Warhammer Newsletter - March

[Fordel]

I don't see any possible scenario where being outnumbered 5:1 can be made fun (outside of making the 1 into a tiny E-God in power and ability), no matter how many bonus points you give them. You are never going to get exact balance in a RvR style pvp world, but you need to have some semblance of it. Pop imbalance reaches a point where the small side has no options outside of be slaughtered and not play.


This isn't an issue of getting people to come out and fight, it's an issue of 'the people' not existing at all.


RealmGuard reports 147 attackers at RealmKeep

/who 50 returns 23 results.


That is pretty much a bend over and take it scenario. That was(is?) the norm for at least one realm per server. I'm not talking about the 2:1 keep defense scenario, or the 1.5:1 group vs group scenario, or the 100 vs 75 zerg scenario. You can work around those mechanically through game play, but the 100+ vs 2 groups and some assbots in tow... those people are fucked outside of divine intervention.

[Nija]

Need more "single server" games that instance it like EQ2/AO did.

I mean, yeah it'll suck the first few times you pick 'Ironforge 63' instead of 'Ironforge 64' - which is where your friends are setting up the raid, but you'll get over it eventually.

Tie character names to account names and the ablity to add aliases to people. Click 'em, bring up info, 'add to buddy list as ...' NIJA. So if you do /tell nija HI it'll show up on my character named MASTERSTROKE, who I'm playing at that moment.

Or you and your guildies can talk to each other in vent, "manually add me, account name is blahblah" - then just require a 5 digit PIN key along with your account password to change any account details.


Basically I hate seeing stuff like EQ2 where you have 10,000 people playing at any given time spread across 10 servers, when each one is made to "support" 4k or something. I bring up the name problem because everyone wants to have their nickname, and if you had 8 million people on the same single "wow server" then they obviously couldn't. I don't want to be Nniijjaa!

As far as outnumbered go, they want to give people NPC AI groupmates, but they could go a little further. Outnumbered defense squads get defensive things with a little bit more HP. Outnumbered attackers shouldn't get any bonus, ever, since they are attacking! If that doesn't seem fair, give them extra siege equipment or something. A couple NPC pets randomly given to people to control. I don't know. There are tons of things that could make being outnumbered more fun.

'Yeah man were you out at XXXX keep? We got steamrolled, they had like 10x more people than we did!' 'Yeah but i was on the west side and I had some ice wyvern that I could control, I wasted like 60 people before he finally went down, it was rad as shit.'

Edit: You don't shoot for "balance" when you're looking at being outnumbered 5:1. You're looking at trying to make it fun for the super outnumbered people. Fun up until they die. Without all the 300-style gay sex.

[HRose]

I don't see any possible scenario where being outnumbered 5:1 can be made fun (outside of making the 1 into a tiny E-God in power and ability), no matter how many bonus points you give them. You are never going to get exact balance in a RvR style pvp world, but you need to have some semblance of it. Pop imbalance reaches a point where the small side has no options outside of be slaughtered and not play.

That is pretty much a bend over and take it scenario. That was(is?) the norm for at least one realm per server. I'm not talking about the 2:1 keep defense scenario, or the 1.5:1 group vs group scenario, or the 100 vs 75 zerg scenario. You can work around those mechanically through game play, but the 100+ vs 2 groups and some assbots in tow... those people are fucked outside of divine intervention.

What i mean is that locking the numbers isn't a solution, because it means erasing the RvR and replacing it with something else. And we want RvR for reasons that eldaec explained perfectly along all the thread.,

Once we get that point we pass to the other: how to minimize the number unbalance and keep the game more fun and less frustrating?

My answer to this was: build the game rules not assuming always symmetric factions, but assuming that the unbalance will be there. So, from a side making PvP objective-based (and less direct kill-based). from the other working on an "adaptable" objective based system.

So instead of feeding points to the enemy while defending a doomed keep, you would earn victory points the moment the keep falls in the hand of the enemy, and proportional to how long your defense kept up. This is already a very simple rule but that would have a HUGE impact in the game.

1- It would make the players defend the keep till the very end, because it's once the keep falls that you get the points.
2- It would make the players defend the best they can because their performance matters in the context.

I can assure you that once you are rewarded in a proportional way to your efforts, then also the actual game becomes more "fun". Surely less frustrating. Taking from the other thread, but illustrating a similar point in psychology:

"Hey, here's a rusty dagger...think you can kill that wolf? Give it a shot!!!". Whoa cool, I gained a strength point and .2 in fencing!!! Sure, Im a ghost now...but....

If the game rewards you when you "try" and not just when you "win", then you obtain a situation where "trying is fun". And even losing is fun if the battle was kickass. Even when it was desperate.

I once proposed that DAoC used a system for keep upgrades that was fixed. You had a fixed pool of points to distribute to your keeps. This meant that the more keeps you have, the weaker they will be (spreading your upgrades), while the less you have the strongest they are. This would create a situation where you can go out and conquer your enemy territory, but this would also correspond to expose vulnerabilities and offer the enemy the occasion for an effective counterattack.

Another similar idea was about having realistic supply lines and so on.

These are just examples only to demonstrate that there are ways to give continuity to a war and offer even the losing side accessible and fun objectives. But this requires that you design RvR not assuming the ideal balance, but assuming that the RvR WILL BE asymmetric.

On the other side it's OBVIOUS that while you contemplate asymmetric RvR you still care about making the sides as balanced as possible. If I was designing a game based on RvR you would be sure that I'd start to poll and test players VERY EARLY. And then adapt the factions and game design so that at release the factions are as balanced in numbers as possible.

You surely wouldn't see me the day of release going "Oh shit. Alliance outnumbers Horde 4 to 1".

These are things that HAVE TO be anticipated early, so that you can properly address the problem when you still have time to do so. And not when it's too late. But, again, locking numbers isn't the solution.

[HRose]

Btw:

- Develop a system alike Lucasarts' iMuse. The zerg approaches and you are outnumbered, and a special epic badass music starts to play.

It would be cool :)

Fun idea number 2:

- A "Braveheart" skill. When you are outnumbered at a keep your commander will be able to play "the horn" and make it resound around the valley. This activates a general morale bonus and the "braveheart" skill on all defending players. The morale bonus and the new skill work in tandem. While you are engaged in combat and deal damage your morale meter goes down, so you could have it depleted after one or two kills. And that's when you would activate your "braveheart". When used your character would rise one fist in the air and SCREAM THE HELL OUT OF HIS LUNGS. While screaming the morale would fill up again, ready for the next kill.

:)

EDIT: A tweak to make it more fun, instead of making "the horn" build up the initial morale boost you make it so it just activates the "braveheart" skill. Your commander plays the horn, the sound travels through the whole zone, you hear it, it's a calling! Your "braveheart" skill lights up and you can use it. This would bring to a situation where the commander plays "the horn" and then all the defenders start screaming at unison, shaking their fists.

Much more epic :)

[krazyk]

Wasn't one of the reasons DAoC had 3 realms so the 2 underpopulated ones could gang up on the overpopulated one? I think this could work if players had a way of communicating with their enemies, which I don't believe DAoC allowed.

I think it would be pretty cool anyway if underpopulated team b could team up with underpopulated team c and whip the crap out of overpopulated team a, then after that they turn on each other. Enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

[Fordel]

It was in theory, in practice it just meant two realms would gang up on the smaller realm.

[tazelbain]

Does that work better now that there is a central zone to fight over?

[Nebu]

Btw:

- Develop a system alike Lucasarts' iMuse. The zerg approaches and you are outnumbered, and a special epic badass music starts to play.

It would be cool :)

Fun idea number 2:

- A "Braveheart" skill. When you are outnumbered at a keep your commander will be able to play "the horn" and make it resound around the valley. This activates a general morale bonus and the "braveheart" skill on all defending players. The morale bonus and the new skill work in tandem. While you are engaged in combat and deal damage your morale meter goes down, so you could have it depleted after one or two kills. And that's when you would activate your "braveheart". When used your character would rise one fist in the air and SCREAM THE HELL OUT OF HIS LUNGS. While screaming the morale would fill up again, ready for the next kill.

:)

EDIT: A tweak to make it more fun, instead of making "the horn" build up the initial morale boost you make it so it just activates the "braveheart" skill. Your commander plays the horn, the sound travels through the whole zone, you hear it, it's a calling! Your "braveheart" skill lights up and you can use it. This would bring to a situation where the commander plays "the horn" and then all the defenders start screaming at unison, shaking their fists.

Much more epic :)

People already hate the idea that 8 skilled players can wipe out a zerg of 40... you really think this is a great idea?  I think not. 

[tazelbain]

People already hate the idea that 8 skilled players can wipe out a zerg of 40... you really think this is a great idea?  I think not. 

Depends on what kind of skill we are taking about...

...and If I am good at it. :)

[krazyk]

It was in theory, in practice it just meant two realms would gang up on the smaller realm.

In this case then there needs to be some kind of game mechanic where the people who are out manned get some kind of equalizer. I know there are some people out there though that like fighting on uneven terms (I am one of them). I would chose the underpopulated realm just to have more enemies, but I am probably weird like that.

I think one of the ways you could have an equalizer for the underpopulated realms would be terrain. If the underpopulated realm got a keep that had a choke point, or a moat, or some other terrain advantage this would make it easier to defend. When my guild used to pvp near Tarren Mill in WoW we used to go inside the tower that was between south shore, and tarren mill and bait people to attack us and they would run in like a big conga line to try and kill us and we would just mow them down as they came through. We would do the same thing at other choke points and it was a great equalizer going up against the ally zerg. Eventually we would get over run, but it was fun even when we lost.

[Hoax]

I think the primary issue with what WAR sound's like its about atm is that the integration of world and sport pvp will not really work well the way they currently are describing the relationship.  But then again I haven't been reading all the WAR vapo-hype so perhaps I've missed something somewhere.  Have they even gone into detail about where the sport pvp instance entrances are going to be located at this point?  I know I read about the auto-balance w/ npc's (laugh) stuff, but I wonder how one enters the WAR BG's.

As for population stuff, that is always a huge issue in a game with world pvp and hardcoded faction choice.  I'm just not sure what they can do at this point.  If they haven't already come up with a plan to prevent gross imbalances at this stage, they are stupid and fucked.

  

[garthilk]

Okay,

Why is population important in a game where the primary goal objectives (victory points), takes place mostly in balanced instanced combat? I'm not saying it's not important, but why can people see why population is less important than it was before.

Also a quick clarification. Scenario's are the instanced PvP objectives. Battlegrounds, are the persistant world PvP areas with secondary objectives in them. In the Battlegrounds you find both secondary objectives and Scenarios.

[Fordel]

It was in theory, in practice it just meant two realms would gang up on the smaller realm.

In this case then there needs to be some kind of game mechanic where the people who are out manned get some kind of equalizer. I know there are some people out there though that like fighting on uneven terms (I am one of them). I would chose the underpopulated realm just to have more enemies, but I am probably weird like that.

I think one of the ways you could have an equalizer for the underpopulated realms would be terrain. If the underpopulated realm got a keep that had a choke point, or a moat, or some other terrain advantage this would make it easier to defend. When my guild used to pvp near Tarren Mill in WoW we used to go inside the tower that was between south shore, and tarren mill and bait people to attack us and they would run in like a big conga line to try and kill us and we would just mow them down as they came through. We would do the same thing at other choke points and it was a great equalizer going up against the ally zerg. Eventually we would get over run, but it was fun even when we lost.

Pretty much all of this stuff is or was in DaoC at one point or another. Just band aids in the end. Only so many times you can have a blast getting rolled. The constellation prize of bonus points only keeps folks around for so long when the game is primarily about land and objectives. I'm not sure if you played DaoC, but if you haven't, I can not stress how horrible the pop imbalances actually were (probably still are). There was simply no way to make it fun for the smaller side outside of giving them super powers.

Going back a post or three:

If the game rewards you when you "try" and not just when you "win", then you obtain a situation where "trying is fun". And even losing is fun if the battle was kickass. Even when it was desperate.

The pop imbalance got so bad, the loser realm wasn't even able to "try" anymore. Not even enough people to cause a speed bump.

[Nija]

Okay,

Why is population important in a game where the primary goal objectives (victory points), takes place mostly in balanced instanced combat?

Seems like we're brainstorming ways to fix it so that you don't have to rely on balanced, instanced combat. Because that stuff sucks.

[HRose]

Seems like we're brainstorming ways to fix it so that you don't have to rely on balanced, instanced combat. Because that stuff sucks.

Pretty much :)

Once you go with fixed numbers the RvR is over. It's not anymore the "war" they like to publicize. Mythic has been contradictory on this, they send a message but then their game design goes in the opposite direction.

Mythic likes to do the same stuff, and then give it a different name to make it sound new (see for example the confusion with Battlegrounds and Scenarios).

But you cannot call this RvR or "war" and then close it in a instance. That's something else. And you can play with names all you want, the outcome doesn't change. Players aren't stupid, especially when the game is out and has to stand on its own legs.

[HRose]

There was simply no way to make it fun for the smaller side outside of giving them super powers.

I continue to dislike see things from that perspective.

If you try to compensate the number unbalance through an artificial bonus then you pretty much validate what Mythic is doing. Because it's better then to just lock number if the other solution is to compensate the unbalance anyway.

This way of thinking PERPETUATES the mistake. And the mistake is considering that unbalance something to cut off the game. It's not.

The way to "give the losing side a chance" isn't by trying to make them compete anyway, but it is by adapting the OBJECTIVES to your current situation.

Your objective cannot be "grab the enemy relic" if you are outnumbered and closed in a corner of your realm territory. The mistake here is again having the game rules assuming an ideal balance that doesn't exist. Give instead the players goals and victory points that are adapted to their position in the game. Or: proportionally to their efforts.

I think my idea above about the "morale buff" was misread. I didn't want to compensate the defenders so that they could overcome the biggest sieging army at a keep. My idea was, yes, to give them a 10-15% boost to make them resist better. But the whole point of that idea wasn't focused on the practical mechanic, but on its "feel". So that it makes you feel satisfying defending the keep as long as possible. Those skills could be completely purpose-less. In the sense that you could let players play the horn, and then scream. Sounds and animations are the essential part of that mechanic. The actual buff is optional. I added it just so that the players are motivated to trigger those skills.

Often in games the "mechanic" is the point, and the "metaphor" is the excuse. I reverted that. The "metaphor" is the point, the "mechanic" the excuse.

[Fordel]

And my point, is that there is no objective to give once the imbalance is to great, that will be fun for the small side. Hold out as long as you can becomes, just get into the keep becomes, just see the keep on the horizon becomes, just enter the RvR zone etc...


I think we are debating in a circle, so I'll leave it at that.

[HRose]

And my point, is that there is no objective to give once the imbalance is to great, that will be fun for the small side. Hold out as long as you can becomes, just get into the keep becomes, just see the keep on the horizon becomes, just enter the RvR zone etc...


I think we are debating in a circle, so I'll leave it at that.

But since you played DAoC you know that it's very hard to conquer all the enemy keeps and HOLD them indefinitely.

The model of RvR is a "rubberbanding" one. The war front is in the middle and can be pushed forwards or backwards. But once you reached a point, you cannot pass it. There's always a limit to how far you can go.

So you can push it from +1 till a maximum of +10. And the more you push it the harder you can hold it there. This because this model is designed to "oscillate" perpetually to keep refreshing the game indefinitely.

Now the point is that this model is finite. And it's totally possible to set gameplay patterns that open up in the worst case and that grant players the possibility to fight back and have fun. And this again because the RvR has already a safenet that prevents a faction to lose permanently.

[Numtini]

Create some neutral races and have the devs swap them to whatever team is that far down.

[Nebu]

Create some neutral races and have the devs swap them to whatever team is that far down.

Interesting... a mercenary class.  Problem is that most people might prefer realm bouncing and play that class.

[HRose]

Create some neutral races and have the devs swap them to whatever team is that far down.

I was posting on another forum a similar idea.

In my old concept I used Order Vs Chaos, with a Balance faction made of merchants and mercenaries and encouraged to join the weaker faction in the attempt to maintain that balance.

There are various fun twists related to this, like the fact that Order needs resources that only Chaos can produce, and Balance can buy/sell them. And also Orcer cannot understand what Chaos say, but Balance can understand both.

[garthilk]

Seems like we're brainstorming ways to fix it so that you don't have to rely on balanced, instanced combat. Because that stuff sucks.

It seems to me that the instanced combat is a core part of the games design. Short of a huge delay and a huge redesign, I think it's there to stay. I'm all for discussion on the issue, but I'm not sure it's the area that would be constructive to try and illicit a change away from instancing. I think a better discussion would be trying to create more of balance of victory points between the various other methods of their aquisition. PvP in battlefields, PvE, Battlefield Objectives and PvP in Scenarios.

[krazyk]

Yeah I would rather see them try to balance the world pvp instead of this instanced approach. Their idea to have the underpopulated realm get npcs to help out is going to be a failure unless they have some really good AI (which they probably won't, and will become predictable like all npcs).

The idea of having a neutral side sounds like a good one, but it would probably be easy to abuse and lead to the problem mentioned earlier where people will only want to play for the side that consistently wins.

[Venkman]

Yep. Hrose is responding to a core system that's probably been in place two years. The ideas discussed here are nice, but the more fundamental they get, the less chance they have of happening in AoC, which is la

Therefore, the question isn't "how should AoC PvP work". It's: "how can you make it better".

Unfortunately, nobody's actually experienced what's there yet, so for now it's idle speculation on a few paragraphs of text.

[HRose]

It seems to me that the instanced combat is a core part of the games design. Short of a huge delay and a huge redesign, I think it's there to stay. I'm all for discussion on the issue, but I'm not sure it's the area that would be constructive to try and illicit a change away from instancing.

The merit of a product is ALWAYS actual. And it will become even more actual AFTER release. In particular because Warhammer focuses on PvP as it's main appeal, a form of PvP that is publicized in a way and will likely be delivered in another way. This along the fact that the demand of the players is for something they aren't going to offer.

Being constructive is relative. Think to Vanguard, it would have never been constructive discussing hardware requirements and basic game design decisions and overall approach. But what actually matters more than those? What people discuss today in EVERY forum if not those? What else is the real point? And what are they patching even if it's an heresy for The Vision?

Hiding dirt under the carpet, ignoring what matters. That's what's really not constructive. Till you head straight to the point you are always constructive, you even spare time.

Another example that comes to my mind was "Wish" and point & click movement. It was there to stay, so arguing against it wasn't constructive. And yet EVERY SINGLE PLAYER was turned off by it above all else. Constructive is who does all that is possible to not make you go crash against a wall, not the one who leads you there because you are heading there anyway.

Think about DAoC's ToA. It would have never been constructive going against it, ranting against it. And yet for three years Mythic just worked to remove all the damage that the expansion did. Think about SWG's NGE.

There are plenty of examples where it was way more constructive to tell them in their face. Instead of playing along and being nice. If you don't do that, then you share some responsibility of failure.

Do you pull the brake and annoy the hell out of everyone, risking to be criticized and even be derided, or do you watch the trainwreck just because it's not your own problem? You probably know my answer ;)

[Venkman]

Using terms like "hiding dirt under the carpet" is a fair amount of hubris. You're arguing paper theory against paper theory from a condescending altitude against a bunch of people no more or less capable of having it implemented than you are. It's academic, which makes for a good read as always (you generally have good ideas) and worth discussing. Just manage expectations of followthrough.

[eldaec]

RealmGuard reports 147 attackers at RealmKeep
/who 50 returns 23 results.
That is pretty much a bend over and take it scenario. That was(is?) the norm for at least one realm per server.

No, it was the norm on a minority of servers. Most servers were within bounds that were workable.

That doesn't mean it isn't a valid criticism or that something doesn't have to be done for the people who land on those servers.

As well as Hrose's point about designing for uneven numbers (based on Daoc experience I reckon you can make it work up to around 2 or even 3 to 1), you also need to find a way to counter the crazy 4, 5, or 6 to 1 imbalances.

You need that for sport pvp as well though. Population does matter if your end game is sport pvp because you need enough players to set the damn matches up, and to ensure you have a big enough pool of ubers to make decent groups with sensible class/spec combinations (remember, only ubers qualify for meaningful sport pvp).

Even sport-pvp-for-fun in WoW is broken on 5:1 servers because of the queues.

Any pvp-endgame mmog with fixed sides needs to actively manage population. I'd argue that both open RvR and sport PvP become unsustainable and potentially unfun at any ratio much above 3:1.

It seems to me that the instanced combat is a core part of the games design. Short of a huge delay and a huge redesign, I think it's there to stay. I'm all for discussion on the issue, but I'm not sure it's the area that would be constructive to try and illicit a change away from instancing.

I don't think anyone here has serious illusions that this forum has that sort of influence on anyone at any stage of development.

The discussion is interesting because many of us would still like to play an RvR game, and if mythic aren't making one after all, then that's a shame - because they probably have a greater chance of getting it right that anyone; but if nobody is making us an RvR game, this is as good a chance as any to discuss it.

It's: "how can you make it better".

At the end of the day it's easy to do. It's all about which is the fun practice form of pvp, and which is the competitive 'real end-game'. And that is driven entirely by VP distribution.


If sport pvp is a low impact fun form of pvp then it becomes a diversion and an opportunity for casuals try stuff out. Like WoW.

If sport pvp is a world impacting competitive form of pvp then it becomes the domain of the ubers and locks casuals out to the top-table game. Like GW.

OTOH

If RvR is a low impact fun form of pvp you lose realm leaders who piss off to sport pvp, and the extra time required to play open RvR makes it unattractive to pretty much everyone (as the travel and organisational overhead is not compensated in the low impact world, and the set piece epic battles just don't really happen due to lack of numbers). Like WoW.

If RvR is the world impacting competitive form of RvR, then you create an engine that drives ubers to communicate with and lead casuals, that builds community, that gives casuals opportunities to be involved in world impacting events, and generates a much wider variety of genuinely different events than sport pvp can. Like DAoC.


Mythic like to work in evolutionary fashion.

Part of why daoc worked in it's time is that it applied the lessons of EQ, UO etc.

Beats me why they don't wish to apply the lessons of WoW, GW, and DAoC here.

Unless of course, the marketing focus on sport pvp is not about providing a totally accurate picture of the game and is really about trying to attract WoW players who don't understand what the impact would be of WoW BGs becoming a meaningful and world impacting part of that game....


Which leads to a question for WoW players, what do you think would happen to your server if victories in the BGs impacted your realm in ways such as granting access to the raiding dungeons, or gave your realm % damage and % xp bonuses (these first two are the actual rewards that daoc rvr gave to realms), or just directly gave better-than-raid gear as rewards?

[HRose]

Just manage expectations of followthrough.

I don't think we are discussing for Mythic, we are just discussing between ourselves. So what expectations?

I also don't think that Warhammer will be a "trainwreck" (see the thread where we "predict" numbers), I wrote that the game will do so-so at launch and a lot will depend on how they move from there. But there's still nothing more important than discussing the RvR structure. And also the part of a mmorpg I always liked to discuss more.

Warhammer is nothing more than another opportunity to discuss those points.

[Venkman]

Which leads to a question for WoW players, what do you think would happen to your server if victories in the BGs impacted your realm in ways such as granting access to the raiding dungeons, or gave your realm % damage and % xp bonuses (these first two are the actual rewards that daoc rvr gave to realms), or just directly gave better-than-raid gear as rewards?

It depends on the era of WoW. A year ago, I suspect truly relevant PvP that unlocked access to PvE content would have compelled a good chunk of Horde players to roll Alliance or quit. The balance across the whole game was, I think, 70/30. Not all servers were like this, but more than enough were to convince people who didn't know better into thinking the all servers were like this. I look at the "world PvP" of WoW today and it's the same  now as it was when they did it in Silithus and EPL: Alliance controls it all, 100% of the time. Hellfire, Zangar, pretty much Nagrand. Maybe it'll change when the casual Blood Elves hit 70, but I doubt it because after level 20, Blood Elves hit the same relative lack of content all Horde before them did.

I also need to ask something about DAoC in 2005 on forward: Can it really be said that a "casual" player in a game years old is really the same as a "casual" in WoW? I think this is important. I've been assured that characters could be PL'd to 50 in 24 hours or less, that there's all this engaging stuff with the right guild, that RvR was fantastic. However, in no description, convincing or otherwise, have I seen anything approaching truly casual. DAoC is still an old school game. Rewards don't come as fast, distances take longer to cover, all the stuff we liked because it was better than EQ1, but which is still lightyears behind WoW except for alts of dedicated veterans.

Take someone off the street and toss tham at DAoC. Alone, with no or few friends who are similarly newbie, would they find a home? Would they survive DAoC as their first MMO with GW and WoW out there?

The reason I think this is important is because I really wonder if DAoC RvR could ever be applied to a game that appealed to a much looser type of player I'd call "WoW Casual".

To me, WAR is targeting WoW PvPers, not people who want a truly immersive longterm-rewarding experience. This is because immersion itself requires more of the average gamer than they have proven to want to invest. Level of immersion seems to be inversely proportional to appeal, and I don't think a game with a licensor royalty can afford to be too narrowly focused in that appeal lest they end up like SWG.

[HRose]

Take someone off the street and toss tham at DAoC. Alone, with no or few friends who are similarly newbie, would they find a home? Would they survive DAoC as their first MMO with GW and WoW out there?

No, they wouldn't. But surely not because of the RvR. I was reading on another forum an impression of a player who started playing and while clicking on stuff he was ported somewhere and didn't know how to go back. Just an example of what are the problems, but still far from RvR implications.

Also, today DAoC's RvR is much more hardcore than years ago and mostly because they left behind many of those principles we discussed here. It is much more focused on specialized 8vs8 gank groups because it's there that Mythic put the best rewards, moving the game away from keeps and territorial conquest.

The reason I think this is important is because I really wonder if DAoC RvR could ever be applied to a game that appealed to a much looser type of player I'd call "WoW Casual".

I'm a True Believer of this. Eldaec explained very well why the RvR provides concrete elements that can work to bring in casual players instead of outcasting them. So the RvR as a model has qualities that go down that path. The final result isn't a matter of the model itself but, rather, its implementation.

Level of immersion seems to be inversely proportional to appeal, and I don't think a game with a licensor royalty can afford to be too narrowly focused in that appeal lest they end up like SWG.

I strongly disagree that immersion is inversely proportional to appeal. And SWG is one of the least immersive games I've played.

Maybe you have this distorted idea of "immersion" like real-world boring tasks. There's really no link between the two.

[eldaec]

I also need to ask something about DAoC in 2005 on forward: Can it really be said that a "casual" player in a game years old is really the same as a "casual" in WoW? I think this is important. I've been assured that characters could be PL'd to 50 in 24 hours or less, that there's all this engaging stuff with the right guild, that RvR was fantastic. However, in no description, convincing or otherwise, have I seen anything approaching truly casual. DAoC is still an old school game. Rewards don't come as fast, distances take longer to cover, all the stuff we liked because it was better than EQ1, but which is still lightyears behind WoW except for alts of dedicated veterans.

Take someone off the street and toss tham at DAoC. Alone, with no or few friends who are similarly newbie, would they find a home? Would they survive DAoC as their first MMO with GW and WoW out there?

The reason I think this is important is because I really wonder if DAoC RvR could ever be applied to a game that appealed to a much looser type of player I'd call "WoW Casual".

Daoc went through 3 distinct phases.

Pre-Toa : RvR was fun for random 50s. PUGs could join the frontier chatgroup, find action appropriate to their skill level. Fun was had by all. Some valid complaints existed around the fact that objectives were either extremely trivial and transient (keeps) or required massive planning (relics) - there was no in between state.

Toa-era : Casuals players felt they faced an all new grind - started to leave. Artifacts gave players a perception that they could not beat uber guilds under any circumstances.

Post-Toa : Reduced population of non-ubers (because of ToA, WoW, game age and increasing focus on 8v8) leads to remaining casuals being pushed out because every group they face is uber, balanced casual groups are harder and harder to form, game effectively descends into 8v8 sport pvp only on an open landscape, as such casuals are increasingly unable to contribute even if they find a group. By this time /level and the lack of boxes-on-retail shelves has decimated the newbie community, new players have nobody to level with and therefore no way to gain social contacts.


Yes. Absolutely. Pre-toa daoc was fun for pugs and casuals. No, post 2005, it's not fun. But the reasons it is not fun for casuals are fixable in a new game, and don't relate to the concept of open RvR. they actually have more to do with daoc becoming a sport pvp game by stealth.

The fun-for-pugs phase was despite the pve grind (which was still revolutionary in its shortness at the time) gating rvr content (less of a problem in WAR's design).

[eldaec]

One other thing, you asked would they survive their first month with WoW or GW out there.

A casual player certainly wouldn't survive his first month in GW either. For exactly the same reasons they don't survive in modern daoc. Ubers have no reason to talk to noobs.

[caladein]

Which leads to a question for WoW players, what do you think would happen to your server if victories in the BGs impacted your realm in ways such as granting access to the raiding dungeons, or gave your realm % damage and % xp bonuses (these first two are the actual rewards that daoc rvr gave to realms), or just directly gave better-than-raid gear as rewards?

It depends on the era of WoW. A year ago, I suspect truly relevant PvP that unlocked access to PvE content would have compelled a good chunk of Horde players to roll Alliance or quit. The balance across the whole game was, I think, 70/30. Not all servers were like this, but more than enough were to convince people who didn't know better into thinking the all servers were like this. I look at the "world PvP" of WoW today and it's the same  now as it was when they did it in Silithus and EPL: Alliance controls it all, 100% of the time. Hellfire, Zangar, pretty much Nagrand. Maybe it'll change when the casual Blood Elves hit 70, but I doubt it because after level 20, Blood Elves hit the same relative lack of content all Horde before them did.

If you completely ignore PvP servers, sure. I recently transfered my NE Druid over to a release-day PvE server (from a PvP server) to play with some friends and with the exception of Terrokar, all the World PvP objectives are Alliance-controlled 99% of the time. On my main server though (PvP, Horde side) it is always up in the air. They'll rarely be actually fought over, but the time controlled is even between Horde and Alliance.

To answer eldaec's question: Pre cross-server battlegrounds, then yes, I would like it for the impact my guild makes in PvP to effect our PvE just as getting awesome gear in PvE made you very powerful in PvP. Now that the gear crossover is basically non-existent, then no, I wouldn't really care that my arena team's success helped our server's PvE (nice from a server-pride standpoint but that's not worth a whole lot).

The biggest problem with WoW wasn't that its PvP was isolated from the rest of the (PvE) world, but quite the opposite: that PvE impacted the PvP world a whole lot, but PvP could hardly impact PvE. You either isolate the two (the GW model and now the WoW model for the most part) or you allow them to impact each other strongly. Both options are about the same in my eyes although I'd prefer the later, simply because I don't have to do twice as much work if I enjoy both PvE and PvP.

[Falconeer]

Fun idea number 2:

- A "Braveheart" skill. When you are outnumbered at a keep your commander will be able to play "the horn" and make it resound around the valley. This activates a general morale bonus and the "braveheart" skill on all defending players. The morale bonus and the new skill work in tandem. While you are engaged in combat and deal damage your morale meter goes down, so you could have it depleted after one or two kills. And that's when you would activate your "braveheart". When used your character would rise one fist in the air and SCREAM THE HELL OUT OF HIS LUNGS. While screaming the morale would fill up again, ready for the next kill.

I like this idea. I have a casual idea too on that.
Let's say there's a building somewhere on the battlefield/warzone that has this Braveheart horn in it, or let's say something like a big huge gathering bell.
When things start going down the drain, the outnumbered faction (and ONLY the outnumbered faction, and ONLY if this faction is outnumbered say 2:1 or something like that) can try to get to the horn/bell building (which as I said shouldn't be a quest or too hard in itself or it would get take even more players out of the outnumbered faction just to reach it) which could be placed on a very high cliff guarded by a few mobs just to "steal time".
Once the losing faction finally blow the horns or play the bell then every player online in the game at that time (and I mean EVERY) which is same level or higher than the hornblower and who didn't switched off this option in his/her personal preferences menu, will get a pop up window asking if he/her wants to answer the call to arms and be immediately summoned to the warzone. Immediately and wherever they are when the horn is blown.

This way:

a) Losing factions would always have a chance to even numbers.
b) Losing factions have to choose: stand grounds relying on /tells and /friendlists to call for reinforcements or send a couple of runners to the high cliff to TRY and blow the horns before ze germans come. Eventual buffs or debuffs can be applied to the hornblowing.

- Limitations:

- a) The pop up window (with a big "Your faction is losing a Stronghold and needs you! Teleport to warzone? yes/no") will stay open just for 10 seconds, in the lower left corner of every enabled player's screen, so it shouldn't be invasive at all, and can be turned off in the options anyway.
- b) When the horn is blown the game checks for the number of players in the warzone. If the attacker has say 40 fighters on it, and the defender has 12, then the pop up window will open for every enabled and of the right level online at that time BUT it will actually teleport ONLY the first ones to click it up to the number of the attackers less 2. So in the above situation the defenders are 28 men short, so the system will allow only the first 26 reinforcements to click on "yes".

So basically you get a fun decisional situation who requires a team to act and think fast
AND a way to involve more players into important PvP battles without even have to look for it
AND a way to almost get even numbers in a matter of seconds (I say "almost" cause you can't actually "summon" enough players to even the numbers, and it can be adjusted even further as I said "number of attacking units minus 2 but it could be minus 5 or whatever.. and on top of that there are the two or more bell runners which need to get back and are out of the fight for a while anyway). Buff, debuff, timer and restrictions of any kind can be applied or attached to the hornblowing thing anyway.

[eldaec]

Caladien,

My question wasn't really about whether you would enjoy meaningfgul WoW BGs. Clearly people in guilds designed for BGing 24/7 would love it (and I'd recommend you try Guild Wars if that sounds like your guild).

My question was really asking, "Do you not realise that BGs would quickly become unplayable to all but the uber under these circumstances; further, do you realise how much wailing and gnashing of teeth would ensue when an Onyxia (or whatever) raid had to be canacelled because some dumbass scrub had entered the BG and given away too many points to the other gang? And if you disagree, if you don't think this will happen, what do you think makes WoW special and unlike other MMOGs in this regard?"