningful, the hardcore will come, and in sport pvp that means the casuals will get stomped on.

Maybe the plan is to parcel casuals off and lock them out of the meaningful section (attract casuals to low-impact RvR, and hardcore to meaningful sport pvp), but it still seems altogether problematic to have the mass of your players fighting on a battlefield where achievements mean less than what happens to an elite out of sight sport pvp competition. Plus Hardcores act as 'content' in open RvR, they provide quests (organising raids) and uber mobs (opposing gank guilds), losing them from daoc RvR would undoubtedly have been popular in the short term with the casual player base, but I'm not so sure they weren't part of what made RvR interesting. /shrug

On the first question, is open RvR ever going to have mass appeal? I don't know. Indications from daoc were that it's worth a try, the casual players genuinely liked 100 v 100 face offs at keeps. The hardcore liked the open aspect of RvR much less, because it diluted their individual advantages. Certainly RvR is the only major thing that is unique to Mythic and WAR - and it's the only mechanism I've seen for having hardcore and casual players interact constructively - so it seems nuts to focus instead on something that is already the focus of games like GW. At the end of the day, what we do know is that meaningful sport pvp is an unlikely premise for a mass appeal game, while RvR is at least unknown.

It can be fun for a lot of people in ways that weeks of prep-work and bot-required old-style RvR was never ever going to be

First off, prep-work. The beauty of RvR prep work was that the double mega hardcore did (and enjoyed) the prep work for the casual masses. Casual players did not have to do prep work for RvR, but double mega hardcore players who wanted to get shit done in RvR had to communicate that prep work to the casuals, it wasn't perfect, but I have yet to see a better MMOG model for getting hardcores to talk to casuals. Plus prep work was only necessary at all for the very largest RvR events, on your average night of RvR you just use the realm war map to go find the action.

Second, bots. Bots are totally irrelevant to the pvp model, both RvR and sport pvp can be designed with or without bots. Mythic have accepted that bots are bad; daoc bots came about because mythic were trying to solve design problems identified in EQ. There is no reason to think any modern game would fall into the same trap that daoc did.

Separate sub-topic: I was impressed by those screenshots. It's not as low-end as WoW but not as much a resource-hog as EQ2./VG Seems to be in that comfortable middle-ground between heavily stylized but not too cartoony, and maybe performance-wise scalable to a wider number of computer setups.

I agree with that, though I'm still a little unconvinced by the effects and animations in the videos we've seen. The animation we've seen looks more daoc era than next gen. Hard to tell on short videos of course.

[Merusk]

Separate sub-topic: I was impressed by those screenshots. It's not as low-end as WoW but not as much a resource-hog as EQ2./VG Seems to be in that comfortable middle-ground between heavily stylized but not too cartoony, and maybe performance-wise scalable to a wider number of computer setups.

I agree with that, though I'm still a little unconvinced by the effects and animations in the videos we've seen. The animation we've seen looks more daoc era than next gen. Hard to tell on short videos of course.

Well, I agree but I disagree.  Things look great, but as I mentioned their weak point are the faces - not just the female ones.  They had the same problem in DAoC.. they just don't feel "alive."  They're too far on the wrong side of the uncanny divide, while WoW's faces, as cartoony as they, are feel more alive because of it.

[Modern Angel]

That's been the thing making me tip further toward Conan. WAR looks great... except for when it's in action. Then it looks extraordinarily stiff and stationary. Fuck that, I want to move around while I fight.

[HRose]

I understand that (I think), but was there a chance old-style DAoC RvR was ever going to have mass appeal? People can deride the WoW BGs all they want, but until BC launched, that was the easiest way for casual players at the level cap to continue their gear progression. They weren't going to end up with Tier 3 stuff, but they could still make meaningful progress at all. Because it was a point-accrual system that allowed for PUGs.

Here we are saying the same thing.

To be successful PvP MUST be accessible. Sport/specialized PvP is the opposite of accessible. Guild Wars endgame for example is inaccessible for the casual player and exclusive of the hardcore guilds. Which is the main reason why in the long term the hardcore are the only ones who stick with the game.

DAoC's initial RvR WAS accessible because it was a realm thing. DAoC was highly successful for the rather low production value it had. Then it died with the time because of bad direction. The RvR moved from a communal thing to an exclusive thing of specialized 8vs8 gank groups in teamspeak. That slide is what made the game lose appeal progressively.

The more you compartmentalize PvP the more you make it inaccessible.

[Rithrin]

I'll admit I haven't been reading as much as I should have about WAR, as much of a Warhammer fan I am, so I'm not sure if I'm correct in saying this, but... Aren't they going to have similar early-DAoC style RvR in addition to the sport/instance style PvP? I was talking to a couple of employees at last year's ComicCon and from what I got one realm will be able to assault different map areas held by the other realm. Attacking the main dwarf keep might boot the dwarf players out of their homeland for a while, all outside of an instance. But then there were those scenarios as they were talking about where its a smaller scale. This should allow casual people to go do the big battles were they can contribute and avoid the smaller ones where they are lacking. Now the fact that they are rewarding the smaller scale battles more than the others is another issue, though.

[eldaec]

Rithin,

Yes, the open-field is still there.

But Mythic have been pushing the idea that instanced sport-pvp is what you primarily use to push the front line back and forth on that open field, and what you use to sack the city. So you can fight on the open field, but Mythic are suggesting that it won't affect the realm war so much as organised sport-pvp.

Clearly it is a matter of degree, if sport-pvp is much more greatly rewarded than open-field, then open-field will likely be viewed as a novelty gimmick rather than an end game, and casual players will lose their chance to be involved in the end game, and to be on the winning side in RvR from time to time. Sport-pvp will become less accessible as it becomes more meaningful, because hardcore players will then seek to dominate it, which is much easier for them to do in the group v group setting.

If sport-pvp is only slightly better rewarded than open-field it might not be so bad. As you say, the hardcore can play instances, while others stick to RvR.

It is worrying that Mythic seem to view organised meaningful sport-pvp as inherently balanced and fun for casual players though.

Things look great, but as I mentioned their weak point are the faces - not just the female ones.  They had the same problem in DAoC.. they just don't feel "alive."

I always think people overstate the importance of faces in MMOGs. Most of the time, most of your group can't even see your face, because you tend to all be pointing the same way.

What daoc (and most MMOGs that aren't City of Heroes) got wrong is letting the really important character image decisions (ie. the colours and shape of your outfit) be dominated by the need to wear efficient gear, espeicially at early levels when efficient gear usually looks like ass.

CoH character design is fantastic because it is not overriden by loot, and the character image decisions affect stuff that other players will actually notice.

In a loot based game it will always be hard to reach the CoH standard of character generation. But things you can do include making armour dyes easily available at level ONE, and focusing on things that add flair and make characters easy to tell apart and which you can see through loot, like hair, Fat/thin sliders, scars, glasses, skin colour etc

Having an item system based on looting components then crafting the item helps too, because then you can transfer some style decisions onto the player at the time of crafting.

[Arrrgh]

Faces are a big part of the first impression of the game. Saying you'll probably have a helm on later misses the point.

[eldaec]

Faces are a big part of the first impression of the game. Saying you'll probably have a helm on later misses the point.

Maybe, but what your arse looks like is a much bigger part once you are past the character generator.

That's all I'm saying.

[Numtini]

Everyone I know that's looking forward to the game, including myself, wants DAOC v. 2. The interest is in larger scale RVR. That might not be full open realm like DAOC, but it's certainly not preset teams playing "matches" a la WOW or Guild Wars.

[Nija]

Too much time spent on faces and you end up with SWG.

Remember that YATTA! SWG music video? They made Brad Pitt! (he's at 01:42ish in the video)

SWG Yatta Video

[Hoax]

Everyone I know that's looking forward to the game, including myself, wants DAOC v. 2. The interest is in larger scale RVR. That might not be full open realm like DAOC, but it's certainly not preset teams playing "matches" a la WOW or Guild Wars.

I've got nothing against world pvp, I love world pvp, I cried about the BG's before they were even released in WoW.  But making another DAOC with static keeps and some far-off relic buff objective isn't going to cut it this time around.

Here Xilren's Twin illustrates how to address the issue using innovation and new gameplay avenues.

[...]varying TYPES of pvp available in the same overall worldspace.  For example, taking the SWG world, you could have the FPS style single avatar control ground combat, real time space combat via fighters, but also have a more strategic turn based game for say espionage (hacking into a system), or creature handler areana combat (squad base rts like), or even turn based card and other games (casino's, influence peddling),and rythm games (musicians, dancers).

Oddly enough, the leading examples of this were SWG itself with it;s bolt on space module for ship combat, and Vanguard with it's card based diplomacy game.  Not exactly the level of quality we all want but a step at least.

People need to stop thinking of pvp as limited to one on one FP ground combat using the same engine and options that there are in pve combat model.  You've got a whole worldspace; feel free to fill it with multiple game system that are actually different.

The limp-dick solution is tacking WoW's sport pvp BG-system onto DAOC's keep/relic system and calling it a day.  Big surprise which one they went with.

So at the end of the day, whie I think DAOC is a horribly overrated pile of crap I do agree with what seems to be the general opinion held by DAOC fanboi's.  They better get world pvp right or why should anyone leave the Blizzard-crafted sport-pvp monstrosity that is WoW for what will undoubtedly be a sub-par gameplay clone in WAR?

[Nija]

I am trying hard to like this game, because Warhammer is cool stuff.

It just disappoints me to see everybody clipping through everyone else scrambling around. The guy stopping as he hits tab or whatever to cycle targets until he finds THE RIGHT ONE, then charges ahead. The little refresh "button fill up" animation along with the twinkle when the 4 key is now ready for use again.

I just have had my fill with this style of game.

And yes, whoever made the comment that basically said "war isn't a 12 vs 12 skill matched instance" is totally correct. You couldn't be more correct. It needs to have some kind of controlled, FUN chaos. A damn match making system for the 'highest prize' sanctioned pvp sucks.

[Merusk]

Things look great, but as I mentioned their weak point are the faces - not just the female ones.  They had the same problem in DAoC.. they just don't feel "alive."

I always think people overstate the importance of faces in MMOGs. Most of the time, most of your group can't even see your face, because you tend to all be pointing the same way.

This is something that is very dependant on the player.  Some could give a rats ass what they look like, some are very connected to appearance.  I'm one of the latter, to the point I even keep shit in my bank/ bags and wear it around because it looks neat. (Which is why I sitll have my full GS set in WoW)   My wife has deleted 3 different toons because she got bored of the way they look.  She's also sick of the way her druid looks, but keeps it because it's max level.

The avatar is me, in the game.  It's what I connect most of my memories, etc to.  When I take screenshots, I usually pan around to capture my character in them.  It's also what I see most often of other people's characters.  WoW might have a limited number of faces, but you still see more people going around without helmets rather than with them, even if they've got a really nifty looking one. 

What daoc (and most MMOGs that aren't City of Heroes) got wrong is letting the really important character image decisions (ie. the colours and shape of your outfit) be dominated by the need to wear efficient gear, espeicially at early levels when efficient gear usually looks like ass.

CoH character design is fantastic because it is not overriden by loot, and the character image decisions affect stuff that other players will actually notice.

In a loot based game it will always be hard to reach the CoH standard of character generation. But things you can do include making armour dyes easily available at level ONE, and focusing on things that add flair and make characters easy to tell apart and which you can see through loot, like hair, Fat/thin sliders, scars, glasses, skin colour etc

Having an item system based on looting components then crafting the item helps too, because then you can transfer some style decisions onto the player at the time of crafting.
[/quote

Yes. This has been a weakness of DIKUs, but that's because of the nature of DIKUs.   The high-end want to wave their e-peen, so you need a visible way of letting them do so.  (Remember the outrage in EQ when a lowbie robe was created with the Robe of the Oracle texture?

 I wish someone would make a COH-type 'choose your appearance' and 'costumes' for a DIKU, but to appease the loot-based nature, just make special armor models you gain access to when you pick-up those 'epic' or 'rare' items.  Then the player gets to choose what they look like, while still wearing the best gear they've got.  I've mentioned before, and will keep tossing it out there until someone finally steals the idea and implements it.

[HRose]

Everyone I know that's looking forward to the game, including myself, wants DAOC v. 2. The interest is in larger scale RVR. That might not be full open realm like DAOC, but it's certainly not preset teams playing "matches" a la WOW or Guild Wars.

See, it is pretty much irrelevant to argue here because we basically all agree. We can have slightly different opinions on the details but I think the large majority here is for what Lum prefectly described as "struggle of nations" compared to "gang wars", for the reasons that eldaec explained in detail.

DaoC was successful because it offered a form of PvP that wasn't available anywhere else. The reason why people stick with it despite it not being a so greatly designed game was essentially because it was "unique", little competition on that front. It's then OVERLY OBVIOUS that Warhammer can succeed if it goes to tap that potential that still no one else went after. There's a HUGE demand for that kind of PvP that is still unanswered. While it won't be successful if it tries to be another slightly different copy of WoW in the hope to borrow some of their subscribers. You have to stand out, and a true RvR has enough potential and exclusiveness to make a game stand out and compete in this market.

It's not rare to read on casual forums people wishing WoW to be WoW with DAoC's RvR.

We want PvP got right. Which means real warfare, territory control, cooperation. While at the same time keep as the very first goal to have it accessible for everyone.

Mythic is stuck repeating how Warhammer isn't a bleached copy of WoW in the exact same way they are stuck repeating that Warhammer isn't DAoC 2. And in both cases they still fail to provide concrete arguments.

I mean, we're still far from the game release, but people still don't know what this game is about and often what Mythic says is completely contradictory. Has this game a clear direction or not? Do they have a precise idea what they want to do with PvP or not?

[garthilk]

Has this game a clear direction or not? Do they have a precise idea what they want to do with PvP or not?

Yes and yes.

[eldaec]

Hrose,

I think you are a little too emphatic on whether there is evidence of a market for open RvR.

Open RvR remains untested in the market since daoc. And that was pretty much a stealth product by recent standards, I don't think you can automatically draw conclusions about how an RvR game would do today.

There is significant evidence that meaningful (as opposed to diversionary) sport pvp is hard to sustain in a typical mmog setting because it dramatically emphasises differences in player skill, at the same time as limiting community size and so forcing the uber up against the noob too often.

But at the same time, the best you can say for RvR is that people who tried it usually liked it.

often what Mythic says is completely contradictory. Has this game a clear direction or not?

I don't see what Mythic has said that is contradictory.

When talking about design they have been clear that WAR mechanics focus on ...

sport pvp > open RvR > PvE

...since the start. The flavour side (the Paul Barnett line) has just been about bigging up the Warhammer lore (which sounds more like open RvR only because the warhammer ip is more like open rvr). Regular MMOG watchers should know better than to expect creative and design to be walking in perfect lockstep on a licensed ip.


EDIT

That said, apart from the 'contradictory' thing, I agree with the point you are making.

[tazelbain]

Podcast Education - Types of RvR

Hrose, you haven't been paying attention.  No MMOG has every been this straight forward and released so much information about the how the game will function.

[Xanthippe]

Screenshots - TONS of new screenshots

Good to see they're continuing the DAOC tradition of horse-faced homly women.  :-D

I couldn't have said it better.

I want to be a babe.  Why can't I be a babe?

[DataGod]

"Hrose,

I think you are a little too emphatic on whether there is evidence of a market for open RvR.

Open RvR remains untested in the market since daoc. And that was pretty much a stealth product by recent standards, I don't think you can automatically draw conclusions about how an RvR game would do today.

There is significant evidence that meaningful (as opposed to diversionary) sport pvp is hard to sustain in a typical mmog setting because it dramatically emphasises differences in player skill, at the same time as limiting community size and so forcing the uber up against the noob too often.

But at the same time, the best you can say for RvR is that people who tried it usually liked it."



No in fact HRose is right, DOAC open RVR or rather large AND small scale and individual PVP in the context of open territories was sucessful early on precisely because you didnt actually "know" what you were going to get the next time you went out on the frontier, it also incorporated large/medium scale organized and spontanious large scale raids in opposing keeps.

And so did SWG faction system, or GCW early on. When it worked

And so does EVE

The fact is instanced PVP is not real PVP, most of the super double hardcore PVP'ers (whove actually experianced open large scale territorial PVP) dont bother with WOW BG's because its strictly for the Jr League, WOW PVP instanced is carebear PVP period, because its careved out of the world, does not effect the enviornment, and relies more on loot than on skill.

And if you enjoy PVP you want it raw and not watered down....OTOH theres porbably not really any room for debating

"sport pvp is hard to sustain in a typical mmog setting because it dramatically emphasises differences in player skill,"

Because I personally think thats a good thing......

There should be opprotunities for casuals and hardcores to PVP, alongside eachother, in persuit of an objective, but saying the playing fieled should be leveld to control for someones shitty skill level is serious weaksauce. And smacks of to much time in a WOW BG.

All those Videos did was bum me out, I was seriously hoping for a game with real open RVR and objectives where strategy and tactics mattered, not some instanced BG contest shit with dynamically spawned NPC's to "level the playing field". Theyve designed this ass backwards from a pvp'er POV IMO, BG's should matter very little, they should be the testing grounds people go to to prepare for real open realm RVR, thats what warhammers about, not some overengineered point system.

Seems like they lost the vision in persuit of the market share.

[tazelbain]

Seems like they lost the vision in persuit of the market share.

Or you guys are pissy because their vision isn't the same as yours.  I hope "real" pvpers stick with Eve.

[Nebu]

I think HRose misses a bigger point (as do some of the rest of you).  The reason that many of us playing DAoC would like to see some semblence of DAoC v.2 in WAR is because games are becoming so linear that they're losing the sandbox aspect.  In DAoC you'll find a wide array of gaming styles in RvR any given night.  You'll see massive battles, small skirmishes, 1v1, 2v2, keep takes, tower takes, and even duels.  The sport players (8v8) can have their sport matches, they can help the zergs, and they can aid in relic takes.  If you're a particularly well-coordinated group, you can engage in fighting 8 vs A LOT.  As a 8v8 player myself, I find that the draw to DAoC for me is that I can log on and enjoy a wide variety of combat experiences each and every evening and have the ability to somewhat control when and where I engage in them. 

While I understand that it's necessary to encourage the masses to have a more active and enjoyable role in PvP, limiting its scope is a mistake.  You'll be forced to PvP as the game designer intended and have difficulty enjoying what I'd term "player crafted content".  You all clammor for "skill" to be meaningful in MMOG pvp yet you complain when 8 coordinated players are able to outperform large zergs with largely the same gear and realm ranks as the zergs.  Gear means surprisingly little on the DAoC servers, especially since the most recent bounty point item patch.  That leaves the rest to skill and realm rank... and realm rank is pretty easy to obtain.   DAoC is the only pvp game that I've played after UO where I've felt that ability made the player far more than gear.  If even a small portion of this carries over to WAR, I'll play.

[eldaec]

Just to add to what Nebu said, one of the best things about the variety you achieve in daoc style rvr, is that it gives you scope to experience far more enjoyable defeats than a GW style match can grant you.

Even if you don't win, playing with a small team and taking a huge chunk out of a zerg is *fun*.

Even if your zerg loses a keep, smashing 2 groups of bad guys with a catapult along the way is *fun*.

Relic keep defences or gate intercepts are fun and give you scope to rack up personal kills no matter who ends up with the flag.

You have much more scope for doing cool things to boast about later in open RvR defeats than in sport PvP defeats, and you always have the uneven nature of the 'real war' as a bit of an excuse to protect your ego. (everyone here might be just that well balanced that you don't need this , but the weaker casual players certainly do need it)


A big part of what I mean when I say sport pvp overemphasises  player skill is that victory is too black and white, so not only will the better team win more encounters, but the better team will do so in an environment that explicitly says "this was a level playing field and you were the best", it seeks to give the better team all the credit, and explicitly tell the other team that they lost. A few more shades of grey help everyone in the long run.

Sport pvp hasn't ever really given scope for a moral victory in defeat, or a Pyrrhic victory that breaks up your army.