Warhammer Newsletter - March

[tazelbain]

Rose-colored glasses. My time in DAoC was nothing like that.  I remember my first day of GW thinking "WoW, I pvp more than my 3 months in RvR" I remember lots of running, lots of lag, lots of one-sided battles.  Very little fun.  I am sure Mythic has made advances in their RvR, but I doubt the numbers game has changed.

So lets talk about the game they are making, because the Scenarios are worth more than the Battlefields people are going to ignore the Battlefields? Surely most people will choose which ever one suites them best.  We still don't know how xp and items and RvR points are distributed in PvP which I think would be the be the biggest draw to min-maxers.

If Scenarios didn't give the most VP then the team with a massive zerg would always control the zone.  Now with Scenarios giving the most VP, teams with best PvP teams controls the zone.  This is a preferable situation because individual players have a better chance of overcome a teamwork gap than the numbers gap.  If the enemy out numbers you 3000:1000, there is no way for players to find 2000 players to fill the gap.  And even if your enemy out skills you and out numbers you still have a chance to have fun and have a chance ( you might draw their B team) no matter what.  My guess is Mythic is trying to avoid the situation from DAoC where many servers became hopeless and people left in droves.

[Nija]

I tried three times to play DAOC, with different batches of people, but I never really knew any of them and I couldn't ever get groups to level up. Everyone was already maxxed, and they'd poopsock all day and outlevel me in two nights.

I'd like to try it sometime, but I just don't have the means. All of my gamer buddies hate the game. In fact, the most common point they make to not even look at WAR is that it'll be "DAOC 2.0" - this isn't a good thing to ANYbody I game with.

[eldaec]

I tried three times to play DAOC, with different batches of people, but I never really knew any of them and I couldn't ever get groups to level up. Everyone was already maxxed, and they'd poopsock all day and outlevel me in two nights.

I certainly agree that this was the thing that strangled daoc (even more than ToA).

And once the bulk of the community got out of levels 1-30, and espeicially once they had /level, newbies just couldn't break into the community even if they were willing to sit through the pve grind.

The long grind is no longer an issue in modern daoc, but even today the leveling process doesn't give longstanding players any reason to interact with newbies.

The RvR-from-level-one aspect might help this a little (assuming regular players don't spend their alt-lowbie RvR time saying "sorry we're running guild pre-made team instances, you can't come with us").

[eldaec]

This is a preferable situation because individual players have a better chance of overcome a teamwork gap than the numbers gap. 

I'm interested in what games you've played that make you think this?

The evidence of games like guild wars suggests it is unlikely.

I'm trying to think of a game where casual players are realistically able to overcome the teamwork gap on a consistently level playing field? Do we even think players *should* be able to overcome the teamwork gap when on a level playing field?

The numbers gap on the other hand is partly mitigated by the fact that large realms were typically the most disorganised. And partly mitigated by the fact that the alb zerg can't all be in the same place at the same time. That said, I definitely agree that Mythic need to do more to help balance populations than they did in daoc (and I don't pretend to have easy answers).

Numerical imbalance can also be substantially mitigated by a system where the front line gets harder and harder to push forward as you reach your goal, so eventually you reach an equilibrium point.



By the way, I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea on instanced sport pvp being in a game like this as a training setup, or as an area to go pvping when you haven't got all night, or if you want to prove out your individual group rather than take part in the realm war this evening, or if you somewhere to go when the real frontier is just too zergy for you right now. It's all good. I just don't think that sport pvp should be the game's ultimate end.

[tazelbain]

If there is a large competitve team gap it would mean that burden of holding dominace would fall on the shoulders of the top guilds to have reliable victories.  Guild wars suggests that a highly competitive teams rise and fall very rapidly.  These top guilds can only hold out so long before people move on and they fall.  Just like NFL teams.  The fortunes of teams elbe and flow at greater rate than the change of populations.

It's a given that the elites are going to cream the scrubs.  But when my elites beat your scrubs and your elites beat my scubs, it's a wash.  It's when our elites fight and when our scrubs fight that'll determine the outcome.

Why do you conclude this will lead to intantized PvP as the ultimate end?  Why can't there be multiple ends and people play what they like?

Unrelated, why are they telling which things are worth more or lesss victory points?  It seems unwise like annoucing which of your child you love the most.

Rewatching the video: it says you get VP for skermishes.  So if Scenarios = Battlefield + Skermishes in VP, it would balance out.  Would that make you guys feel better?

[HRose]

Now with Scenarios giving the most VP, teams with best PvP teams controls the zone.  This is a preferable situation because individual players have a better chance of overcome a teamwork gap than the numbers gap.

Nope because this is exclusive PvP. And exclusive PvP means that it's selective. And selective means that some players get in while other players are left out.

A successful mmorpg must promote inclusion, not exclusion. Battles, the real medieval battles were about inclusion and numbers. Grab a pitchfork and join to fight. But we all also just saw "300". And we know that a good team CAN overcome numbers. Or at least that's the myth that games should make us live, because that's what makes games feel cool and involving. Giving us myths.

The problem of zerg vs zerg must be solved elsewhere. I always said that the game must provide paths (through directed/objective based PvP) so that the game is fun and exciting even and IN PARTICULAR when you are outnumbered, because there's the potential for something truly "heroic" that the players would love (see 300 again). While it's dead boring if you know you are winning and the victory doesn't require any effort.

How to achieve this? Instead of locking the number of players who participate in a defense/attack (which negates the immersion and the WHOLE POINT of the warfare), you give teams different objectives that are balanced for that specific situation.

A concrete example for a taste of what I mean: the team with the large zerg will have the objective (and related victory points) to conquer a castle. The outnumbered defenders will have the objective to defend it *as long as possible*. The more they resist, the more points they earn, and the more they are outnumbered the more the points they earn over time scale up.

Asymmetric/immersive warfare is the whole point of RvR. You just need to make it correspond adaptive/reactive objectives that are balanced to the current status of the realm.

[HRose]

And to precise better: are the game rules to lead the players around and determine what they'll do and what they'll avoid. Carrots on a stick, goals, power-ups. That's what the game is about and what the players chase. They simply go where the best points to be made are.

What's bad in PvP when you are outnumbered is that you only waste time feeding enemies points without getting anything back. So it's often better to just /quit.

If this is seen as a problem then you can use the rules to encourage and motivate players to defend. What I mean is that this is ENTIRELY a problem of game rules.

It's about time that game design starts to "legislate" on this, start working on models, interactions. Because till now RvR was just a big zone with a keep in the middle, with some bleached, gimmick features tacked on it. Not much development went into the actual RvR and warfare, and that's the main reason why all that potential is untapped.

Just think to what we could have now if RvR had received in the years the same focus and numbers of reiterations that went into PvE.

That's what I'm saying. RvR is still a closed door. The first step.

[HRose]

And since I'm at it, let me finish.

Where's Mark Jacobs now? Where is his interest in the discussion and desire to participate?

I'm not saying this as a provocation, I'm saying this for two reasons:
1- I don't care about this because I want to convince Mythic to do what I want, but I'm fairly convinced that these discussions are actually important for the type of game they are making. They are useful.
2- More than hearing myself speaking and my ideas once again (which I know quite well already), I'd really like to know what Mythic (or whoever within) thinks about this. What are their goals, their focus. What they think about the various form of PvP and where will be their bias.

Maybe it's to early because all these things are still super-secret as they fear everyone else stealing their great ideas, but my own fear is that these discussions will never happen and we'll still repeat the exact same things for years. Till another Blizzard arrives and owns the market again by doing very simple and obvious moves while everyone else is left staring baffled.

[Johny Cee]

Elite vs Casual:

The real stumbling block is how tough you make one player, or one group of players, who play well.  Is it Bruce Lee tough,  where one player can take out a horde of guys that are just below his skill level?  Is it professional boxing or fighting tough,  where the champ can take out two guys,  but he has to work at it?

DAoC swung way too far where preset group builds,  which generally included 2 or 4 bottleneck classes,  could take out large numbers.  What this did long term,  was kill the casual PUG.

Note on bottleneck classes:  classes you needed a skilled an experienced player on,  but were curdled misery to play with casual.  Every set group needed one geat healer,  one great driver/mezzer,  one good/great MA, and one great interupter.  I've built PUGs with outstanding members,  all except either no bard/shitty bard.   No interrupts/mezzes/good back up heals & rezzes, GG.

It was fairly common in old frontiers to see the Gank Guilds sit at the portal keep for up to an hour or two waiting for a good bard and main healer to log on.  It was pointless for them to go without,  or pickup an average player, since they'd go down to the first gank group they ran into.  And forget it if your only mistake was rolling a sub-par class.


The big problem with sport PvP it is a zero sum game.  Who gives a shit if my elitest gank guilds are creaming another realm,  if by consequence it doesn't benefit me or have any effect on the game world where I PvP.

In a single rvr realm game,  if the opposing side decides to zerg,  then most times the gank guilds and more serious players are forced into cooperation.  I'd like to see Mythic delving into a

I don't mind if the "Bruce Lee" approach is taken, as long as it consists of a rock/paper/scissor dynamic.  For instance:  my guild this winter ran bombing groups of 5 or 6 (chanters, ES spec Bainshees, druid, bard) that could eat zergs alive if he caught them with their pants down.  We dropped like pansies to the first tank 8 man we ran acoss though,  or if we lost the surprise we'd run.  Fast.

The "Bruce Lee" approach without checks and balances leads to a depletion of your PUGs and casual guild pvpers.  Then it hits the hardcore groups who lose more,  and don't have even the ego boost of taking out PUGs or hitting another 8 man from behind.  Then the hardcores dwindle, because they population of oppenents is depleted.


I can respect the tack Mythic is taking....  maybe they will suck out the hardcore into the sport world,  leaving the frontier as casual nirvana.  Maybe make ladder standings entirely contingent on sport pvp participation?

I think I'd prefer a system that either handicaps groups like golf (buff hits, magic resist, mana/whatever pools, for those with poor records?) based on standing in sport pvp,  or seeks to do some dynamic balancing in the greater frontier.

Examples off the top of my head: 

- Series of choke points that are easy to defend for the defenders, but hard on the side which conquered it.  Minor keeps or towers that are easy to take but not onerous, defending the choke points, as you get further in.

If the defenders lose a choke point, they can reassemble at a slightly more strategic, better defended chokepoint further in.

- Make travel time a big factor.  It's easy to port/fly/ride up to supply checkpoints,  but checkpoints don't extend into opposing realms beginning line of battle.  As the aggressor pushes in,  it takes longer for the dead and reinforcements to catch up.  Yet, if action stays in the "frontlines" everyone gets an easy passage up to the action.

MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE ON THE DEFENSIVE TO PUSH UP FROM PVE AND FRIENDLY ZONES.  DAoC proved the carebears WILL fight for intangibles like relics or their realm.  Hell, the turnout the first 2 years of the game every time /alliance spammed "150 on bolg.  Relic raid!" was amazing.  Guys I never saw out of the pve zones would run out to get to the relics for dee.

Even the hardcore usually volunteered their services to take back undefendend friendly keeps,  or cut off reinforcements at the Milegate choke offs.

- NPC henchmen that only will serve at certain areas.  The aggressor pushes up,  and all of a sudden the defender can draft the local millitia, or cards, or whatever.

[eldaec]

Why do you conclude this will lead to intantized PvP as the ultimate end?  Why can't there be multiple ends and people play what they like?

Unrelated, why are they telling which things are worth more or lesss victory points?  It seems unwise like annoucing which of your child you love the most.

Well absolutely, my concerns are based on the assumption that sport pvp rewards are significantly larger than open RvR - which I'm guessing is why the videos are stressing the greater number of VPs for sport pvp so often and so early. I'm sure the two could coexist with the right reward ratios.

In fact, I'm all in favour of WoW style diversionary sport pvp for easygoing, casual, short-session pvp. I just worry that the more meaningful it gets, the less fun it will be from a casual perspective; which is much less true for RvR.

Note on bottleneck classes:

I don't think bottleneck classes are related to the pvp model - bottleneck classes are a problem steadily being fixed everywhere.

With a few obvious exceptions (WoW, VG) MMOG designers have always been moving away from bottleneck classes, and at least toward an Archetype system (EQ2, CoH) which dramatically reduces the reliance on botlenecks. I've no doubt MMOG designers will continue to refine the pattern further to even remove bottleneck archetypes - but either way, this is an issue of general character design and applies in pve as much as pvp.

WAR has the EQ2 style archetype system in all but name (fighter, rogue, mage, priest). The simple act of putting an equal number of classes in each category will probably help bottlenecking enormously.

Where's Mark Jacobs now? Where is his interest in the discussion and desire to participate?

Seriously, read that other thread again. If I were him I wouldn't even contemplate posting again after that fiasco.

[HRose]

Why do you conclude this will lead to intantized PvP as the ultimate end?  Why can't there be multiple ends and people play what they like?

Because purposes overlap and things get mudflated out of the game when there are more efficient paths available.

There's NO game right now that has enough population to keep a bunch of PvP systems and multiple maps always active. If you look at current lessons about PvP in other games you'd notice that it's FUNDAMENTAL for the action and the players to converge, because while PvE can be viable if there aren't many players around, in PvP it is a game-breaker.

The game must be alive all the time, on a server with max 3k of players. And it must be alive and playable even during the off-peaks. Warhammer has already a problem of having multiple fronts and multiple maps. There's already WAY TOO MUCH space to realistically keep the PvP well alive.

In general the problem of PvP has been an excessive numbers of zones or modes that just spread the population thin and prolong dead-times.

You have to direct the players toward a type of PvP/RvR and then work your ass off to make it exceptional. You cannot expect to win by implementing a bunch of half-assed modes in the hope to make everyone happy. That's just an opt-out.

[eldaec]

If a game genuinely has enough pvp focus for pvp to be the a big part of the levelling and loot gathering process then I think you can stretch beyond the usual single type of pvp.

But you are of course right that there is a limit. Particularly since Mythic still want server communities to top out around 2-3k simultaneous logons.

For example, if you can structure sport pvp to appeal to the not-quite-finished levelling characters, and the people-who-could-not-play-open-RvR-tonight-anyway segment then I think it could work in parallel.

Again, it's easier to see this working if open RvR is the 'real endgame' and sport pvp is 'practice'; rather than the other way around.

I agree that maintaining two equal-but-different meangingful pvp endgames with only 2500 players at a time would be hard, but if any diku can do it, I think it would be this one.

[Hoax]

*sigh*  I really can't believe I'm posting this.

tazelbain is so right, and you DAOC fanboi's really need to wake up already...   

If the sport pvp is top tier, but the zerg pvp still contributes then everyone can have fun.  Like Tazel said all sides will have top tier pvp guilds that will wtfpwn all scrub/pug groups in the sport pvp dept.  But for the most part the sport pvp stuff should be a wash because all sides will have top tier guilds.   I'm not impressed by their system at all mind you, but I do think its the best we're going to get when Mythic's plan is: WoW BG's + DAOC open pvp = profit!

I envision people cussing out any scrub groups that try to participate in the sport pvp.  Because they will be loosing points for their side by getting destroyed by the other side's top teams.  That is a problem, if they invest all this time/effort into the sport pvp side of things yet it is in everyone's best interest if only the hardcore top tier pvp'ers get involved in that setting.

So yeah, they need to put a bunch of work into the world zerg v. zerg side of things.  I guarantee you though that Mythic will not get around to that.  In which case there will be next to no reason to play WAR over WoW.

[Nebu]

tazelbain is so right, and you DAOC fanboi's really need to wake up already...   

I think people are out of their mind for liking WoW too... who's to say what's fun?  As for the fanboi comment, that's a bit much.  I could write a 10 page post on what's wrong with the PvP in DAoC, but after playing nearly every pvp mmog, I still find it to be the most engaging.  We just have different taste when it comes to PvP.  I prefer a much more coordinated, strategy-based PvP experience.  That's very different from the console feel of WoW or the build/instanced aspects of GW. 

I do agree with you that WAR is likely to be some combination of GW, WoW, and DAoC and I find that to be disappointing.  My hopes for the direction that WAR would take have gone out the wndow.  I'm looking most closely at AoC and PotBS but know that Funcom is likely to let me down. 

[tazelbain]

I envision people cussing out any scrub groups that try to participate in the sport pvp.  Because they will be loosing points for their side by getting destroyed by the other side's top teams.  That is a problem, if they invest all this time/effort into the sport pvp side of things yet it is in everyone's best interest if only the hardcore top tier pvp'ers get involved in that setting.

We really don't know enough to know to make an educated guess as to what is going to happen.  There has got to be a clever algorithm to handle this so that it is not exclusive or zergy.  Something that encouraged Elites to group with scrubs. Or least at very least minimize the scrubs affecting the ally elites.
- give out xp/rp for every match but only vp for the "fair' matches.
- limit the amount vp individuals can win pre-day individuals can contribute.
- vp are zero-sum for an individual, top X count for the zone control.

Not sure if any of these ideas will work, but it seems critical to the game and worth some serious development time.

[Hoax]

@Nebu:  I dunno how many more ways/times to say this but I AGREE MOAR WORLD PEEVEEPEE PLZKTHX!

I don't like sport pvp, that is what fps/rts and other games where there is no lewt, world, leveling w/e involved.  I think sport pvp is fucking ass backwards retarded in MMO's.  I said earlier in the thread, I cried about BG's in WoW before they even came out.  I haven't played my own character in WoW since about the fifth month of release...

But that doesn't mean shit about DAOC, you and others continue to hold DAOC up as an example of good world pvp, and I fucking find that so laughable.  The last thing I want to see is another WoW where the pvp takes place in little instances and is  completely disconnected from the rest of the world.  But the other thing I dont want is DAOCv2, that would suck.

SB/EvE = true attempts at world pvp.

DAOC/PS = CTF w/out score

WoW/GW = Sport pvp in MMO's

That is the hierarchy to me, there is the disconnect between what I think we both want (less sport pvp in MMO's) and what you keep saying (more DAOC).

@tazel:
You're right I am not sure how exactly the BG's will work in WoW.  But if BG's > world pvp in VP gain which = zone conquest...

Well I can see where this is headed.  Best case scenario nobody will be able to tell what scrub groups from their realm are taking part in the BG's and giving away hella VP's by getting their shit pushed in.  In that case people will only talk shit on official forums or somewhere so it doesn't matter too much.  That is until some realm gets the level of organization needed to peer-pressure most of their scrubs to stay the fuck out of the BG so their top tier groups can just steamroll2victory.  Then the other realm will realize what is happening and really start to bitch in general chat or w/e about the dumb newbs getting rolled and loosing the zone blahblah.

Either way I am positive that Mythic will not even consider this problem because I've never met a  game dev that didn't seem to be utterly clueless to how pvp works...

[eldaec]

- give out xp/rp for every match but only vp for the "fair' matches.

Because it is fun to ask this sort of thing, how would you work out a fair match?

It's worth remembering....

 - Levels, gear and RP are not good indicators of power. Player skill developed through guild organisation >> all in this sort of thing.
 - The community is limited to one server, and so very small compared to GW or CS or whatever. A limited number of groups will be available at any one time.

- limit the amount vp individuals can win pre-day individuals can contribute.
- vp are zero-sum for an individual, top X count for the zone control.

On the first one, I don't see how that changes anything, non-ubers are still anteing up VPs and are still better off not entering. And whomever has the most players gets a big advantage, because that realm has a higher total cap.
On the second, you've designed a system where casuals can give away points to enemy ubers, but can't even theoretically earn any for their own realm.

Something that encouraged Elites to group with scrubs.

How would you do that without just encouraging ubers to group exclusively with alts of ubers? And remembering it is harder in sport pvp, because every scrub is displacing an uber.




Meaningful realm reward based Sport pvp in an rvr game is like Liverpool and Everton FC announcing that any 11 random fans can roll up and play for each side in the next match between the clubs. And that match will count for real league points.

How happy do you think that the rest of the fans of one club are going to be when some random fat bastard concedes a goal to a mediocre amateur on the other side?

[HRose]

@Nebu:  I dunno how many more ways/times to say this but I AGREE MOAR WORLD PEEVEEPEE PLZKTHX!

I don't like sport pvp, that is what fps/rts and other games where there is no lewt, world, leveling w/e involved.  I think sport pvp is fucking ass backwards retarded in MMO's.  I said earlier in the thread, I cried about BG's in WoW before they even came out.  I haven't played my own character in WoW since about the fifth month of release...

But that doesn't mean shit about DAOC, you and others continue to hold DAOC up as an example of good world pvp, and I fucking find that so laughable.

DAoC isn't a good example but it is the ONLY example that is meaningful on this context (so no Shadowbane or Eve-Online can really be taken seriously here).

Take the "Battlegrounds". You could say that Mythic is going to copy Blizzard. But then no, Mythic comes and says: "Hey, we had battlegrounds years before WoW, they copied us". Okay. It's true. But there's a fundamental difference, in DAoC battlegrounds were still RvR, because they were divided by level and they were PERSISTENT. Warfare. All the players went into one of them.

There weren't multiple copies of them so to render world-based PvP completely stupid.

So yes, Mythic made the Battlegrounds, but what is interesting to notice is that in Warhammer Mythic won't use its own version of battlegrounds, but WoW's version. With multiple copies of the same zone called "scenario".

We all say that the few parts that were fun and unmatched in DAoC were about the PvP. And Mythic instead systematically removes all those unique traits in their form of PvP to be more like WoW (like making battlegrounds instanced).

I ask all of you a question: do you think Mythic is currently busy developing and polishing the RvR or do you think they are wasting most of their time to script lame events and triggers in each of the battlegrounds because they have penis envy of WoW?

We all know that to make PvP right it must be your main focus from the very beginning, and not tacked on in the last few months as an afterthought. I just wonder on what Mythic is working more and putting most of their resources. World PvP, or lame CTFs?

[Modern Angel]

As a counterpoint to what Mythic's doing what do we know about Conan's pvp? I know you can get into a bar brawl and you can lay siege to player run cities. Do we know anything beyond those two points?

[Hoax]

We know Conan will try to do something new and probably fail but at least that is admirable, WAR is going to fail because my left nut has more "vision" then anyone at Mythic.  Its a fucking shame that GW didn't just give the money and the IP goods to somebody that would go balls out and try to make a Warhammer game.  Instead of letting Mythic reskin DAOC with their art and give the old bitch a Blizzard inspired boob job...

[tazelbain]

Copying Lineage 2 doesn't sound orginal.  But whatever.  At least I am not going to sit around the Conan thread and whine about how Funcom isn't making the instatized PvP game I want to play.

[Hoax]

There's the stupid cockwad Tazelbain I love to ignore!

Copying L2?  I'm whining?  God you are such a fucking clown.

[Numtini]

Copying Lineage 2 doesn't sound orginal.  But whatever.  At least I am not going to sit around the Conan thread and whine about how Funcom isn't making the instatized PvP game I want to play.

I suspect if you could hit max level in less than a month, the only complaint about L2 would be the stupid dark elf run animation and the number of them named Drizztttttt.

[Modern Angel]

If I may interrupt the nutswinging for a second, what, precisely, is Conan doing that's new? Is it open pvp? Limited to certain zones? Wide open across all zones?

[Trippy]

Decapitations!

[Modern Angel]

I do like decapitations...

[tazelbain]

There's the stupid cockwad Tazelbain I love to ignore!

Copying L2?  I'm whining?  God you are such a fucking clown.

You are not doing a very good job at it.

I have no problems AoC PvP or anthing AoC, except wondering if my machine can run it, just disputing the originality claim.  Having a frontier PvP area were guilds claiming towns and sieging each other sounds perfectly reasonable. I wonder about how the more actiony combat will fare in siege lag, but that's a problem everyone has.

[eldaec]

If I may interrupt the nutswinging for a second, what, precisely, is Conan doing that's new? Is it open pvp? Limited to certain zones? Wide open across all zones?

They are trying to make the combat mechanics more like a console hack and slash than simply another variant on the d20 system.

Nobody seems to know much about the pvp setting though. I've seen people explaining the flavour concepts (claiming towns and sieging) but not so much the mechanics (ie. is it SB/EvE style guild based freeform pvp, daoc style open world fixed sides rvr, or guild wars style artificially "level" playing field even numbers sport pvp). Others probably know more than I do about AoC mind you.

[Nija]

I just hope they have a free for all server with a couple protected towns. Like Shadowbane without the client or the devs.

[Hoax]

I'd say its fairly clear that Funcom has no fucking idea what features the game will actually have when it is released.  I will be amazed if bar fights actually make it in at this stage.

Yes PvP, or Player versus Player will be a central part of the gameplay in Age of Conan, and we are truly focusing on this part of the game to make fun, brutal, action filled and fair. There will be three main forms of PvP:

Drunken brawling is a hilarious, unique and very “Conanesque” PvP form where every player, regardless of their level, can fight it out in the bars and taverns of the world. Your fighting ability here depends on how much you drink, and what you drinkJ The more you drink the more pain you are able to endure, but the less chance you have of hitting!

PvP mini-games is a selection of mini-games, like Last man standing, King of the Hill and so forth (as you know from FPS games), but with a unique Conan twist, of course. These fights will take place in areas of the world dedicated or designed for PvP combat. To level out the fact that many friends have different abilities and levels, we also have a PvP-leveling system where we have divided the 80 levels into 4 PvP tiers, where you will be auto-leveled up to the max level of that tier during the PvP fight.

Massive epic battles – This is the ultimate large-scale PvP form where guilds and coalitions of players can build their own cities in the border kingdoms, and fight it out in massive battles. Just think of it! Engines of war, mounted warriors charging on horses and camels, formations of players struggling for every inch of land, tearing down walls or breaking through the formations of the enemy!

That's from the FAQ

But remember gameplay video or it doesn't fucking exist.

[Modern Angel]

Yeah, that's what I was asking. I've seen all the videos of directional combat, etc, etc but nothing about what they actually plan to DO with it as far as pvp. I need a framework.

[tazelbain]

poking holes in vp assignment

Ya, I was thinking about it in the wrong way.  It's not about numbers.  It's about social engineering.  There are two reasons scrubs would avoid the the Scenarios.  One is out of frustration because they keep losing.  So you have convince the scrubs that it is in their interest to continue to fight even if the mostly lose.  So really it will be determined be what happens when you lose.  No penalties and meager rewards should keep the scrubs, and as long as there are enemy scrubs are playing they have a chance at winning.

And the other reason is because they feel their participation hurts their team.  But I think we over estimating how much the average player will care.  It not like losing is cripple them.  It'll be the same as relics in DAoC, winning the campaign will nice to have but not essential to be able to play the game.  Really the whole RvR is sport PvP and these little matches are just another aspect of it.  This line of thinking still relies on the idea that some one else can shoulder the burden of defending.  But really expecting the elites to field dozens of top notch teams 24/7 to cover all the tier 4 Scenarios is impractical.  Expecting majority scrubs to defer to elites (I won't) is impractical as long still get some reward out of playing.

The key question is what happens when team signs up for a completely undefended Scenario with no opposing team.  But even if an undefended Scenario is locked, it would only a few scrubs to unlock it and undo the elites effort.  Personally  I am hoping that undefended Scenarios will deny both teams the VP and tip the VP balance back towards RvR.  That way no elite team even with prefect collusion with the rest of the realm will be able dominate the scenarios.

[eldaec]

And the other reason is because they feel their participation hurts their team.  But I think we over estimating how much the average player will care.

Thing I'm most worried about here is that it puts the realm community at risk.

In daoc, assuming you survive to level 50 rr4 or so (ie. rvr viable, and yes, that needs to come sooner in WAR), your realm is, in effect, a form of guild.

But in a normal guild, the guild community can form around social links, and so it is naturally cohesive. In a realm on the other hand, the game has to build a community around the arbitary membership of the realm.

If people (scrubs included) don't care that scrub participation in sport pvp hurts the realm, that means you didn't set up an environment which builds the community right, and as such you already failed the most important precondition to make RvR work.

It's not about numbers.  It's about social engineering. 

This is really key, if you make everyone believe they are involved in a genuinely realm versus realm competition, and believe that they can contribute, and believe that the rest of the realm is on their side; then tbh most other stuff falls into place by itself. DAOC was built entirely on that principle, in that game pve was ostensibly about building community, and open-RvR was how the community entertained itself on an open-ended basis.

You can argue about how to do it better, and about whether the early-daoc pve grind was really ideal, but the same principle applies to WAR.

[Fordel]

It is about one number at least, population. One thing that demoralized realms/players more then anything else in DaoC, was the horrible population imbalances. Being on the 'loser' realm just sucked so damn much. The best times I had in DaoC were the 100vs100 zerg fights over keeps/towers/mile gates/randomtreestump etc... It didn't matter if you weren't the 100% optimized super fotm build or if you didn't have the best gear, as long as you were marginally competent you were a welcome addition to your realm.

The worst fights I had in DaoC were the opposite, the 100vs20 zerg fights and being nothing more then a speed bump at best. Being the 20 realm, the frustration just builds, people splinter off into their own groups and any kind of team/realm you had just evaporates. People would bitch about class balance or realm balance, or how grindy PvE is etc, but the only thing that *broke* people in DaoC on a regular basis was population imbalance. If your realm couldn't/wouldn't zerg, you had to be part of the elite hardcore teams, if you weren't part of those teams you had to be a buffbotted stealther with every trick grind-ed out, if you weren't either of those things you didn't get to RvR. If you can't RvR, you generally don't stay subbed to DaoC.


All the other bullshit in DaoC is bad, but completely secondary to the pop issues. If you were on the wrong side of a pop imbalance, you were not only excluded from your realm, but from RvR itself. Definitely not the way to keep people playing.

[HRose]

It is about one number at least, population. One thing that demoralized realms/players more then anything else in DaoC, was the horrible population imbalances. Being on the 'loser' realm just sucked so damn much.

Yes, but as I wrote above and what people fail to understand is that population IS PART of this type gameplay. Those unbalances are part of the system because they ARE the system. We are simulating the "struggle of nations" and even in real history those unbalances existed. History would SUCK if every battle was fought by the exact number of people. Taking all your people into RvR to defend your real was THE game. This social aspect was THE game.

The second you have EXACT numbers on either side, this kind of real RvR is over.

So look at this from the other perspective: instead of locking numbers to erase this unbalance (that I think is the heart of gameplay and not something to fight against), why instead not trying to make the game fun and exciting when you are outnumbered?

As I wrote above this can be done by making correspond to asymmetric numbers also asymmetric objectives. So that these objectives (and victory points you earn) are measured on your *current* condition, and not on the unfair premise that everyone has an equal chance. We *know* that it's improbable to have equal footing in real persistent PvP so we don't make a game assuming that, we make a game anticipating those problems and around those conditions.

Mythic's big mistake was to design RvR assuming the ideal condition that the three realms were always symmetric. They are not. The game rules should anticipate and be based on this.