Warhammer
Submitted by Abalieno on April 10, 2008 - 21:07.
I want to give a closure to the previous post so that I don't need to come back to it.
The instance performance of a realm can also be calculated in a absolute or relative way, this may be an objection to what I wrote.
For example WoW's arenas performance is relative, in the sense that your performance is calculated on a ratio, a so playing more isn't necessarily improving your performance. In fact it can worsen it.
This one model brings to the internal realm competition I described. In the sense that elite players are lead to fight their own faction as less experienced and geared players will worsen the performance of the whole realm. This would destroy the idea of "realm", and so be detrimental to the kind of gameplay Warhammer is offering, as it brings a faction to fight itself and divide players instead of uniting them against the enemy faction.
Not a case that WoW's arenas are detached from the faction Vs faction concept. It just doesn't fit there. And they know.
But there's also another possibility where the performance is calculated in a absolute way. Similar to how honor and badges work in WoW, but applied to the whole realm. In this case even when you lose, you win. You just win less than you would if you really won. Still win, but less.
The difference is that while in WoW the instances are completely volatile and reset, in Warhammer these instances will contribute to overall progress.
Assuming that 1 instance has always one faction against the other, this means that both have equal chances. If 200 instances are played and Destruction wins 101 times, then Destruction wins. In all cases. And this once again means that if you lost an instance, you also lost for your whole realm. And so better let the elite play alone instead of trying yourself and damage your own realm.
Your attempt to contribute will likely be detrimental. In particular in a scenario where these detrimental players are the great majority: casual players who would like to enjoy the game and finish to play against their own realm.
Lum's devs already whimper in WoW:
Yeah, basically the point I'm getting at here is just that the gear disparity is really frustrating for newbies. I'm basically dead weight on any BG team I join because everyone has full gladiator sets. I do my best to help out, but I can't really hurt anyone. I'm bringing whatever team I'm on down, but I have to do that in order to get to their level.
Which isn't a so uncommon feeling. In fact I think EVERYONE at least passed through it once, if not sat there permanently.
Now just think what happens when not only you feel miserable because you feel useless. But your mere presence is also making lose your whole realm with your crappy performance. Also because the organized guilds will have all kinds of phat loot and power ups (if they don't then what's the carrot to dangle in front of players and keep them addicted?). And you can't compete. You aren't catass enough. And you are making shame of your whole realm.
And I also wonder if Mythic is aware of the dead end where they are going. Blizzard has nightmares just to balance three BGs. Even if that balance doesn't matter so much. They make a smallish change and Horde wins all Alterac instances for six months. Make another imperceptible change and is the Alliance to win for another six months.
And this with classes being the same.
Mythic is pushing more class differences, and, in particular, Battlegrounds that will matter sensibly to the overall game progress.
That is a balance NIGHTMARE. They are going to pile the class issues DAoC had, on top of new balance issues due to the Battlegrounds progress. I wouldn't be surprised if the game comes out and we discover that a faction totally dominates the other. It's a no-win scenario. Either the RvR has no real consequences, and so is pretty bland and repetitive without real hooks, or it is meaningful, turning possible balance issues into severe wounds.
I really would like to know how the Beta is going, because all I wrote in this and previous post aren't foretelling of a distant future, but problems that should be explicit already in this phase of beta. So all I write should be already verifiable RIGHT NOW. And I'd like to know if I'm right, or where I'm wrong.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 10, 2008 - 19:56.
The only two things I'm curious about Warhammer and that haven't been fully revealed are those at the core of the game:
- RvR character advancement
- How real RvR and instances battlegrounds are interconnected
I was kind of baffled when I read this reply of MJ (no, it's not Mary Jane) on the forums:
Random guy: It is already going to be that way. The king fight isn't only accessible for one group/raid. The instance is simply capped, that is it. But everyone can fight the king when they want to, once per city siege. I am really not sure why people think it is only for one raid/group when Mythic never even said this, nor hinted it.
Mark Jacobs: You are correct. That would be stupidity on a whole new scale. We'll make mistakes over the next 6 or 7 years but none on that scale I hope.
To explain and complete the few informations I already had, Warhammer endgame RvR should be structured in a number of linked maps, probably similar to how the multiplayer worked in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic.
We should have the capital cities maps at the two extremes of this imaginary segment, and in between a number of transitory maps. So the opposed factions fight to "push" the front line further toward the enemy city. In theory the map where the fighting happens is just one (as only one front line is supposed to exist), and so you move back and forth through these maps only when objectives in that map are won by one of the two factions. Then the front line either moves forward (next map) or backwards (previous map), depending on the point of view.
At a point it will happen that a faction is stronger enough to be able to push this front line/map progression all the way to the enemy capital city. And there, after a number of objectives, the last goal is supposed to be the attack to the king and the conquest of the city.
This is what I knew, assuming it is correct at least as a general scheme. The real question, as said above, is how you make all that work when you have BOTH real RvR (meaning persistence of maps and battles outcomes), AND instanced battlegrounds (meaning lack of persistence and relativity of victories).
If there's real RvR, then a conquered keep is a conquered keep. A truth. But if the RvR is instanced then your efforts aren't absolute and objective, but relative to that instance, then shattered through a number of other instances where other players are playing and obtaining different results.
So the legitimate question: how persistent RvR and instances are supposed to work and relate to each other?
And we came to that answer above from Mark Jacobs that baffled me. He says "you are correct". So: the instance is capped, and everyone can spawn his own instance and go kill "his" king.
This means that the "king encounter" is a group instance, that can happen an unlimited numbers of times, but only once for each player.
You know, kinda like in WoW's PvE, where everyone had his occasion to kill Van Cleef in the Deadmines (minus the farming).
Makes sense? Sure, but while PvE is an experience relative to yourself (personal adventure), the RvR is supposed to be a communal experience. Your realm. Where these fights are fun because they are supposed to be persistent. Fight for something as "concrete" as possible.
If Mark Jacobs confirmed that crucial events like the assault to the capital city are instanced, it means that this kind of RvR is going to work like Guild Wars. Where there's no real war. But the results of a number of instances are charted together, then compared to the global results of the opposite faction, and then the victory mathematically deduced from that comparison. Order won 155 times, Destruction 160, so Destruction wins and the front line moves one map further toward the Order capital.
I called that "projected" PvP. As you aren't fighting for what's in front of you (territory warfare, as in conquest games), but you are fighting to collect "stats" on a chart, and then hope your performance is overall better than a vague idea of "enemy" that also appears on a chart.
I'm sorry but this isn't RvR, as the war between the two factions is detached and filtered. It is just charts compared one to the other. Leader board game. Ladders.
But no RvR in the sense of persistent war and fight for territory.
So virtually identical to the PvP in WoW, and completely different from the RvR of DAoC. Assuming that the whole difference between DAoC and WoW is about the persistence itself.
Which is still a legitimate game. But it isn't what is being advertised. It's no RvR in the sense people expect.
And also leads to a number of problems. For example this kind of "sport PvP" (a definition that matches more closely the game) is by its nature more divisive than inclusive as it encourages the "elite" to despise their own faction as other players who aren't on par with skills and gear become DEAD WEIGHT for the whole faction, as their losses worsen the performance of the whole realm.
The RvR existed to offer a different model. A model where every player contributed. Even if low level and with crap gear, but still better being there than not participating. That's what built the sense of realm in DAoC , that brought everyone together to defend relics, that built the community, cohesion, motivation and longevity of the game. And that put less focus on the personal performance and phat loot.
Which is what Mythic systematically destroyed by promoting 8vs8 gank groups and that made the RvR (keeps and relic warfare) almost irrelevant and just a mild "flavor" on the background. And that consequently destroyed the unique qualities and value the game had, and dig the hole where the game now lies.
Warhammer seems to be a game with a new coat of paint over gameplay that people decided to abandon. Saving what in DAoC didn't work, and burying what worked. We'll see if, after the game's launch, the players will still appreciate the game after having scratched below this new paint coat and discovered the exact same gameplay they decided to quit.
Submitted by Abalieno on March 29, 2008 - 21:33.
A GOA (Mythic european operator) representative trying to explain how their service will be greatly improved for Warhammer:
We have moved our offices to a foreign country to be able to provide the service that we couldn't offer for DAoC due to the labour restrictions in place in France.
Submitted by Abalieno on March 12, 2008 - 22:36.
For MONTHS after the first screenshots of Warhammer Online were released there was the argument about whether WoW copied Warhammer or the other way around.
People who saw only WoW and thought Warhammer was a copy and people who claimed to know better said that it was Blizzard to have copied and pillaged Warhammer for years.
Both kinda true.
True that Blizzard didn't invent anything. Not just in gameplay, but also the setting and its style. Copied from Game Workshop, copied from Giger. Mostly because, as it happens with many franchises, the original games were bland and with no depth. Derivative. Ultima started derivative as well. Then all games, when successful and spawning series and consolidated settings, start to acquire a personality.
But rarely they are truly original or don't have roots somewhere.
Now the point is: WoW came before even the concept of Warhammer Online. Graphically, WoW has ITS OWN distinctive style. That people easily recognize. It's not just a general setting style. It's a visual style all-around. You can see at a glance if a screenshot comes from WoW. It goes FAR BEYOND being "cartoonish". It's WoW. Everyone recognizes it.
*Then* Mythic takes the concept of bringing Warhammer to an online version. They do have WoW under their eyes. They aren't oblivious. They know its style. When the screenshots of Warhammer appeared on the internet they said they weren't copying. Defended their choices saying that Warhammer came first. That Blizzard copied that style.
Now I ask you to look at this.
If the artist(s) who produced that say that they went for an original style that wasn't trying to replicate *precisely* WoW's style... Well, they would be some of the bigger and shameless liars in the world.
And this isn't just about artists "taking inspiration". This is a blatant CORPORATE MANDATE. To make Warhammer look AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to WoW in the hope to overlap the market and try to reach exactly that target.
I'm not saying this is a bad or unacceptable move. I'm saying they are COWARDS who won't admit what they are doing. And it is under everyone's eyes.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 8, 2008 - 18:00.
He replied to a point I also suggested for Warhammer. I can't stay silent when he says such absurdities.
The proposal is about something like a mentoring system where players can access lower tiers (levels) of the game. So "delevelling" their characters to play along with friends who aren't in the exact same tier. My proposal was more complex but that's the main point.
His reply:
That's one I've always had mixed feelings about as a designer. The pros for doing that are obvious but the cons are what concern me. If players can easily move down in levels to help other players, I worry that new players will have a harder time getting in groups. After all, if you could choose an experienced player playing at a lower level or a new player playing at the same level, you'll go with the experienced player. His/her knowledge of the game will always be an advantage to you and to h/h. So when the new player is LFGing or wants to get into the fun in a situation where the number of participants is limited, h/h might have a more difficult time of it in this system. Like I said, I have mixed feelings on it.
One wonders. Because the main reason for that system to exist is to reduce the gap between veteran players and noobs, while Jacobs thinks it has the exact opposite effect. This can't be "opinion", either one or the other state must be wrong.
His thesis is that noobs should to play with noobs, because if there was a veteran player then all noobs will want him in the group. So the noobs will be sitting out of groups? Wait, it doesn't work.
His thesis is that in a world where there's a majority of veteran players and a few noobs, the few noobs wouldn't get in groups because they are, well, noobs. And in competitive, limited PvP (which is a flaw in itself and much discussed in forums) no one will group a noob.
Okay. So to solve this we remove veterans from this scenarios and what we get? A few noobs exactly as before, with the exact same grouping possibilities as before. So he fears that veterans group with veterans and noobs with noobs. Hello? In every game already happens. And the mentoring system (whatever the implementation) has absolutely nothing to do with that.
Really, Mark Jacobs sucks at game design. That's not complex reasoning, it's logic. The two worse alternatives are:
- Veteran players who can't go back in tiers, so they group together at higher tiers.
- Veteran players who can go back in tiers, so they only group together among themselves because they don't want noobs.
How this scenario affects a noob who's looking for group? In no foreseeable way, because in the first case there are no veteran players to group with, and in the second there are, but they won't group with him. So how this is detrimental to his group possibilities? Since Jacobs fears that a veteran player won't group with a noob he FORBIDS him to do it. So he is absolutely sure that there isn't the RISK that a veteran player may group with noob who can't find a group. Like if this could help.
Letting players go down in tiers has the only effect of keeping lower tiers more populated than they would if you could only more forward in tiers (everyone with a minimal MMO experience knows that lower zones become deserted over time). This means that the pool of players available for grouping INCREASES, if you let players move down instead of only up. The more people may be picky and not willingly to group with noobs, but this doesn't decrease the numbers of noobs in the system. And you can be sure that, even if in small numbers, some veteran players *will* be willingly to play with noobs, especially if the system is well designed and rewards this behavior.
So the best and worst case oscillate between "only few more players available", and "a lot more players available". In ANY case a mentoring system has a negative effect on the grouping possibilities of brand new players. In fact it is a partial solution.
The problem that Jacobs sees there has NOTHING to do with the mentoring system, and a lot to do with an intrinsic flaw of the close PvP system they decided to use. Moreover this flaw is foreign again to the mentoring system itself and WILL be present in ALL tiers.
Eldaec on F13 discussed this for months. How a "sport" PvP where results are charted and projected on the overall campaign will have a strong negative impact toward new players, because their participation may be detrimental to the result of the faction.
That's what you get when your "war" is faked. That's what happens when you OPEN that gap between veteran players and noobs because you designed a system that PUNISHES THE PARTICIPATION OF NOOBS TO PVP. With or without a mentoring system.
And that's also the MAIN reason why that "game design" will feed the hatred of veteran players toward noobs that want to play and finish to ruin the "performance" of the experienced team.
Mark Jacobs, get a clue. A mentoring system, in all games and in all implementations, is MADE TO HELP NEW PLAYERS. It is made to let people play together without levels being unsurmountable barriers. It is made to reward interaction between veterans and noobs. It is made to build with the time a welcoming community opposed to an hostile one.
It is made to keep the game accessible and playable after the first burst of players at launch is over.
YOUR OWN PvP system, instead, the one you defend. THAT's the source of hostility between players and the opening the gap between noobs and veterans. That's the one that promotes SELECTION instead of INTEGRATION. And that's the reason why the "war" in Warhammer won't even be close in quality to the war in DAoC. Where realm participation was ENCOURAGED instead of being detrimental to the battle.
Make everyone a favor, let real designers do the game design, and you just think to management.
Submitted by Abalieno on December 24, 2006 - 03:25.
Remember my design challenges?
The second in particular was thought to balance the four "tiers" of the level up process, so that the fights between the players could be always fair and balanced and so that all content in the game was always accessible, removing some "barriers".
This was done by "auto-levelling" an higher character entering a lower level zone. By delevelling that character to the max cap (along the recruit system) it was possible to keep the fights in a zone always balanced, while keeping all the game world accessible and playable all the time. Giving the players an open choice about where they prefer to fight.
So, for example, a tier 4 character could go fight not only in the tier 4 zones corresponding to his level, but also de-rank to 1, 2 or 3 and go fight in those lower-level zones. Permeable barriers, permeable tiers.
The point of the design challenges was to offer some design solutions founded on my ideas and watch if Mythic ones, in the case they differs from mine, were going to be better or worse than what I proposed.
We have already something. From the grab bag:
Q: Will a character of Tier 1 be able to compete at all, even if poorly, against a character of Tier 4? Will multiple Tier 1 characters be able to take on and defeat a Tier 4 character?
A: This is a question with many potential implications, so don’t read any more into this than my exact words. Also, please remember that we are still a long way from launch, and that this may change.
Higher tier players who enter lower tier zones will not be able to attack or be attacked by lower tier players. However, if a lower tier player wants to enter a higher tier zone, all bets are off, and attacking/being attacked can happen.
The specific answer to your question is that Tier 1 players cannot win a one on one fight with a Tier 4 player. A pack of Tier 1 players will be able to cause harm to a Tier 4. We have not yet set an exact level of intended damage (and it will vary hugely depending on the player and the circumstances), so I cannot give you a specific answer.
See the part I underlined. Yeah, lame.
I'm already winning ;)
There's more. In my first design challenge I analyzed a way to coherently lay down the structure of Warhammer's PvP based on the parts that they already disclosed: skirmishes, battlefields, scenarios and campaign.
In my proposed structure the skirmishes and battlefield were exactly how Mythic defined them. A persistent zone, with a PvP territory. You enter this territory and you can fight. My proposal was to use the "instanced" scenarios as a cohesive, automated part of the overall structure.
Basically players go normally fight in a battlefield. These are persistent. As there are enough "x" players on a battlefield, an instanced scenario is triggered and spawned automatically and all players in the battlefield ported over. So it's an automated system that instances itself as there are enough players. The more players, the more instances are spawned. Not enough players and only one persistent zone is active.
This had multiple purposes, but it was also an idea to balance the load and the number of players engaged in PvP.
Here's instead Mythic's way:
Jump into a Scenario and you'll be automatically grouped via our lobby system for a balanced fight. Scenarios are instanced battles against two groups of equal strength.
Yeah, WoW.
You queue for a Scenario (WoW's Battlegrounds) and an instance is then spawned on demand.
It's much poorer version than the one I proposed. It feels faked and not consistent with the rest of the PvP structure. While what I proposed was "transparent" and seamless for the players, better integrated, realistic and tied more tightly with the rest of the structure of the PvP (as the instances were triggered to balance the load, not to remove the persistence).
Sad that all that Mythic is doing is copying WoW on every aspect. As I wrote before, they are repeating the exact mistake they made with DAoC ToA (copying EQ, in that case).
Scenarios offer different game play, ranging from Deathmatch to Capture the Flag to Assault.
Heh. It's so saddening to see PvP treated like that. Why things cannot change? Why we have to deal with this shit?
I just cannot accept it.
Realm vs. Realm (RvR) has come a long way since it was first introduced in Dark Age of Camelot. We've had over five years of experience with the system, and we've learned both its strengths and its weaknesses. The RvR gameplay being implemented in WAR is truly a next generation implementation of the original system.
So you learnt deatmatches and CTF from playing DAoC?
Be ashamed.
Submitted by Abalieno on November 28, 2006 - 22:12.
-Part 1-
This spawns from a blog post where Ubiq talks a bit about Mythic's Warhammer (at least what he reads about the game).
Now I already followed and discussed things in the past, so I could better portray how Warhammer PvP and territorial control should work. *IF* what I understood is correct and there haven't been significant changes in the meantime (I give them the benefit of the doubt).
You can see one of my previous analysis here (or check its category).
In short you may think to Dark Messiah multiplayer and have a good idea about how this system (here I'm focusing on the territorial control) should work.
At the "endgame" Warhammer should have five zones for each of the three "war fronts". One war front for orcs/goblins vs dwarves, one for Chaos vs Empire and one for Dark Elves vs High Elves.
Of these five zones two should be the rival "capital cities" raid zones that Ubiq talks about. The ultimate siege that may trigger the definitive victory and the supposed "reset button".
Now, as in Dark Messiah, each of those zones should be closed and instanced "scenarios". If your faction achieves particular objectives and "wins" that scenario, there's a "map switch" that moves ideally closer to the losing faction capital city.
So these capital cities aren't player-populated "hubs", but only combat scenarios that are "unlocked" through a campaign mode that implies the victory on previous maps/scenarios.
You start from the neutral map -> win it -> move to the one closer to the enemy capital city -> win that too -> and finally the "capital city" scenario is unlocked -> win it -> (supposed) system reset
If Mythic is smart, only one of the five endgame maps is going to be active at the same time (outlining the campaign progression), so a player should have a choice between three maps where he can go PvP (one for each warfront). Helping a lot to focus the PvP action instead of dispersing it among too many zones as it currently happens in DAoC.
On the other side, if there are too many players packed into one zone, the instance system triggers and creates more balanced "mirrors" of the same scenario.
So this should address effectively the two main issues, the convergence required for the PvP and the overcrowding.
-Part 2-
Ubiq: That being said, the question I’m most interested in is how a side that has been utterly decimated to the point that the capital is in ruins can hope to come back to turn the tide. While I genuinely love city conquest scenarios (I feel they capture the ‘massive’ part of what MMOs are supposed to be), most territorial control games are progressive - a game design term meaning that the winners tend to keep winning, as they gain more and more spoils of war, and more and more players on the losing side feel the desire to join up and/or play. This problem was a very tough issue for both Shadowbane and Dark Age of Camelot to deal with.
Long ago I had proposed an idea for DAoC that I think would work well (if not, I’m still wondering why).
Basically each keep can be upgraded to level 10 and levels make guards stronger, among other things.
Currently all keeps can be upgraded to level 10 with no limits (if not limits of time).
My simple idea was add a fixed cap for each realm.
For example you have five keeps for each realm, 15 in total for all three realms and you give each realm a cap of 50 points.
Since you begin with five keeps, you can upgrade all five of them to level 10, using up all your 50 points.
But then, as you conquer keeps from other realms the situation changes and you need to spread those points. You’ll likely try to upgrade your new keep so that it is well defended, but doing so would mean removing levels from your other keeps to upgrade the new one.
The other side of the medal is that the realm losing one keep gets back those 10 points that it used there. And the idea was that you could “overload” the level of your keep above ten, but where every point above ten would cost (x-10)+1 (so to go from a level 10 keep to a level 11 you would need to use two points, to go to 12, use 3, then four and so on).
The result would be that the more a realm expands, the more it becomes also harder to defend, because it exposes more weak spots as the points need to be spread between more keeps, while the realm who is losing can concentrate the strength on a stronghold and make it really hard to capture.
This means that the realm who is losing isn’t left staring passively, but it is given the possibility to counterattack effectively through smaller strike teams aiming at the weak points.
The overall idea is the one of the rubber banding. The more you force a situation, the harder it is to maintain it.
(that was the problem back then. Today players don’t even care about keeps and it’s all reduced to 8vs8 ganking groups)
Jason Booth: Territory is tricky, but I think it can be done in a satisfying way. I think the trick is really in convincing people that the inevitable loss of territory is part of the fun. It’s hard to convince people of this, so it must be some fundamental part of your reward system instead. Push the boulder up the hill, get distracted by shinny cookie, let the bounder roll back down again - but you get to keep your cookie.
Instead I think it can be done through gameplay. My idea is that being on the losing side with the possibility to turn the tide can be even more satisfying and fun than being on the winning one.
The problem is to provide gameplay alternatives, ways to effectively counterattack so that the losing side has something to do.
If what is left to do is get steamrolled by a zerg for the next two hours, the player logs out frustrated. The point is to offer gameplay alternatives.
The point is to foresee these situations, and design solutions so that the game offers things to do in those cases.
About the "reset button" or the boulder pushed up hill, Mythic model in DAoC is already stronger.
The donut is represented by the relics. Not only you get to keep the donut/relic, but the donut also becomes a “ransom” that the other realm will eventually want to get back.
So a victory doesn’t also lead to a reset (after a relic is captured things slowly fall back in normality) but also as the starting point for what's next.
Submitted by Abalieno on October 8, 2006 - 13:27.
It looks like official boards were the prevalent discussion these days. Because of what happened on the SWG boards and Lum's and Raph's replies.
I'll contribute by pointing out a post from Mark Jacobs (about having or not official forums):
Folks,
No, no, no, a million times, no.
And, our excuse was not that we didn't have the resouces (that was true pre-DAoC) but rather, our reason is that official forums quickly become ugly, hate-filled places (the most successful US-based MMO of all time, WoW has worse problems than some really bad games' forums) with a huge signal->noise raitio after the games release. I've seen what happens with every MMO released and I am going to spare Mythic the headache that is associated with those type of forums.
I'll just say that not having official boards nowadays is rather stupid.
Oblivion has official forums, Company of Heroes has official forums, Dwarf Fortress has official forums. It seems quite odd that official forums are a standard and become very useful for single-player, offline games, but they are considered as useless headaches if they are about online games that are all about community building.
And you would be very blind to not see the important role that WoW's forums had for the community.
It's incredible how the signal to noise ratio of a community of 2 millions of players just in NA can be low.
(btw: higher signal to noise is better, the signal is 'cleaner')
Submitted by Abalieno on August 28, 2006 - 12:51.
Important enough to be used as a post, I was answering to a comment. I also want to say that this idea is easily portable, so not particularly tied to a game, that's why I proposed it alternatively for Warhammer or DAoC. I believe it's a good idea, with very important and diverse objectives, and shaped completely around the theory of "permeable barriers" (defining spaces, without enforcing them).
--
Obviously, when a higher level character enters a lower level zone, his equipment also decrements alongside his level, so that the difference in power between this newly deleved character and a character that has just entered the zone are kept to a minimum.
No, building a system that delevels equipment would be too complicated and even risk to mess with the database.
The idea is a compromise: to enter a lower level PvP zone you need to go to a "recruiting office", where they will confiscate all your higher level items and put them in a vault, then delevel you and finally give you a paper that you have to consign to the guards so that you can enter the zone.
So each zone will basically have a vault where you can store your used equipment and take it back whenever you want to go playing there. Which would also help to reduce "twinking".
However, if old armor doesn't level up with you, then what's the reason to stay in the same zone to collect all the armor sets, if they're not going to net you any benefit once you're out of the zone?
The armor sets you can "earn" in a zone are balanced to be used in that zone. As I said, your character continues to earn experience and levels even if it will be temporarily stuck at the level cap till you don't leave the zone.
When you leave the zone you will be prompted to get your character bumped up to the max level he reached, but with his current equipment. Items are static, they don't level nor delevel. So you have to catch up, craft or buy more up-to-date armor and weapons.
Game design should make sure that this isn't a big issue. It would also encourage the player to not skip the PvE content in the game as it will be used to better outfit your character for the new zone.
--
After you've 'completed' a zone and moved on, why would you want to visit it again with the same character?
For three reasons, essentially:
1- Because you may want to join your friends who aren't at the same level of you.
2- Because it's about PvP, and PvP doesn't "wear out" like PvE.
3- Because there are special armor sets, trophies, ranks and medals that you may want to collect.
--
I'm not sure that level 40 players would particularly want to temporarily part with their best stuff, their levels, and go to zones for level 5s
I've given some reasons about why you should "desire" that in the comment above. Besides, it happens ALL the time in DAoC, where there are plenty of players who want to play in one BG because it's where they are having fun.
In DAoC you would lose ALL progress, and yet the players still want it. In my idea you don't even lose progress doing so and you are NEVER locked out permanently from a zone as in DAoC.
Assumedly, you're not going to scale the experience from a zone, so even if you keep earning it, it's not going to be as good as experience from the zone that matches your level.
No, the experience you gain IS scaled. In the sense that you would gain about the same experience you would get if you were at your "real" level killing a same level creature. Ideally the experience progression is also linear (but it wouldn't be a big issue if it wasn't). For example requiring to gain 100 xp points to go from level 1 to 2 as from level 49 to 50.
What I want is that you always gain the same amount of points you would get by killing a same-level creature. So in the case your true level is 20 killing a level 20 creature you would get about the same xp points you would get if you are deleveled to 10 killing a level 10 creature.
This applies to the *experience*. Instead the items are static. So yeah, a level 5 zone will give you level 5 items. When you exit it you could be already at level 10 if you decide to stay for longer and go for the trophies, medals and the other rewards I described. But your equipment would realtively suck and you would have to hunt for better items (which, again, shouldn't be a problem).
Submitted by Abalieno on August 27, 2006 - 16:10.
As I recently commented on Lum's blog, Warhammer may have the best implementation of "age" in a mmorpg, as I agree with Ubiq that it's one of those bad ideas that just don't die.
The way this system is implemented in Warhammer is instead interesting because it adds something without leading to other problems. Already in other games like Star Wars Galaxies (and UO too?) the physical appearance of your character wasn't just defined and then locked as the character was created, but could be modified later on via other professions, like the "image designer".
In Warhammer the idea is that "age", "look" and "level" will be tied together in one progression. So not only you gain levels, but you'll also see your character age and also further specialize his look. So that dwarves will grow longer beards or braids and so on. It's a good idea on its own because it just adds more customization without really having an active role in the gameplay. It creates a better bond between the player and the character, but without the "age" becoming a negative element that eventually cripples your character and wastes all the time and dedication you put into it.
It also makes the players more recognizeable, as you would be able to identify a new character from one who has seen already many battles.
This is why I started to think that the idea of a "customization-in-progress" of your character would match prefectly the other idea I suggested about the recruit system (the second one). The problem is that with a linear customization, as the one Mythic suggested, all the "uniqueness" of your character is kinda lost. Why? Because the zones are tiered (I think). Every ten levels you move to the next "tier" zone. So you'll always be surrounded by characters that more or less have the exact same customization choices you had as well.
The surprise and interest about seeing a veteran player passing by and looking much different would be lost, because all the players will be likely instanced around their levels, so that veteran player will never share the same space of lower level players and be admired for his unique look. The kind of awe that you feel looking at something still far away from your own achievement and that adds so much "flavor" and uniqueness to the game won't be there. The fact that the player can further customize the character as it gains levels is a good idea, but it would be so much better if new and old players could play *together*. Emphasizing that differentiation.
It's like if you are in a room filled with people that all have the same height. The customization loses its value if you are surrounded by people all alike, even if you know that outside there are rooms with people with different heights. But if in the same room you can have people of all different heights, then the customization becomes much, much more interesting. A value for the players, a way to actively differentiate themselves and even acquire "status", because a veteran characters would be suddenly recognized.
But if you move linearly from zone to zone, this is lost, because the progessive customization will be staggered with those zone/tiers. As I tried to explain in the example above. Rooms where all players look alike because they are sharing the exact same moment/progress, instead of giving a value to the unuiqueness that would be possible if different kinds of characters shared the same space.
My idea plugs directly here. Instead of moving "forcefully" from one zone to the other as your character gains levels, the idea is to give the player a CHOICE. He would have the choice to move to the new zone or continue playing where he is. In this last case, THE PROGRESS ISN'T LOST. The player continues to earn experience and levels, but what he gains is only "archived" on his character. Then, as the character leaves the zone, the player will be prompted to bump his character up to his "real" level.
This means that instead of moving from one zone to the other without the possibility to visit again the places you left, you would just unblock the zones, progressively, having them ALL available once unlocked. As the character enters a lower level zone, the system would delevel it to respect the level range of that zone. If your character is level 40 this means that you would be able to access all the zones from level 1 to 40.
Now, why a player would decide to play in a lower level zone? In other games if you do this, you gain zero experience. In DAoC you can disable your experience so that you can continue playing in a Battleground you like. But this would mean that you don't progress anymore. And you also have no way to access a Battleground below your level, so you can only enter one and only one. But not in my idea. In my idea your character continues to earn progress as if he was playing normally. A character could be active in a zone capped at level 10 and that character would continue earning experience that would be counted toward higher levels. That experience and progress is archived by the system. The character won't break the level cap of the zone, but as he leaves it, he would be prompted to be bumped up to his real, current level. So no progress would be lost.
I explained better this idea and its goals in the post I linked, but in this case I'm looking at it from the perspective of character customization. The point is: the characters would be level capped to be balanced with the players in that zone (like a "mentoring" system applied to a whole zone), but this could still take full advantage of the character customization described above.
While the characters would be delevelled to respect the cap, the progress made on the physical appearance could be preserved without unbalancing the game. See what I mean? New and veteran players could play side by side in this system and the customization would have a whole new value. Veteran players would be easily recognized as their graphical "perks" would be easily noticeable. A longer beard won't unbalance the game, of course, but it would become itself a valuable "trophy". A recognized status. And players love these things.
I reproposed this idea recently on Corpnews. The idea is that not only you have the choice of playing in a lower level zone without losing progress. But there would be incentives doing so, with every zone having something unique to offer and to achieve.
Since it's shaped around PvP, let's say that to move to the next zone you need to score about 100 kills. Ok, the idea is that you can get those 100 kills and have enough experience to move to the next tier, continuing to level up. Or you can stay in that zone for another 1000 kills. Why? Maybe because there are special armor sets and perks to unlock and "collect". Every zone would have some of those and the players could decide to just continue levelling up their characters, or instead try to collect all the special sets.
As I explained on Corpnews these would be an "horizontal" type of reward. Not more powerful gear to farm, but just unique *looking* gear to farm. "Trophies". Something to reward your dedication to that particular Battleground and make your character unique. A symbol of status.
If all these ideas would be implemented the game would have three customization paths:
- Class specializations, levels, skills and spells (linear and progressive)
- Physical features/decorations (linear and progressive)
- Special armor sets, trophies, medals and "status" items (parallel)
But without those ideas the scope of the costomization that Mythic planned would be weakened. Because new and veteran players wouldn't be able to play side by side, making the "status" and customization earned kind of redundant as you would be always surrounded by players that share your exact same progress.
(some more precisations here)
Submitted by Abalieno on August 27, 2006 - 00:19.
Wordpress spam filter swallowed (I think) my comments over at Lum's blog, so I'm going to save them here, nyah, nyah!
It's undeniable that DAoC has some of the best art I've ever seen in a mmorpg. In many cases far superior even to WoW, even if crippled by some overall carelessness and things too rushed out and approximate. But what is sure is that they have some GREAT talent. And that kind of talent is inestimable as you just cannot find it easily.
I don't remember anything particularly great in ToA (but I also never went too far), but I was definitely impressed by what the artists did with Catacombs and all that came after it.
I praised DAoC's art in many occasions, even if I don't exactly know who I'm praising. Maybe it's that guy (Mat Weathers) Lum is talking about, maybe it's someone else, maybe it's the whole art team.
I know I am easily amazed by smaller details like this, this and this. That's some magistral work on those textures. Definitely not something you see often. And remember that at least one player stopped there to stare in awe.
At the beginning the art style was a bit too generic and not particularly inspired, but with the time it became much more consistent and today the quality of the art is the very LAST problem that DAoC and Mythic have. Maybe some approximate execution and lack of polish, but the overall quality and skill that the artists have shown is simply awesome.
The same for Warhammer. The art in Warhammer is already head and shoulders above WoW's character's art. Without a doubt. Mythic has definitely the potential not only to be on par with the quality of the other game, but easily suprass it. Also because they are building a PvP game, so they need again to consolidate the space and not make an infinite number of zones. The initial screenshots shown were a bit deluding, in particular because of the lightweight atmosphere they chose compared to the more harsh and worn look we were all expecting for that setting, but with the time things seem improving and even for Warhammer it looks like that the quality of the art will be its last problem. The dwarf model is still the one I like less as it is too imprecise and undefined, but what they did with the orcs and goblins seems very good. And I do hope that a particular attention goes into giving them unique and appropriate animations.
Give a look for example at this orc in shiny armor. That's the idea I have when I think to inspired armor that fits the setting. That's why I CANNOT HATE MORE the direction that WoW is taking, with all those goofy, exaggerate, plastic armor pieces that Blizzard started to patch in post-release. Imho the equipment of a character should be defined exactly in the game world. It's not a model and a color/texture. I want to know the material it is made of, I want to know where it came from, I want to know the utility of it. I don't mind some exaggeration, and I love how each item has an unique look that is suddenly recognizeable, but if you compare that orc from Warhammer to whatever you see in WoW nowadays you can easily understand why I'm starting to love Warhammer's art direction and hating the path that WoW is taking now.
That orc in that page is awesome. the model is detailed enough, the textures well done and every piece of the equipment fits perfectly the setting and it is suddenly recognizeable. It looks great and it looks unique. I just love it and I hope that for the whole game they stick to that style (and I want to see what they do with Chaos).
But this is also why browsing through my old screenshots in DAoC and looking at the progress in Warhammer makes me feel furious. Because Mythic has and still is wasting the so great resources they have. Wasted because of the not so great design. They have great artists, but terrible designers (and a crippled client).
And the result is that those great resources they have are NEVER put at a good use.
DAoC had and still has the numbers to be the best, and yet it has to struggle in the relative mediocrity.
Submitted by Abalieno on June 12, 2006 - 06:04.
This time the silly claims about the european market are coming from an official press release (that I lost in my "notes" file when it appeared a few days ago and recalled when it was quoted on F13) and the textual words of Mark Jacobs (that I keep for posterity mocks as I always do):
“The initial partnership between Mythic and GOA resulted in Dark Age of Camelot being the number one MMORPG in Europe for many years,” said Mark Jacobs, CEO and President of Mythic Entertainment. “With WAR our goal is nothing less than to take Europe by storm and regain that leadership position in the European market.”
It looks like talking big about the european market is the new trend.
The actual news is that Mythic is again in partnership with GOA to manage Warhammer in Europe. I'm not going to comment this as I always played DAoC on the american servers, so I cannot judge their work, but I'll say that it's a very bad decision on all fronts to keep the US and EU servers separated and inaccessible to the same account, and I'm not glad at all to see this pattern repeated. This time I'm not going on with that crusade, though.
Other vague "news" are about the release planned for "fall 07" and the contemporary release, but we knew about these already.
I don't really think they will regain "leadership position". WoW has now nearly 1.5M subscribers in Europe alone. For the first time the european market is getting bigger than the US. DAoC, when Mythic considered itself "number one" in Europe, topped in EU at around 150k or so. Come on, it's not even on the same scale.
Let's make some predictions about the numbers Warhammer will get in EU and US. Let's see who will get closer. My idea is that the reasonable goal that Mythic should take nearly as an imperative (meaning that it won't be a "success" and that they should start dancing if they reach it, but that the devs should work *hard* to reach it) is the 250-280k EU+US that DAoC had at its peak. Anything less would be a delusion (in particular with the silly claims above) and I don't think that the game will move too far away from that number (meaning that I don't expect them going far above either).
I have this theory that sequels, or semi-sequels like this one, are never able even to top the original title when it was at its peak. I always criticized "sequels" in the mmorpg genre and I think they are a total waste of money when much better *commercial* results could be obtained by truly supporting the main title (meaning giving it more and more resources, instead of less and less), like CCP is doing with Eve (which grows constantly despite being three years old and recently reached more than 100 developers involved full time with it), instead of eroding progressively the resources from the game to migrate them somewhere else and then see an obvious decline as the direct result.
So my idea is: Warhammer won't top DAoC when it was at its peak. They could go slightly above or slightly below depending on the quality of what they are doing (and I think some ideas are promising if they don't cripple them with the usual bad execution), but that's what I'd take as a reasonable goal. That's what I'd tell my devs if I was Mark Jacobs. Go for that. That's our goal.
"Regain that leadership position in the European market" is laughable. PR or not they should have never said something like that.
Maybe after launch, if they hit that 250k mark, then they could start to work *hard* to solidify and INCREASE their market share (you know, the mythical positive trends that seem a chimera for a mmorpg). Like the hard work EQ2 is doing despite being a retarded sequel. But then there's always this stupid risk that the resources will be moved on yet another stupid new project, instead of supporting the development to make the first title more solid. And just watch it passively declining and fade into oblivion (also because it HAS to be killed, as the interest and hype MUST be shifted to fed the "new").
Which was DAoC's own destiny with that foolish "Imperator" project first, and Warhammer now.
Submitted by Abalieno on May 27, 2006 - 06:15.
"Epic, heroic, pe-petuual struggle..."
Some leftover still from the E3. In this case an hilarious video interview with Paul Barnett (a "design manager", something along the lines of a Mythic - Game Workshop coordinator) who explains what the Warhammer universe and Mythic's game will be about.
Now I know who Paul Barnett really is.
Ramus from Lunar: Silver Star Story!
That small sound clip is an almost perfect parody of Mythic's plan with the game. Sneaking in the cave where the WoW dragon is sleeping without waking it and get back what is legitimate of the Warhammer franchise.
"Now that the warm weather has melted the ice near the dragon's cave, there isn't any time to waste getting started on our big adventure! If we hurry, we may be able to sneak in without waking the dragon. Then we can get a fantasitically huge diamond from its lair worth thousands and thousands of silver, making us filthy stinking rich and very popular in the process!"
The first line is a reference to the time that has passed since WoW's release, with Blizzard having secured their position and success with the game. Thinking they don't need to do much else to continue to tap from that bottomless source of money, not fearing any competition. The dust settled, it's all calm. "If we hurry" is about the correct timing of the launch for Warhammer. And the huge diamond is the symbol of hopes and dreams (popularity! money!), of something that is being stolen back and forth to the point that noone knows anymore to who it legitimately belongs. WoW stole from Warhammer setting and lore, and Warhammer is going to use WoW as a direct ispiration and open antagonist to lure back those players that WoW brought in the genre.
...Or, in other words:
--
Three reasons why Warhammer is a great licence for a MMO:
1- Iconic look
2- An excuse to smash the living crap out of each other
3- A-pe-pe-cciual work with no ending from where to draw from (lore, backstory etc..)
Three "devices":
1- Zone story arcs - With the theme that defines a contested zone
2- Racial story arcs - Race vs Race
3- World story arcs - Between the races, plots, trickeries, "convoluted excuses" to fight etc..
"Everybody fights everybody, for-ever! That's all we are interested in."
Race cliches:
"The greenskin are soccer hooligans. All they do is wander around, pick up sticks and try to hit other people. There are no long term plans, no long term concepts. There's a group of soccer thugs, on the march to glory."
"The dwarfs are the northern(?) working class of England. They live down mines, all they want to do is get drunk. They just want to fight people who call them "short". They have no money, they are very proud of their holes in the ground."
"The high-elves are British posh people. Never done a day working in their lives. Don't understand about "doing the washing". Have had too much time, so they read the la-dee-dar-dee books, get really good with the swords and doing special magic."
"The dark-elves are English posh people who have taken drugs. Basically Lord Byron. They've got money coming out their ears. They have taken a load of opium and have decided that they can run the goddamn world and can have it any way they want."
"The humans. The empire is basically humans. You know, wonderful dreams, terrible nightmares. They don't really pay attention, build huge amount of technology. They like to explode and destroy the world. Cut down all the forest, they don't really understand it."
"The Chaos is humans that have been totally corrupted, tentacles, crab claws, extra eyes, horns. Some people get confused and think Chaos is like the devil. No, no, no. It's not fire and brimstone, it's chaos. It's custard falling from the sky. It's an arm that turns into a sword. It's the ability to cut open your arm and mice(?) pour out rather then blood. It's chaos, it's corruption."
"It's not a computer game. It's a total hobby experience. We want you to buy this game, and never buy another one."
"We want you to spend all your time playing it. We want it to involve: skill, commitment and imagination.
- The more skill you put in, the better the game is, the better you feel.
- More commitment you put in, you got piles of money, you got a great(?) of played, the more the game rewards you.
- Imagination. Over in America they call it "immersion". It's not immersion. Immersion is playing Half-Life and not realizng the house is burning down. And your wife's left you. And you haven't slept for weeks. Imagination is: I played the game and then I want to talk about it, go to the websites, draw pictures about it, have t-shirts, I wanna think about what I'm going to do when I play next week, I talk to all my friends about it.
If you get skill, commitment and imagination, you get a total hobby experience. And a hobby experience should grab you to the core of your being and be the only thing you want to do.
That's the game we're making."
Submitted by Abalieno on May 18, 2006 - 01:28.
So, lets conclude.
It seems that my guess about the "packages" system wasn't correct. This new interpretation says that every character will eventually unblock all the skills and packages the class has available. As the character reaches the last rank. So this means that the customization and use of templates are true only as you "rank up", while the packages you have available will be all flattened at the endgame.
This IS GOOD. In fact I suggested it for DAoC. Even if in that case it was a step forward proposed for the support classes.
I support this choice if it reveals to be how the game actually works. It would solve the accessibility problems I underlined and would give a more unique role to the "tactics" system (the specialization of your character). So it's a more solid design choice.
If the earlier reports are still correct, there's also to consider the four tiers that should make you specialize your class (branching classes). Determining the preset packages you have available. In this case the number of classes will raise.
The other precisation is about the design of the package system that I discussed on F13 and that I report here.
--
Haemish:
But Hrose, you are ignoring the biggest thing about this. No levels means (or should mean) very little to no power differentials.
I'm not ignoring it just because you are convinced I am. On my site I wrote:
Considering everything together the "no level" claim is pretty weak. It's possible that gaining ranks doesn't scale up your stats, hitpoints and mana (at this point it would be the only real difference), but add a rank-based itemization and you basically have the exact same mechanic that drives DAoC or every other level-based game.
Explaning better, it sounds like you'll gain a "rank" every "x" skills you unblock in a package. The stuff available in these packages seem to not be only in the form of skills you actively use, but even bonuses to stats and all the rest. Just more manipulable since the players have a more direct choice in what they pick.
But from every point of view you observe this, there's still a "level up" mechanic that lets you pick +5 to Strength or more Constitution, or bonuses to damage and so on.
What's this if not "power differential"?
The raw mechanic here doesn't do anything to flatten it. Which is the process I described:
In DAoC: level up -> allocate
In Warhammer: allocate -> level up
Allocating not only the skills, like in DAoC, but even the bonuses to the stats. I just don't see a concrete difference in the mechanic used at the base.
Haemish:
Segmenting zones by tiers should also help that a bit. In other words, it sounds good.
This is my guess (level capping the zones in four tiers), I still have to read Mythic confirming this. The doubt is whether the gap of 10 ranks hasn't already a quite significant power differential or not.
Which is also what I wrote the past Sunday:
Here the game mechanics are extremely important because if they divide the zones accessibility in four (as the four tiers of ten ranks, for a total of forty levels) the PvP could become just a matter of who's closer to the zone level cap. It's important here that each new rank isn't a huge leap over the other
Short version:
You say that Warhammer design is good because the power differential between the ranks is small.
I say that I agree that the power differential being small would make the design of the game "good".
But at the same time there is no evidence, from the descriptions of the mechanics we have, that the power differential is, in fact, small.
That's all.
Submitted by Abalieno on May 17, 2006 - 12:13.
I was going to write about other stuff but Arthur Parker linked an interesting 7-min video (you need to copy and paste in a new browser window to make it work) that reveals some of the aspects I was trying to examine:
This image should represent the zone distribution in the game for one of the three "war fronts": Greenskin Vs Dwarf.
I wonder if the numbers represent the four "tiers" of the levelling system.
In this case there are two interesting observations. The first is that the zones are level capped as I guessed. The second is that the capital cities are EXCLUSIVELY PvP zones. Just like an end-game PvP raid zone (DAoC's relic raids) that you can access only when the battle front moves there. So no social "hubs" like in WoW, they are just used for PvP.
If you count all the circles they are 11. So confirming the number of zones for each "war front" (33 zones in the full game). But at the same time we know that the starting zone for dwarves and greenskin is shared, with two opposite entry points and a seamless PvP zone in the middle.
Instead in that scheme the dwarves zone and greenskin zone look separated. So I wonder if they count it two times, like splitted in two in that graph, but seamlessly connected in the actual game.
In this case the unique, accessible zones by one character per warfront would be four (plus the two capitals). Which is GOOD, imho. Since it would help to make the PvP activity converge. Like a consolidated version of the DAoC's frontiers (if they don't overdo with the instances).
I wish we could have some confirmations.
Add warmachines and divided the assault to the capitals into five-six different "stages" with each its own objective (think to Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory) and it could be the coolest thing EVER.
--
And more, truly interesting (but unconfirmed) details:
No levels.
Four tiers, with ranks within each tier. You'll have 4 XP bars that allow you to select "packages" of advancements - abilities, static buffs, skills, etc. that you want to work on. Three will be "standard" bars, one will be RvR-specific.
The packages allow you to select advancements that interest you without level-locking them. So, if you're a big fan of exploring and you want to get a mount earlier than - say - an improved combat ability, you can choose a package that includes the ability to use a mount. Packages will have SOME restrictions - most likely tier-specific - but they offer players the ability to wind up with all of the stuff they want eventually, but also the ability to get it in the order of their choosing.
--
no pure "support" classes. In addition, no rogues or stealth classes. Not fond of hybrid classes either, though there will almost certainly be SOME degree of hyrbidization for some races.
--
EVERY CLASS - is a combat class, you won't find yourself ineffective simply because your group lacks total diversity.
Regarding differentiation, there are a number of things to consider:
1) In terms of simple aesthetics, customization will play a large role. Armor dying and trophies, primarily, will allow players to be visually unique without breaking the aforementioned "iconic look, iconic role" rule. When I say trophies, I mean things like orcs wearing belts of dwarf beards and the skulls of fallen opponents impaled on the spikes of their armor.
2) In terms of personal advancement, you have the package system. I explained this earlier, but it basically lets you play the class you want to play and advance in exactly the way that appeals to you, in exactly the order you want to do it.
3) And in terms of combat, you have tactics. This system is a strategic layer of combat where players choose from a pool of available "tactics" before combat that they are then locked into for a set period of time (minutes or hours, not days). Tactics can be things like persistant buffs, race or mob-specific attack bonuses, etc. As players advance, additional slots open up allowing players to use more - or more powerful tactics. Weak tactics are worth one point, the most powerful tactics are worth - say - five. So if you have ten slots open, you might choose ten minor tactics or two extremely powerful tactics or a mix of five of the former, one of the latter. Or any other mix in between.
This is designed to help players avoid being locked into a specific character spec in any significant way without giving them the ability to respec on the fly without any advanced thought. And, of course, to avoid the typical "I hit these three buttons and - SOMETIMES - this button over here too" style of play.
Let's examine this in order.
"No levels" IS GOOD. The four experience bars could mean that you select the skills you want to level up. Usually the skill systems are based on the use, the more you use one skill the more you improve in it. Here Mythic gives you "four slots", where you can put the skills you want to improve and then the experience points you get will be automatically distributed to those skills. So no more use-driven, which adds freedom and could be a very good design choice to streamline the game.
Now, it's not really a single pick for each skills, but a "package" that you can put on one of the four "experience slots". Here it's still hard to understand how the system works because there must be a link between the ranks and the "skill packages".
From the sound of it I could guess that the system could become highly selective. You obviously need to select those packages you want to use and those you'll leave behind. As a specialization system it looks close to how DAoC currently works. For every level in DAoC you gain "x" specialization points that you allocate to your spec-lines. Here the mechanic is basically the same, but reverted. DAoC's spec lines = Warhammer's packages. You choose the spec-lines / packages you want to develop and then go out to "level them", which will also make you gain "ranks" (probably you gain one rank for every "x" skills you unlock in a package), with the direct consequence of not letting you develop all the packages, but forcing you to select only those that fit with your "build".
In DAoC: level up -> allocate
In Warhammer: allocate -> level up
Not so incredibly innovative ;p
The only difference could be that every new skills in the same package always "costs" you the same amount. While allocating every new point in a spec-line in DAoC costs you progressively more points. It would be an improvement if so.
The negatives of this system are all already known in DAoC. It becomes extremely hard to make choices for your character without third-party character builders that let you plan your character from the first level to the last. And without a respec system you could easily gimp your character forever. So it's a system that requires a very good knowledge of the game and that isn't easy on the newbies (accessibility issue). You cannot start to play and slowly learn the game, instead you need to have already everything pre-planned from the first minute so that your character doesn't finish to suck.
My suspect on the four "tiers" is that they will be used as a measure the overall power of the character, similar to how the levels are being used in Oblivion to then adapt the world around the player.
If this is true then all I said before about the level caps on the zones can still be valid. It would damage the PvP if Mythic allows a "tier four" character to go mess in a zone with characters at the first tier.
Considering everything together the "no level" claim is pretty weak. It's possible that gaining ranks doesn't scale up your stats, hitpoints and mana (at this point it would be the only real difference), but add a rank-based itemization and you basically have the exact same mechanic that drives DAoC or every other level-based game.
No support classes IS GOOD. Remove "healers" altogether, it can only be good.
No stealth classes IS GOOD. Removing annoying ambushes from campers is a good design choice for a game that focuses on a "war" where everyone is supposed to participate together.
About the "tactics" system, as I commented I fear it will lead to min-maxing and default builds. It sounds like WoW's talent system, just more manipulable. I don't see it having a particularly significant role in the design and the gameplay. In the sense that it doesn't seem to add much and being indispensable or worthwhile idea.
I need to know more. Some things are interesting and convincing, some other less.
Submitted by Abalieno on May 17, 2006 - 10:30.
I have to admit that the goblins look great.
Great model and textures. I just hope that the animations are on par. And the ears! Please animate the EARS! (make them twitch at times during the idle animation, it would add a lot)
If anything I would make them just more curved and three-fingered instead of five (but then lore guys would complain, I guess?).
The art direction is MUCH improved from the screenshots released earlier. I love the color palette and I hope it's not just a trick on some screenshots. The dwarf model still sucks, but the rest is starting to look much better than WoW and not as cartoonish (or at least less goofy).
In particular I like how the "green" used on the goblin is much more natural, detailed and opaque compared to the neon-green of the orcs in WoW, for example. This is why I hope it's a definite choice in the art direction instead of a trick of this one screenshot. I think that fluorescent greens, yellows and purples are out of place for this kind of fantasy setting, but this is more like a personal point of view on the genre and a stylistic choice than a rule. Still, you can see how much better things can look when the art direction is solid.
Keep the colors more opaque, dimmer and natural and the game will look much better.
The look of armor and weapons is finally matching the setting instead of going in the Voltron direction. If they stick to that path the game overall look will finish to be more appealing than WoW. I want to see metal, bones, wood, leather. Stains, worn look, rust. NOT PLASTIC.
There are also a few screenshots of the interface. Very WoW-like. But at least it's well organized and leaves behind the old-generation square blocks used in the old school mmorpgs (DAoC included). It's nice the idea to add a full animated model in the middle on the bottom-bar. But I guess here the point it to see your party members fully animated, not just your own face. Without cluttering the screen.
So, if things continue to go in THAT precise direction, the game could really look amazing. If not, it will trip and fall behind WoW as a shabby imitation.
As for the rest, this game is at a crossroads.
Submitted by Abalieno on May 15, 2006 - 06:09.
With more details about Warhammer coming up, it's easier to imagine how the game will be and the possible problems it could present. The guesswork is the true nature of game design, you need to anticipate the outcome even if you have only rough sketches in your hands. And the problem-solving is fun.
Since I don't enjoy to analyze and criticize but also design solutions, here are some rough ideas to address some of the problems I examined. I like these sort of "design challenges" because it's an indirect way to confrontate solutions. From the rough previews about the game it's already possible to imagine from where the problems could arise. Here I suggest some possible solutions and I'll see if Mythic's own answers will be better than mines, when they'll be revealed.
Point 1:
clarify the role of Battlefields and Scenarios while addressing population balance issues
I was thinking that it doesn't make much sense to support instanced PvP for starting characters, but then I also thought that with the initial release the noob zones will be quite crowded and in this case an intelligent use of instancing may help a lot. I don't know if Mythic has thought something along the same lines but the interaction between battlegrounds and scenarios could be exclusively driven to regulate overcrowding issues.
The players would enter a queue as they step in the PvP zone. The scenarios could be just mirrors of the same battleground (minus the PvE portion), but instanced. As the battleground gets too crowded to support a decent PvP action, an instance is spawned and the players in the queue prompted to join. As this happens the "shared PvP objectives" would automatically switch for all players from the battleground to the scenario, so that the players would be encouraged to join. This would create a dynamic system that would spawn scenarios only when required, while keeping persistent "world PvP" always alive even where there are only a few players around. In this case the players wouldn't be able to manually spawn an instance if the battleground isn't already overcrowded.
At release the noob zones will be filled with players, so it could be possible to have multiple scenario instances active even in those starting zones. After a few months they'll get much less populated and in this case the instances would be dynamically removed and the players made naturally "converge" in the persistent, base battleground. For the outcome in the "campaign" the results of a battleground objectives would matter only if there aren't instanced spawned, while, in the presence of the instances, the players would be encouraged to move there by automatically switching the shared PvP objectives.
With this idea I have better defined the interaction and role of battleground and scenarios, also addressing some of the population issues.
Point 2:
a "recruit system" to keep the PvP alive and accessible at all levels and always, taking advantage of all the content available and without losing progress
As I wrote in the other article analyzing the game, there's the necessity to lock the level range of a zone if Mythic wants to support open PvP zones and levels at the same time. In DAoC the lower levels battlegrounds are level capped and instanced, while the open frontiers are only playable at the high levels. Warhammer is supposed to have PvP and PvE mixed in the same zone. Without a zone level cap an high level character could go in a noob zone and ruin the PvP for everyone.
The "recruit system" is an idea to allow a player to dynamically bind its character to a zone that is currently out of its normal level range (but only downwards). This would retain the current progess in the game (like in Guild Wars you can only move between content already unblocked and visited) but it would also allow the players to still experience the content "backwards", without the need to create a new character.
The idea is similar to EQ2's mentoring system but in this case tied to a whole zone instead of a group of players. At the entry point of each zone there could be an "office" that would grant the entrance to the zone only to those characters in the appropriate level range. An high level player who wants to enter a lower level zone would need to go to this office and get "recruited". The recruit status binds momentarily the character to that zone and lowers its level to be appropriate with the level cap of the zone.
As for the mentoring system, the player still gains some progress toward its normal level even when "recruited", while the current level is locked so that he doesn't risk to outlevel the zone where he is playing. This means that playing in a lower level PvP zone could still be a rewarding experience. With this system the level/ranks become more like a measure of the content you can access more than just an unidirectional power growth. An attempt at a "sandbox".
The original idea is of "permeable level barriers" (the idea of "permeable barriers" I keep reusing and that I consider the keyword to advance the genre). Your character grows, but it can still move "backwards", continuing to have access to lower level content if the player makes that choice. The "recruit status" is temporary in the sense that the character can always leave the zone and regain its normal level.
Ideally a player could decide to never go past level 10 if he likes particularly that PvP zone. At the same time that character continues to earn progress, so that when he decides to leave he won't have lost any progress just because he decided to stick with the lower level battleground.
The goal of this idea is to keep ALL the game content accessible for ALL players and characters ALWAYS. Maximizing and valorizing all the content the game has to offer. Without the need to create multiple specialized characters or risking to outlevel and leave a PvP zone you particularly like. You make the choice, the game would be completely OPEN ENDED. Wherever you want to play, you'll always continue to gain progress, albeit at a slightly lower speed (to give some incentives to those who play at the appropriate level range).
This is not only a significant advancement in the overall design of the game (all accessible and based on the player's choice), but it will be also useful to keep the game well-populated and vibrant at ALL level ranges even years after launch. This because the players aren't forcefully pushed against the level cap wall, but can also go back and decide where they prefer to play. The players will ALWAYS have the possibility to go play in the PvP zone where there's some action, no matter at which level it is. The levels aren't anymore impassable barriers separating you from the fun or your friends. Instead they become "permeable". Just a way to measure the content, but not a way to segregate and isolate.
This would also effectively solve the gap between casual players and hardcore. By making everyone progress at their own pace.
On top of this I would even add specific rewards and military ranks to recruited players. It's just an alternate character progress system to reward the players. So that the player can gain special ranks for EVERY PvP map and not just overall. In this case the rewards wouldn't be in "power growth". The idea is to offer items and perks, but that only define a status without giving directly more powers.
Like unique and recognizeable weapons and armor pieces who don't have better stats, but just a special look as a reward and demonstration that the player has achieved a lot of experience on that map. Just a way to "personalize" your character even more, without fucking the PvP balance and gameplay.
At the very end of these specialization paths there could be even some special skills that would still remain usable only occasionally, more like fun events that the player can trigger and that would engage ALL the players. So not in the form of personal skills and attacks.
You can easily open up the recruit system to give the player all sort of fancy services, with the overall rule that these services wouldn't provide directly more power. Just more customization and cool stuff to equip your character with. But not +damage stuff.
It would become an incentive to continue to play, without the pressure to reach the loot because you just cannot compete without it. It's like RMT done right: through gameplay and dedication, but still without obtaining unfair advantages over other players in a PvP environment that should remain ACCESSIBLE AND FUN FOR EVERYONE. Hardcore or newbie.
Point 3:
a "bounty system" to balance direct player kills with shared PvP objectives, while avoiding exploits
In my analysis I already underlined the problem of PvP balance in the form of rewards.
- In DAoC: the players form selective and specialized ganking groups and ignore shared PvP objectives because ganking is by far the best way to gain Realm Points, while defending or conquering keeps is never as rewarding.
- In WoW: the honor reward coming from the objectives is much better that direct kills (diminished returns) to the point that a good number of matches are "arranged" so that both factions cooperate to get the reward without the effort.
Balancing these two is a crucial problem for a PvP system, but I don't believe this balance can be achieved through simple math. This is a deeper design issue that is about the real meaning of a conflict. If the players are there for an external "carrot" they'll try to get the carrot without fighting. Such is the nature of games. PvP is about killing players, the objectives are a way to add a variation and some significance to the formula. The goal is to make the direct kills still the focus of the PvP, but this while fighting for an objective.
My "hotspot" idea solved this by rewarding more points in the proximity of a PvP goal. So the "hotspot" or objective becomes more like a magnet, while the game still relies on the pure player vs player (if there aren't players around you don't gain points).
In the case of Warhammer this idea isn't easily portable because of how the zones are being designed, but the idea of "bounty points" could still address the main problem of the balance of the reward.
The idea is that the players only gain a small amount of "progress" (experience, realm points or whatever) directly from killing opponents, but at the same time every direct kill grants an amount of bounty points. These points are only useful when they are "cashed", so they need to be converted in the currency that the PvP system uses.
To convert these bounty points the players will simply have to win the shared PvP objective of the battleground. Basically the idea is that accomplishing the PvP goal isn't worth anything on its own (only a small amount, like for the direct kills), but it's the only way to convert the bounty points you have gathered while fighting. It's a system working in two moments. First you collect, then you "cash" into tangible progress. Both chained together.
The amount of points converted after reaching a PvP shared goal is capped, so that it's possible for the designer to tweak an ideal "ratio" between direct kills and objective-based PvP.
The purpose of this idea is also to avoid exploits. For example if there aren't players in the other faction it would become too easy to win the battleground repeatedly while noone is around. With the bounty system the objective itself wouldn't be worth anything alone, but it becomes important after you have fought enemies for a while and then need to redeem your bounty points. No enemies = no bounty points. So nothing to convert. The PvP goals are essentially just exchange systems.
The system is supposed to bring together the direct kills that are the essential of a PvP environment, with objective based PvP in a way so that it cannot easily boycotted like it happens in DAoC, where the shared objectives are really not worth the time they require.
It's a way to put the PvP "carrot" where the purpose and the fun of PvP should be. Avoiding to create a "faked" PvP system that is then exploited like it happens with WoW and the arranged matches.
Submitted by Abalieno on May 15, 2006 - 05:44.
Warhammer completely replaced DAoC at this E3. While an expansion for this other game is planned for the end of this year, Mythic decided to not present it and instead focus their efforts to hype Warhammer.
One of the comments to the preview of "The Escapist" tells a lot about Mythic's general approach and stategy:
it's surprising to me that you'd expect anything "revolutionary" or "innovative" from MJacobs and co. I believe Mythic to be the most professional and among the most talented outfits out there but if you now anything about Mark you understand that Mythic is a business first and foremost and the corporate mantra is "follow the leader"
you're looking at the wrong company to take gambles or innovate. Mark's proudly modelled his games after whichever game is leading the genre at the time. for DAOC he loudly "borrowed" from UO (then EQ). Imperator was a developed (then dropped) modelled on the SWG (which was SOE's flagship until it sunk). With 6 million subscibers, obviously WAR follows WOW.
Mark's clearly stated his preference over the years to follow "established leaders" and to only base games on widely recognized realms and franchises (such as Arthurian legend, Classical Rome and now Warhammer). Mark is a great businessman and his companies make fun, solid games but you ARE expecting too much if you expect them to take risks and break the mold. In fact you're looking at the wrong bunch of folks entirely
I think this also helps to frame Warhammer and the realistic expectations about this game. Mythic has always tried to occupy a market space by reacting to other mainstream mmorpgs and then refining and specializing one one part that is usually neglected, like the PvP.
As a company they are non belligerent and aim more to preserve their space more than imposing themselves, but with a more competitive market their efforts weren't anymore enough. While WoW doesn't offer a good PvP system, the game still stepped on Mythic's plate and this, as expected, caused a reaction.
The Warhammer licence was for them a perfect occasion to leave the weight of DAoC behind and reach out for WoW, another game that created demand and interest for PvP. It's also probable that if the fantasy Warhammer will work then they'll move to the 40k version as an ideal way to revive Imperator.
This is still a defensive move. With Warhammer they are trying to reach again the space that DAoC lost with the time and lack of initiative. It's a nudge to WoW, with a so similar setting and a focus on the PvP. Even here Mythic expects to leech enough players to keep the game successful while not disturbing too much the daddy.
The first relevant news from the E3 is the possibility for the game to be released both on the PC and XBOX360. There haven't been official announces but Gamespot wrote that Mythic managed to port it and demonstrate it. This is probably just an experiment. Launching the game for the console is an easy way to expand the user base significantly. Along with their plans to support voice chat this could be a big occasion for them.
As for DAoC, Warhammer's client is built on non-proprietary middleware (Gamebryo, like Civ4 and Oblivion) and this middleware should be already portable. So I think they decided to make an experiment to see if it could have been a viable option and considering the results it seems that it was.
Through various previews is now easier to figure out the overall structure of the game even if some parts are still quite unclear. The game will have 40 levels and branching classes. Every 10 levels your character will be able to further specialize and there will be four different careers/classes for each race.
There will be six different races at release. Greenskin (orcs + goblins), Dark Elf, Chaos, Dwarf, High Elf and Empire.
So a total of 24 classes (with further specialization paths) probably reduced to 12 "unique" if you consider that they'll need to mirror them between the two factions if they don't want to have huge balance issues.
At the base of the PvP system there are two opposite factions. Order and Destruction, each clumping together its three races Vs the other three races. While the single zones should be broken up between three different "fronts": (Greenskin Vs Dwarf) (Dark Elf Vs High Elf) and (Chaos Vs Empire). We'll see if this will lead to population imbalance problems. For now Mythic hasn't revealed any plan to address this problem, even if it's a fundamental one for this kind of games.
The PvP model they are going to follow is much better then the one proposed in DAoC. This is probably the best choice they made with this title. Instead of separating PvE and PvP like two independent games crippling each other, this time they are trying for a more coesive approach where PvE flows into PvP naturally. Molding together.
The newbie starting zones (three in total, one for each "front") have already PvP-enabled parts, as I already explained. While I hope the zone design is flexible, the zone general scheme has two opposite entry points, one for each faction. The player can then start questing and killing PvE creatures in this "safe zone" as in every other mmorpg but then the quests will also lead toward a central, contested zone where the PvP will be enabled. This transition should be smooth, so you won't need to "zone in". It should be more like walking through an invisible line with a voice announcing that you are entering a zone of conflict.
They are planning for 33 zones. So 11 for each "front". The players can freely move to other fronts and help allies. For example a dwarf character could decide to play in its default zone and fight against goblins and orcs or move to the Empire zone and fight against Chaos. The biggest problem Mythic may encounter here is again about the population imbalance.
Since they decided to go with a system based on levels, they'll need to lock players out of the zone when past the appropriate level range, or one high level character could go sit on a noob zone and disrupt the game for everyone else. This will effectively segment the game world since as your character grows you won't be able to go back to the zones you have already visited (if they don't add a "level downgrade" like EQ2's mentoring system). Here the game mechanics are extremely important because if they divide the zones accessibility in four (as the four tiers of ten ranks, for a total of forty levels) the PvP could become just a matter of who's closer to the zone level cap. It's important here that each new rank isn't a huge leap over the other, but at the same time this would make the character advancement rather bland, so they'll have to reach a compromise. Which is also why I believe that it would have been much better to go with an open skill system with a flat power growth.
Instead if they use shorter level ranges (like setting the zone caps every five levels) then the world would really feel too linear and encapsuled.
Actually I wonder if they have even considered the problem of zone level caps or if they just overlooked it completely.
This still leaves the eleven zones to be used and distributed. My hope is that they keep the early and mid game as focused as possible so that there will be PvP activity even months after the game is released. There's always the problem of the desertifications of the newbie zones and it's crucial for a PvP mmorpg to keep the starting zones always active and well populated. I also hope they achieve a better balance between the experience gained through PvP and PvE, in particular when it comes to the shared objectives that in DAoC are ridiculous.
If they can screw up one element is by imitating DAoC and reward elitist gank groups that systematically avoid any shared goal. If the "open PvP" doesn't pivot around precise objectives instead of just consecutive player kills, the whole model will crumble. Thinking about this, beside the level ranks they still haven't revealed any detail about the PvP "carrot". What will make you continue to fight beside the hopefully fun gameplay? How you'll keep improving your character after you reached the last rank? This is another problematic core concept of PvP games, along with the population imbalances, that Mythic hasn't answered yet.
The same for the character growth. In WoW you can reach level 10 rather quickly, we don't know yet how the progression will be in Warhammer and whether they decided to speed it up to focus on the endgame. As we know from the standard population trends they are going to waste a lot of content if they reserve too many zones for the mid levels. I wonder if they could develop a dynamic system that reserves and flags the level range for the zone on the fly, based on population requirements. While doable for PvP, the PvE portion would be much harder to adapt and it would also become a design limit, so I'm not sure how good this idea could be. Still, they need an answer to that problem or the mid game risks to become frustratingly desolated. And it's also why I want to know more about how they are going to distribute the zones before I can figure out if it could work or not.
From the various press releases and previews there are more precise informations about the PvP "models" supported, even if my early guesses were already quite precise.
Officially there are four different modes: Skirmishes - Battlefields - Scenarios - Campaigns.
We can forget the first since it's just Mythic's fancy definition for a random PvP encounter, while the other three should be more "structured". The confusion here is more about the interaction between battlefields and Scenarios. The risk is that Mythic is trying to overdo and that they'll finish to support too much "PvP space" that will be directly mudflated by the players as it happened with DAoC. As for the general population trends, in the PvP the players need to converge (and spontaneously do so). So a bunch of zones and PvP modes supported aren't an advantage, but quite the opposite. They cripple down the PvP activity.
The Battlefields should be a concept similar to my hotspot idea. The players concentrate around a "shared objective", like fighting for the control of a resource, or a tower or whatever. Again, I hope that, contrarily to DAoC, the PvP objectives are worthwhile instead of openly ignored by the players. This is another significant design issue since if you reward for a goal then the players could learn to avoid each other to reach for the carrot (WoW), or, even worst, ignore the objectives and just gank each other if that's a more rewarding path (DAoC). It's also possible that the best path will be grinding PvE quests and in this last case the PvP will get completely ignored till the endgame (where you hit the level cap and so don't get anymore exp). As you can imagine this is another MAJOR point that needs an answer. My "hotspot" idea addressed this, we'll see what will be Mythic's answer even if in this case they have NOT learnt from past experiences. This is still one major, unaddressed problem in DAoC. Changing the name of the game won't be an effective response on its own.
As I said the relationship between battlefields and scenarios is still confused. The raw difference is that the battlefields are static zones, while the scenarios are instanced and balanced as in WoW, with the addition of NPCs (dogs of war). This idea leaves me rather doubtful. It's already extremely hard to balance the game between the characters, I think it would be nearly impossible if you have to factor even these NPCs. Also considering that Mythic's AI for the mobs hasn't shined in these years. WoW had similar plans when it was still in development and they also decided to scrap it. We'll see if Mythic will go further than that or not. I don't think it's a really good idea and the whole concept of WoW-inspired battlefields isn't convincing. I don't think it is going to fit well with the rest of the game and it's an added layer that I find superfluous and complicated.
I also need to know more. It looks like the scenarios are just instanced battlefields. I wonder if these are separated zones (I mean with unique level design) or just mirrors. It's not clear when a scenario will trigger. Even if the choice is left to the players there's still the need to define different *roles* in the game for these two modes. For now all I know is that the "campaign" layer spawns from here. Winning scenarios or accomplishing PvP objectives will probably flag the zone as "captured". As the players gain control over more and more zones, they could finally unlock enemy lands and pillage the capital cities, similarly to what happens in DAoC with the relic raids. Just with a more dramatic approach since it's an invasion of PvE-flagged areas.
By the way, the capital cities aren't in the noob zones, so it's probable you arrive there after the first 10 levels. Mid to high level zones, I guess. In this case I wonder how they are built. They cannot put a capital in a contested zone or the "conquest" system wouldn't make sense. At the same time they need to put some content around the capital or noone will use it. Even here Mythic hasn't explained much.
I stop here my considerations. I have more to say but it will fit better a stand-alone post (later).
I haven't commented here the classes in detail nor the quest systems. Both of these seem to have been the major focus of the previews but from my point of view they can only be examined and evaluated when the whole structure of the game is complete. Sparse examples of quests could be good for some hype but they really don't tell anything about how those ideas will work and fit in the game. That all depends on the game balance and it's something that cannot be abstractly designed, but that instead needs to go through extensive, practical testing. So it's not something that it's worth discussing without having played the game in the first place, nor I believe it's something to be excited about.
Instead it's interesting the idea of the "tome of knowledge":
(source)
First on the list is the game's new journal. Warhammer Online players will benefit from the incredibly useful Tome of Knowledge. It stores information on all of your quests, letting you see at a glance the area it takes place in, how far you've progressed towards each goal, the rewards for completing it and, wonder of wonders, the actual dialogue from the person who gave you the mission. The quest journal also activates the appropriate quests as you move from area to area.
The Tome of Knowledge also contains a comprehensive bestiary. As you encounter and fight monsters, their entry will grow more and more detailed, even to the point of offering advice on how to defeat them. You'll also get a look at the concept art and see a tally of how many of that beastie you've killed.
I always had the idea to bring to a mmorpg the RPG-style Pokedex (Pokemon) where you can "collect" monsters, quests and all sort of statistics. It should be easy to implement and it would be a simple way to appeal both achiever (completists) and explorer types. It would be also a possibility to bring in the game all that kind of interesting material that is usually reserved for the third-party guides or that is just left unused. Zone guides, monster strategies, concept art. It could become an ongoing project that continues to be supported and that gathers all the game sources available.
To conclude, the various previews I've read still leave many doubts and don't provide answers to some basic and general problems that always come with PvP games. The design of Warhammer hasn't revealed anything particularly significative beside the attempt to bring together PvP and PvE.
This is a quick list of things that are still unclear or problematic and to which Mythic will have to provide an answer, sooner or later:
- Population and class imbalances
- Power growth between ranks
- Level-based lock (caps) for the zones
- Zones distribution
- PvP rewards
- PvP activity convergence
- PvP persistence (results)
- Empowering players and guilds in the PvP persistence
- Balance between PvE, gank groups and shared PvP objectives
- Role of capital cities
- Itemization
- PvE endgame (if any)
- Crafting (if any)
The success and viability of this game depend on the answers to those points.
Submitted by Abalieno on May 11, 2006 - 15:55.
Watch it yourself:
- Mythic's Warhammer Online cinematic video (made by Blur Studio)
- Namco's Warhammer: Mark of Chaos
I suggest to get the best quality vid of the Mythic's one and I wish I could find an high-quality vid for the Namco's one (edit: found, "save as" should work).
Both of these are MASTERPIECES, best stuff at the E3 (the Halo 3 video pales in comparison). Despite they are just CG stuff irrelevant for the actual games, they really deserve to be seen.
Mythic's one has a better quality, better detail and art and even screenplay. It mocks blatantly WoW's intro video and really achieves its goal.
But it's still nothing compared to the mighty potency of the Namco's video. Here the raw quality is less impressive but the video is more realistic and much, much more powerful and intense. It is overwhelming.
It's interesting to compare two completely different "views" on the Warhammer world. And I still think that Namco's approach can offer a lot more as a "disruption" (as Iwata would say) of the current fantasy stereotypes.
I believe these "fantasy worlds" can still deliver a whole lot. I think it's blatantly obvious that the current mmorpgs, for example, really took the worst out of what the "myth" could deliver (for example: immersion and empathy, which should be OBLIGATORY premises for a RPG).
Both those videos are masterpieces and evidence of the narrative and emotive impact that the fantasy genre has and that noone is even trying to use.
Anyway, what's the purpose of a CG video for a videogame? To inspire.
And both of these do their work awesomely.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 1, 2006 - 05:17.
Arthur Parker continues to leech informations, this time from the May issue of CGM. I'll quote the relevant parts and add some comments:
Being Green In the Warhammer universe, there are 14 known armies and lots of other races that are references, but in the initial release, we'll see only six (seven if you seperate Orcs and Goblins, which most people do not.) There are two loose aliance: Agents of Order - Empire (Humans), Dwarfs (not "Dwarves"), and High Elves - and the Agents of Destruction - Greenskins (Orcs and Goblins), Chaos (Humans), and Dark Elves. This provides for three battlefronts: Greenskins vs. Dwarfs, Chaos vs. Empire, and Dark Elves vs. High Elves.
This already says a lot about the RvR structure. Orcs and goblins are clumped together and count as one, so it's basically two factions that can then be branched into three different contrapositions.
I'm not sure they are planning this smartly, though. It looks as the beginning of the game will have unique zones by race, so the PvP will be about the "one vs one", instead of the "three vs three". If this is true it will bring to problems. We already know that the "levelling game" (Warhammer seems to have no levels, but I'll come to this point later) tends to work like a wave of water that progresses uniformly till it reaches a "wall" (the level cap) and then starts to stagnate. (see the second graph)
It makes sense, in particular in a PvP environment where you depend on other players to have fun, to clump together the players in the newbie zones so that they can meet more easily, then opening up the endgame, where there are more played piled up, so with the possibility to spread them more without having population issues. This already happened in DAoC, where they had to consolidate the starting points to one per realm because the early game was desolate and it was impossible to meet other players and group.
This doesn't happen in WoW for other reasons. The newbie zones are fra |
