Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Warhammer Online Producer Discusses Game Features

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the designed-to-gank dept.

Role Playing (Games) 54

BigDownload.com has a great interview with Jeff Hickman, Senior Producer for Warhammer online, that offers a great preview of many of the game's features. The interview spends quite a bit of time discussing the "RvR" (Realm vs. Realm) style of gameplay and what that will mean for players. "We generally start everything in our game with a thought toward PvP. PvP isn't the first thing we think of, but it's one of the first things. We think of Warhammer Online as a PvP game that also has monster and PvE content. So, when we balance our careers, we balance the content around player verses player, not fighting monsters. We balance the classes against each other. Then, instead of balancing those classes against the monsters, we balance the monsters against the classes. Our philosophy is to make the best PvP game in the world and build the PvE content around it. We know how much damage each class can do and take, plus all the utility each class can provide. So, instead of balancing each ability, we just need to modify the overall damage output and absorption of each career."

cancel ×

54 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Soo.. (2, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | more than 6 years ago | (#23578929)

Basically, the support classes will sit there on autoattack until something dies five minutes later, as opposed to the mage/berserker class who will kill in three hits and move on. Brilliant!

Re:Soo.. (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 6 years ago | (#23579101)

Meh, support classes. In a game like this, I expect everyone to be able to fight and fight well. Some of those fighters will choose to pick up the ability to bandage and/or magically heal AFTER combat, but none of this health-monitoring-click-heal stuff.

It's Warhammer...a brutal world. Even the doctor doesn't like you.

Re:Soo.. (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 6 years ago | (#23579143)

This is different from all other MMORPGs how? (Tank who spends 10x time soloing content as any DPS class.)

Re:Soo.. (2, Informative)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | more than 6 years ago | (#23579603)

Played Warhammer on the tabletop? The best thing about support units is that they (almost universally) have a built-in method of removing themselves from the game, often taking several nearby allies with them.

This world is oriented around guys with swords, spears and axes. Normally at least a couple dozen of them.

Re:Soo.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23580045)

In the current beta, the healer classes actually kill very quickly. No guarantee that's how it'll work in release, or that it scales like that at the higher levels, or that people specialized for PvE healing will still be able to mow through enemies solo, but they do seem to have "kill rate" in mind for tank and healing classes.

Re:Soo.. (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 6 years ago | (#23590293)

He's right, that's exactly what was said in this interview:

Then there are healing characters that can also fight very well in our game, but play a role in keeping their friends and allies alive.
Oh wait... no it isn't.

More like... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23579133)

More like World of Warhammer. Online. Craft...

Give credit where it is due (5, Funny)

PrimalChrome (186162) | more than 6 years ago | (#23579417)

Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Give credit where it is due (1)

andi75 (84413) | more than 6 years ago | (#23584163)

You link to IMDB everytime you make a movie reference?

Re:Give credit where it is due (1)

Poltras (680608) | more than 6 years ago | (#23587629)

Penny Arcade [imdb.com]

Better?

PvP (1)

Gigiya (1022729) | more than 6 years ago | (#23579231)

"We like to think about PvP first...sometimes...usually. We like PvP, and it's important...usually first."

PvP vs. PvE? (3, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 6 years ago | (#23579241)

So... what happens when the people who are there for lore and whacking monsters run out of content and start to complain or quit? Don't think that it isn't going to happen, or that they're going to be a tiny contingent-- just look at how Guild Wars has changed since Prophecies launched.

Re:PvP vs. PvE? (2, Informative)

raptor386 (1212810) | more than 6 years ago | (#23579307)

Same way WoW keeps people interested: Make more content. There are very few guilds that will actually be able to burn through all the available content before more comes out.

Re:PvP vs. PvE? (2, Interesting)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582489)

Except all Blizzard do is add new content for the bloody endgamers. Fuck everyone else. We got thrown a bone when they added a slew of new quests to Dustwallow, but other than that, Blizzard ADD NOTHING of use to anyone below level 70. The one time they tried, they A) announced it in advance (the big floaty pyramid thing whose name escapes me) so there was no "HOLY SHIT!" moment when it appeared. And then they utterly fucked up various elements of it and wound up getting rid of it.

Blizzard are the latest MMO company out there. NOTHING ever changes in the game. They may add new content, but so what? My wife grinds out the same daily quests every day. I'm running round with about my 20th character trawling through all the same shit I've done a hundred times before. You'd think there wouldn't be any fucking gnomes left in Gnomeregan now, but oh no, those refugees still come running up that slope.

By being popular, WOW is cursed, because Blizzard are so terrified of any major changes, they just sit on their arses and do NOTHING. The game outside of Outlands, aside from a few minor additions (Dustwallow quests for example), is identical to the one I started playing three years ago.

Nothing evolves. Nothing changes. I think WOW will lose a good number of PVP fans when Warhammer launches. Ask any hardened PVP'er and they will tell you that PVP in WOW is utterly broken.

Re:PvP vs. PvE? (4, Insightful)

cordsie (565171) | more than 6 years ago | (#23583315)

So stop playing.

Re:PvP vs. PvE? (1)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596459)

Already did.

Re:PvP vs. PvE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23584237)

So get to level 70 already. You want Blizzard to re-write the whole game every time you roll a new alt?

Re:PvP vs. PvE? (1)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 6 years ago | (#23584847)

Concentrating on end-game content makes sense. Keeping old players happy is much easier than trying to get new players to fill the void.

But I agree on your point about PVP players quitting, PVP in WoW is just too marginal and mostly consists of ganking or sitting in a very limited number of BGs/arenas fighting for new gear.

Re:PvP vs. PvE? (1)

Apatharch (796324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23585447)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just don't see where you're coming from. If you've been playing long enough to take 20+ characters through a substantial portion of the game, how come you don't just run a level 70 and enjoy all the endgame content rather than complain about it?

Surely the players whose mains are still below 70 are the ones who are least in need of new content, since they haven't yet exhausted the old content...

Re:PvP vs. PvE? (2, Interesting)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 6 years ago | (#23586527)

Except all Blizzard do is add new content for the bloody endgamers.

I've made this comment before, recently, on Slashdot. There's a difference between content and progression for which my argument was (and is) that progression is more important than content, though they are both required and closely linked. What you're referring to is not content, but progression. You're pissed that even though Blizzard adds new things to the game, you cannot do them. So, you're not pissed at the "new stuff", you're pissed at the lack of progression or ability to DO the new stuff.

And I believe you're right. Although TBC was better than the "original" level 60 cap end-game for progression, Blizzard is still far too slow to add progression for the masses to keep them sustained. Lack of progression is what drives people towards other games. That includes running out of content, because if you run out of content you also have nothing else to progress too. However, (depending on your play style) there could also still be content you've not seen (40-man raids or other major end game dungeons) but if it's more-or-less impossible for you to do it, it's the same as if it wasn't there at all. However, it's clear Blizzard knows this as they've been moving away from this kind of progression brick wall to their content since TBC. WOTLK appears to be making another huge step in that it appears they're making all dungeons 10 or 25 man optional. That should make content more accessible to a lot more people.

NOTHING ever changes in the game. [...] ou'd think there wouldn't be any fucking gnomes left in Gnomeregan now, but oh no, those refugees still come running up that slope.

Now you're talking about something that's completely outside the realm of content or progression. I'll continue my habit of linking to what I believe to be one of the most interesting MMO books out there... Designing Virtual Worlds by Richard Bartle [amazon.com] . This book talks about what you're referring too. There are many types of virtual worlds. They go from very dynamic (everything you do changes the world) to static (no matter what you do, little changes). Most MMORPG's on the market today are far closer to the static side of the spectrum. It sounds like the type of Virutal World you'd like is a more dynamic system. However, dynamic worlds are very hard to play in, to program, and to run. If everything you do changes the world, you might not like it that someone changes a part of the world you liked. I recommend checking out that book for more interesting reading about this aspect of Virtual Worlds. Yes, there use to be very dynamic text based MMO's (MUDs) back in the day. They typically didn't last long. The reason MMO's today are (more) static is partly due to the fact that it's also what 'sells'. Survival of the fittest.

By being popular, WOW is cursed

Popularity brings with it the people who hate popularity. I guess you could say this, but it's a short sighted and ignorant view of things.

Blizzard are so terrified of any major changes

This could easily be argued against by just looking at patch notes and expansion pack details. Class talent changes have dramatically changed over the years. The addition of Paladins and Shamans to both factions was a very major change to the game. The addition of a 3rd dimension with flying mounts was a major change.

The game outside of Outlands, aside from a few minor additions (Dustwallow quests for example), is identical to the one I started playing three years ago.

That's game design (see previous comment about static/dynamic worlds), not laziness of Blizzard or their curse of being popular. It's a technical issue. You'd have to know more about client/server architecture to know that it's pretty hard to build dynamic worlds like it appears you want (at least on a graphical game such as WoW). I don't doubt we'll see more of this in the future though.

I think WOW will lose a good number of PVP fans when Warhammer launches.

WoW will always loose players. It's loosing players right now and since day 1. This topic is also discussed the the book I linked too above. The key is, to gain more than you loose. When WOTLK releases, WoW will also gain a lot of people. As WoW ages, it will natural loose people. Blizzard is working on a "next-gen" MMO as we speak. When that launches (especially if it's WoW2), they will probably loose people from WoW. That's not necessarily a 'bad thing'(tm) as it is a natural thing.

Though, you're also talking a lot about PvP. PvP is also on a part of a Virtual World spectrum, just like static and dynamic content. It's also been show that PvP is a far smaller draw of people than PvE. PvP isn't new. It's been around a LONG time in MUDs. Though, just like dynamic content, PvE has proven to be the biggest selling point and PvP continue to perform at much lower levels than PvE games. Richard Bartle talks about this in his book as well, when discussing player types. Good Stuff.

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:PvP vs. PvE? (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 6 years ago | (#23586933)

There is plenty of content for the lower levels. Once you have gone through it with a few characters on both the horde and alliance, you have seen pretty much all it has to offer. What the heck do you expect? That they change the quests for lower levels constantly? That is unrealistic and a waste of their time.

I have left and come back to WoW many times and each time I am surprised at how much things have changed. If you are continually playing, all these things are gradual so you notice them less. But WoW is a completely different (and better) game than when it first started out. You really would have to be blind to miss that.

WoW is going to lose players to every new MMORPG that comes along. It is an older game now and a lot of people are looking for something new. But just watch them flock back when the next expansion comes out.

So to sum up, plenty changes in WoW. It seems you have just become jaded and should probably stop playing (like the other post suggests) if things are as terrible as you claim.

Re:PvP vs. PvE? (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23599999)

You've been playing for three years and you're upset you've run out of content. How many other games can you play for several years and still keep finding new things? Believe it or not, there are other games out there, maybe you should try some.

Re:PvP vs. PvE? (1)

Wyrd01 (761346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23586551)

One of the nice things about WarHammer Online is that it's more centered around PvP (Player versus Player) than PvE (Player versus Environment). Yes both exist in the game, but the main drive, the overarching campaign, is a PvP struggle, or what Mythic calls RvR (Realm versus Realm).

What this means is you'll spend much of your time fighting other player controlled character, so every battle is going to be different. The tactic that worked for you yesterday might get you nowhere today. It won't simply be fighting through scripted encounter 1, then on to scripted encounter 2, etc...

I think the PvP/RvR focus of the game will mean it has a much longer shelf life. Yes, some people will get bored no matter what you do, but when every battle is against human controlled opponents I think it will hold people's intert much longer.

Intrigued (2, Informative)

bar-agent (698856) | more than 6 years ago | (#23579649)

Sounds pretty good. I am intrigued by how cities can rise or fall. I'm not big into PvP, but I'll probably try it out for that game -- if it comes out for Mac, of course.

The graphics look pretty detailed, and the breadth of costume choice looks good, but maybe too much uncanny valley there.

So stupid (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 6 years ago | (#23580081)

"We know how much damage each class can do and take, plus all the utility each class can provide. So, instead of balancing each ability, we just need to modify the overall damage output and absorption of each career."
Is combat (damage) all there is to the game? This is what has made me never want to touch another one of these games again: because there's often no rewarding non-combat activities other than tradeskills. And most games haven't offered a good solution to distributing tradeskill items other than yep, you guessed it. Combat! Seriously, combat is really good, but having some classes that specialize in skills other than combat would not hurt. And this is from a former rogue player, the class that got EQified into being THE melee DPS class. Nothing wrong with combat, but couldn't games get a bit less one dimensional for a change?

Re:So stupid (1)

snookums (48954) | more than 6 years ago | (#23580421)

"We know how much damage each class can do and take, plus all the utility each class can provide. So, instead of balancing each ability, we just need to modify the overall damage output and absorption of each career."


Is combat (damage) all there is to the game?
Probably. It's because combat is so easy to code. The combat systems of most MMORPGs that I've seen haven't evolved very far from the original MUDs (or since D&D, if you prefer).

Also, combat is easy to balance both in PvP and PvE. A fight that lasts 10 minutes max and involves a number of players from 1 to MAX_RAID_SIZE is easy to test. An economy of crafting, shopkeeping, research and development, brokering, banking, thieving, etc. involving hundreds or thousands of players, with all their idiosyncrasies and exploit attempts is pretty much impossible to predict and test.

(Yes, yes, cue "EVE Online = awesome" comment here, followed by "Star Wars Galaxies = dismal failure" riposte.)

Re:So stupid (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 6 years ago | (#23580493)

Man that post was awesome. It encompassed everything I was thinking about. I remember wanting to play Vanguard until I discovered that the Diplomacy system was not at all what they said it would be. I should have known better, but Brad McQuaid has that sort of snake-oil salesman thing down to an art in regards to MMOs. Thank god he probably won't be coming to my neighborhood trying to sell me anything. I'd probably buy him out.

Re:So stupid (1)

Poltras (680608) | more than 6 years ago | (#23587869)

Is combat (damage) all there is to the game?
Probably. It's because combat is so easy to code.

It's not easier to code than non-combat feature, it's just really harder to design (and, implicitly, balance). Just see what happened to Star Wars Galaxy in the long term. An item-based economy is much easier to build and keep balanced (by adding new items or selling overpriced ones from vendors, thus diminishing market-value) than a full-blown economy including 3-tiers professions (gathering, transforming, using).

Not impossible to do correctly, but really hard. Even our own real-world economy is flawed in many ways and have been exploited over time. Since most games are inspired by real-world concepts, and are much faster growing than them, the flaws are much more apparent... and much more harder to react to.

Re: So stupid (2, Insightful)

Xaemyl (88001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23582237)

Dude. You do know the game is called WARhammer, right? What do you expect from a game thats all about armies and killing eachother, and, well, warfare?

Re:So stupid (2, Insightful)

Wyrd01 (761346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23586731)

In this game, WARhammer, you're very likely to find it centered around combat. This may not be the MMO for you. I think Mythic has done a good job of making the combat interesting though. There is an overarching campaign goal of pushing your enemy back into their own capital city, and then going in and taking that from them too. You will literally be able to run through their city streets looting buildings and setting things on fire. There will be the usual instanced scenarios, but there will also be many open world objectives, including huge keeps where you can bring out catapults and ballista while the defenders pour boiling oil on your guys who are trying to use a ram to break the main gate down. I think having a real purpose to the combat, some real results that you and everyone else can see, makes the combat a little less one-dimensional. Yes, if you boil it down then in the end you're just beating each other up, but behind that are some actual motivations and reasons that make you care about beating the other guys up. It won't be a case of playing capture the flag, you win, and you're popped back into the real world with nothing but a couple more honor points to show for it. Each scenario you win in WarHammer contributes to the overall goal of pushing your foes back towards their main city... as does every quest, every keep taken, every opposing player killed, etc...

I'll only play if... (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 6 years ago | (#23580733)

If they include Night Goblin Fanatics as a class, I'm in. Those little buggers would be awesome in PvP!

Leeeeroy Jenkins's got nuttin on them!

Not sold on this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23581733)

How does he expect to sell this game to players who long for the old days of Ultima Online, which by the way had/has mounted combat, when his game sounds a lot like WoW. 2 sides? Sounds lame to me. And the description of the "balanced" classes sounds sure as hell pretty close to WoW. Healers will hate being healers! What are they innovating exactly? I don't really understand... Why can't you make every class capable of healing? Hell why even have classes and arch types when a much better system has existed for a long time. Why not make a system based on skills and allow the player to pick which skills his character posses? And why not allow him to unlearn and train new skills, so he is not "stuck" in one character for his entire Warhammer life?

This game innovates nothing! How can he claim balance and then say some character arch types will be better against some types... that's the opposite of balance...

Re:Not sold on this.. (2, Insightful)

CogDissident (951207) | more than 6 years ago | (#23586179)

Because, you know, WoW obviously did everything in a completely new and non-stolen fashion. Yep. Everquest, Ultima, Clan Lords (hey, who remembers this one?), and all those other MMORPGs that came before it certainly didn't have every single feature that they did. Not at all.

But in all honesty, people get upset when a MMORPG doesn't completely rewrite the genre, but the best example of a game in the genre innovated exactly nothing.

Re:Not sold on this.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23590631)

Sounds like Guild Wars; with Guild Wars 2 being a significant improvement.

Hope WAR is better than WoW for PvP (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23581797)

I hope the PvP in WAR is more than just making sure you have one of the two "blessed" classes (the two classes the lead devs play as faves in WoW, whom all others are made lesser).

So far, other than having one of the two PvP classes, all of WoW's PvP is how much res you have on your stats (i.e. how many months you ran your 10 arena games to get your points to buy your season pieces, only to do it again next season), and if that didn't decide the issue at once, how fast you flicked the mouse and batted the spacebar while hoping to get rage, combo points or do something with them, and to keep behind the other person while the person did the same.

I know I'll get a Blizz fanboi who says the usual "l2p", but I can easily point to the number of HKs of both my chars who have full S3 sets where one of them is one of the classes the lead dev plays, and the other isn't. Even with the same gear and both with similar arena standings, their kill/death ratio are totally different in one versus one PvP. Its fairly obvious that there are classes who win in PvP, and those who just plain cannot survive even with 400+ res unless paired up with someone else as a partner for healing or melee DPS. Blizz calls it "rock, scissors, paper" balancing, however when your scissors will encounter statically 2-3 times as many rocks as paper, this balancing gets old.

I'm glad WAR and AoC are coming. If either of them delivers on what they promise with solid playability, they will start eroding Blizz's player base until they get a critical mass, similar to how WoW shredded EQ. Maybe then, Blizz will work on cycles faster than 24 months for major content additions.

Re:Hope WAR is better than WoW for PvP (1)

Wyrd01 (761346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23586891)

So far, other than having one of the two PvP classes, all of WoW's PvP is how much res you have on your stats...
One promising thing I've heard in respect to this is that gear is going to be much, much less of a determining factor than in WoW. Mythic wants skill to play a much bigger role than just grinding to get the next piece of armor so you die in three shots instead of two... On that note Mythic is also trying to design things so fights won't be 2, or 3, or even 4 shot ventures. They want people to battle it out for awhile, and so skill will have a chance to come into play as the battles rage on.

positive feedback loop (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23581875)

One idea that I can't seem to find addressed is this:

Lets say that on one server, the greenskins conquer the dwarfs, and get lots of shiny loot doing so. Eventually they get pushed back and the RvR thing restarts, but then the greenskins are given a slight advantage with better gear - wouldn't they continue to dominate?

Re:positive feedback loop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23582585)

I was wondering this myself. In WoW, a lot of servers have lopsided factions (PvE servers tend to have more Alliance, PvP have more Horde.)

With all WAR cities sort of like WoW's Halaa, it will give one side a permanent advantage and make life for the other side hell, especially when they end up with no capitol cities for days at a time until stuff resets. I'm reminded of the Southshore/Tarren Mill fights, where Tarren Mill had -zero- NPCs for months until Blizzard implemented the dishonor system, then had the quest NPCs spawn guards. I picture something like Halaa where its permanently Alliance (on PvE), or Horde (on PvP), and it takes the whole effort of the server's faction to dislodge control for just an hour or so for quick buying from vendors, completing quests, banking, auction hou8se, etc, then the other faction will reclaim it by a mega-zerg.

Re:positive feedback loop (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 6 years ago | (#23586035)

I always thought one of the nice things about DAoC was that there were three realms and if one got out of hand, they had to fight both of the other two.

The loop is a lot more vicious (1)

patio11 (857072) | more than 6 years ago | (#23584035)

Say that on one server, the greenskins conquer the dwarfs. Then, they conquer the dwarfs. Then, they conquer the dwarfs. And then, they conquer the... what do you mean that all the dwarfs have rerolled on "more fun" servers?

People don't play MMORPGs to have fun losing.

Re:positive feedback loop (1)

Wyrd01 (761346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23586955)

...the greenskins conquer the dwarfs, and get lots of shiny loot doing so.
Mythic has stated that they intend to make loot matter a lot less than it does in WoW. A lot less. In WoW gear is the deciding factor above all else. If you have tier 5 gear, and I have tier 2 gear, then it doesn't matter how good I am, you win.

Mythic has stated that gear will give something of an advantage, but they want skill to play a major role in things. They are also designing things so no one will be 2, or 3, or even 4 shotted by anyone else. With longer battles skill will be able to be a factor and ideally the best will rise to the top.

Re:positive feedback loop (1)

Binestar (28861) | more than 6 years ago | (#23588027)


Mythic has stated that they intend to make loot matter a lot less than it does in WoW. A lot less. In WoW gear is the deciding factor above all else. If you have tier 5 gear, and I have tier 2 gear, then it doesn't matter how good I am, you win.

Unless you're a rogue and I'm a warlock...

Has any of you played DAOC ever ? (1)

tmert (1186163) | more than 6 years ago | (#23584971)

Try playing Dark Age of Camelot first, then flame. None of the healing classes in the game complained, and the game was totally group oriented(it was easier to level, farm etc). This game is being produced by the same company, same team who produced DAoC. Don't forget the fact that DAoC had one of the best(the best in my opinion) PvP systems out there, with more than 26 classes(can't exactly remember), all different spells on 3 sides and abilities. The class/faction balance was nowhere to be seen from time to time, but hey that happens to every game. And PvP in a game like DAoC never got repetitive. There was always a different conflict(one side assaulting the relic keep or couple of archers assaulting a tower and terrorizing the area) in motion, so you always found a different action. Realm abilities were a rewarding process too.

Re:Has any of you played DAOC ever ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23586211)

Shut the fuck up, because you don't know. I RvRed a lot with my Bard on Percival. Healing classes got no RP compared to other classes and suspiciously, it took me a lot longer just to get to RR1 on my Bard than on my Hero.

So maybe you never heard the complaints, but that doesn't mean they weren't being made.

Re:Has any of you played DAOC ever ? (1)

tmert (1186163) | more than 6 years ago | (#23589805)

Shut the fuck up, because you don't know. I RvRed a lot with my Bard on Percival. Healing classes got no RP compared to other classes and suspiciously, it took me a lot longer just to get to RR1 on my Bard than on my Hero.
I do know actually, I have a RR9 Bard on Excalibur - EU. The server with most RvR activity in DAoC(So told by Mythic) However I can't help if you'r incompetent in playing a healer. /flame

Please make a server where users have only 1 life (3, Interesting)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 6 years ago | (#23585651)

PLEASE PLEASE, make a single Realm where each players only have one life. And when he dies he dies. (The user can the ofcause then create a new player).

My arguments for this:

It will make it posible for users that don't play so much time to get player charactors that are within the 10% best, because a characters power will be the amount of time played since he last died, not the total amount of time played.

It will make the player levels a bell curve, meaning that there are only a few really powerfull players. There is nothing fun about reaching $MAX level if >25% of all the other players are also max level.
This does mean that one team may have a player that can beat any player on the opposite time, but he still can't beat any team of other players.

It will also make guilds much more usefull. Just imagine that the guild leader is the person with the highest level, and the other members of the guild funciton as kind of "support troops" for the leader. This will be extra cool if the instances insted of limiting the number of players within a group, limit the total number of levels within a group. So if a instance is rated to level 100, you can bring either 2 level 50 players, or a single level 50 player, and 5 support players each at level 10.

The motivation for beeing a "support troop" in a guild is that a: It might be safer then beeing the front fighter, and b: At a time the front fighter and leader will die, and then the highest level support troop, will be the new leader. (This will be extra cool, if high level players get the ability to give bonuses to a limited number of players within their group).

(And yes, this system might mean that the xp that users get for killing monsters and players might need to be raised, so that there are top level players at all).

Giving each player one life, also have the effect that you don't have to limit the number of levels/classes/extras that each player can have.
Just imagine a d&d mmorpg where a player can be dual class. So imagine he is both a fighter and a mage. The existing mmorpg games can't allow this because when that player reach $MAX level, he will have all the powers of both the mage and the fighter, thus owerpowering any single class player. But with unlimited levels and only one life that will not be a problem, because the player will newer really reach a max level where he can't be better, so for any amount of XP, a dual class fighter/mage might have both classes at level 35, while a single class mage with the same amount of xp, might be at level 50, thus preserving the game balance while allowing interesting combinations. (Dual class players advance slower, because they split their xp between their classes).

Martin

Re:Please make a server where users have only 1 li (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 6 years ago | (#23587059)

How would that be fun? I am perfectly happy to hit the max level and share that accomplishment with other people. You want a server full of griefers and jerks (sounds like you would like Eve). Most people playing new characters are going to be killed immediately by the people who are unemployed or kids and people will just hide and power level. There will be no balance as the highest level will be able to decimate the lower levels. You might say...but how cool would it be to be that high level. Guess what, if you go to school, work, have a social life, that person won't be you.

It sounds like a horrible idea that most people would hate. But I am sure there are a few people who would enjoy it so I am not saying it shouldn't be done on a small percentage of the servers. Just if they care about subscribers and making money, they are going to end up following the WoW model. The fact that they think they are going to perfectly blend a large number of classes in PvP is pretty much a joke. I have yet to see any company do better at balancing things than Blizzard.

Re:Please make a server where users have only 1 li (1)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 6 years ago | (#23587965)

Now I don't know what the map looks like in Warhammer, but I would imagine that the low level instances were located behind the main city, and thus imposible to reach for the other teams unless they walk throu the enemy main city.

I just always imagined a map, where there are 2 'main cities' one for each team. And between them a lot of smaller cities, and other structures that the teams would want to capture. (They each start with half of them) Theese should be located between the 2 main cities, thus forming a kind of border. Thus the entire map would be part of a 'world conquest' quest.

Theese would provide some kind of attack/damage/magic/healing bonuses to nerby troops for the team that hold them, so that the farther you were from your cities, the more trouble you would be in.

That way, almost all pvp fighting would be located at the border between the 2 teams. The border could then move, if cities near the border were captured or destroyed.

And players whould would not want to be directly involved in pvp could then take quests, that would help their team by taking resources, that could be used to build/maintain defense structures.

So if you want to attace the other teams main city, you really have to take many of the smaller cities and structures first, so you can use them for some kind of support.

uh... (1)

boxxertrumps (1124859) | more than 6 years ago | (#23590501)

The planet that Warhammer is on has the same continent layout as Earth, save a crescent shaped landmass in the atlantic, Ulthuan, that is home to the high elves.

Re:Please make a server where users have only 1 li (2, Insightful)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 6 years ago | (#23588637)

The fact that they think they are going to perfectly blend a large number of classes in PvP is pretty much a joke. I have yet to see any company do better at balancing things than Blizzard.
Are you serious? WoW is one of the most unbalanced PvP games out there. You have overpowered classes (lol subtlety stun-lock rogue where their opponent can't take a single action before dying), overpowered racial abilities (lol undead immune to fear) and arena team makeup shows the imbalance. Look at how many Warrior/Druid teams there are in 2v2 at the top levels. You think Warrior/Druid combo might be a little imbalanced? Nah, Blizzard is perfect.[/sarcasm]

If you want to look at a better balanced PvP game, look at Dark Age of Camelot, designed by Mythic before they made this game. They had very balanced PvP and took PvP balance seriously.

Another game that has really good PvP balance is Guild Wars.

WoW is a pathetic joke at balance. The developers made a choice to make the game completely gear-dependent, so it's very possible that if 2 level 70s duel each other, one of them might not be able to win just because his gear isn't good enough. That isn't balance; that's carebear PvP for little kids that need an "I Win" button.

Re:Please make a server where users have only 1 li (1)

Achoi77 (669484) | more than 6 years ago | (#23596171)

The problem is that people got so caught up with dueling in WoW that at some point before TBC some of the big wigs over at Blizzard thought it would be a good idea to oblige to the duelers. And once it went mainstream with arena, the masses started to complain that all the other classes that they did not play themselves, were overpowered.

Even just taking a glance over at the pvp forums, you could find a "OMG NERG _OTHERCLASS_ SO OP LOL" for almost every class. People griped at stunlock rogues. People griped at MS warriors. People griped at slsl locks. People griped at disc priests. People griped at holy pallys. Resto druids. Ele shamans. Frost mages. Marksman hunters. Every class has a group of people that they think is overpowered against their class.

What brought this on was simply the fact that the gameplay has taken a major shift from massive Braveheart style battles, to 2-on-2, 3-on-3, 5-on-5 skirmishes and duels. Why? Because the Blizzard sanctioned massive Braveheart style battles never came. (tarren mill doesn't count). The closest they have gotten to that was the 40-on-40 pvp instance Alterac Valley, where they screwed with it so much that I'm pretty positive that it was the end result of an original game designer that was in charge of working on AV being either fired or dismissed in some other fashion before finishing his/her job, leaving it in honor-point-per-hour farming shambles.

To exacerbate matters with dueling was an overemphasis on crowd control - classes who could remove the ability for other players to control their characters brought on a whole slew of dueling gameplay imbalances - sheep, cheapshot/kidneyshot, fear, deathcoil, root, mind control, scattershot, frost trap - you name it. Nevermind that certain spells and abilities are completely useless for pvp - like taunt. Or shackle.

IMO arena-style pvp really took the character balance away from what we all wanted from the very beginning - the epic, massive battles we've witnessed in the Warcraft RTS games. But Blizzard decided to take it in that direction, and it brought them 10 million players, so why should they change anything?

It's really a shame.

Re:Please make a server where users have only 1 li (1)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 6 years ago | (#23588183)

PLEASE PLEASE, make a single Realm where each players only have one life. And when he dies he dies. (The user can the ofcause then create a new player).
Just go play Nethack and delete your save game when you die. Seriously, modern MMOs and RPGs are not designed like this, and they never will be. Other than a very small minority of the players, people do not like perma-death. How would you like to spend thousands of hours building your virtual character, only to lose it all due to lag or a server disconnect while you're in combat?

Re:Please make a server where users have only 1 li (1)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 6 years ago | (#23589071)

I would not lose anything. If I spendt thousands of hours building my character it would be because doing so were fun, and I don't lose that fun time I had, just because my character died.

If I had spendt thousands of hours building my virtual character, and I thought that time was wasted, when he died, then I would also feel I hand wasted thousands of hours building my virtual character, even if he newer died.

Remember: It's a game. If it feels like work playing it, don't do it.

Re:Please make a server where users have only 1 li (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23592257)

Once you load your save game in Nethack, it goes away by default, no need to delete it. Unless you're a shitty save scummer, in which case you can go fuck yourself.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>