Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Warhammer Online : Age of Reckoning: Tell Us About the War in WAR

StraddenStradden Managing EditorHalifax, NSPosts: 6,696Member

Recently, Staff Writer Carolyn Koh had the opportunity to speak with Brian Wheeler, a Designer on EA Mythic's Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. The questions this time revolve around the overarching war taking place in the game. Koh also presents an example of how the city siege component of the game works.


MMORPG.com:

What is the group size in Warhammer and what mechanisms are there for communication in RvR, especially for the larger campaigns?

Brian Wheeler:

Group size is 6, but players can form a Battlegroup (basically a group of groups) up to 24 players. Obviously, these will have their own unique chat channels for player communication, but we'll also have RvR specific chat channels that anyone can join.

Read the whole thing here.

Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com

Comments

  • Scorn_ArkaneScorn_Arkane Winston-Salem, NCPosts: 189Member

    No group rewards, and raids are 24 man, eh?

    image

  • sundaysoulboysundaysoulboy londonPosts: 30Member

    So looking forward to this game.. meaningful PVP, city sackings, seige warfare, groups of 24 organised players... I like!

    Not sure the whole incite racial hatred thing is very PC, but whatever, it will make for some passion on the battlefield!

    WTB Warhammer!

     

    Waiting For;
    Aion
    Warhammer Online
    Darkfall
    Project Offset

  • AlienovrlordAlienovrlord San Antonio, TXPosts: 1,525Member

    Excellent interview and good information.

    But with the description of the city sieges I expect the WAR forums will start to flame with whiner who can't grasp the current limitations of technology.   The mechanic Mythic has proposed seems like a reasonable compromise between gameplay and bandwidth.    Keep in mind, they haven't said how many players will be on each side of the Inner City conflicts. 

  • tapeworm00tapeworm00 Mexico CityPosts: 549Member

    Originally posted by Alienovrlord


    Excellent interview and good information.
    But with the description of the city sieges I expect the WAR forums will start to flame with whiner who can't grasp the current limitations of technology.   The mechanic Mythic has proposed seems like a reasonable compromise between gameplay and bandwidth.    Keep in mind, they haven't said how many players will be on each side of the Inner City conflicts. 

    The Inner-Outer city mechanic is really really great. It makes the players gather and focus on something instead of turning Sieges into a chaotic free-for-all where everyone's running around like lemmings (fuck "realism", by the way ). It also has the added bonus to limit the amount of stuff charged on your computer and your internet connection by loading just certain portions of the city instead of having it all up at the same time as whatever the number of players there will be (probably plenty if battlegroups are made up of 24 people). Also, the fact that the city "closes" to the losers for a while will give players a lot to think about when it comes to fighting the other realm, since you won't be able to just die and respawn to go on fighting!

    I'm liking these ideas so far. I hope they keep up the good work.

  • hbosmanhbosman ZwollePosts: 107Member


    But with the description of the city sieges I expect the WAR forums will start to flame with whiner who can't grasp the current limitations of technology. The mechanic Mythic has proposed seems like a reasonable compromise between gameplay and bandwidth. Keep in mind, they haven't said how many players will be on each side of the Inner City conflicts.


    Technology isn't the problem. The real problem lies in the inability for companies to 'control' the players and what they do. If everything would be destructable and captureable the companies can't handle it. The real problem lies with the companies and the 'old thinking'.

    And with this game they selected Warhammer to use as their IP for the game. Now they have to live up to the expectations of the players. If they can't they had to use another IP!

  • Hyperboy01Hyperboy01 Satellite Beach, FLPosts: 17Member

     

    Originally posted by Scorn_Arkane


    No group rewards, and raids are 24 man, eh?

     

    Lets break this down, as when I first read that, this is what I thought. Upon rereading it though, I discovered that it was not at all what was said in regard to group rewards.

    "














    MORPG.com:

    Is that "group-based" loot rewards for winning an RvR scenario?


    Brian Wheeler:

    There are no group-based loot rewards for Scenarios, however we do reward all players that complete Scenarios with Renown points. These Renown points are based on the score of the Scenario, how long you've been in the Scenario, and whether you won or lost. Winners AND losers get Renown points in our Scenarios.

    "

    The group-based lack of rewards is only referring to RVR scenarios (otherwise known as battlegrounds in Warcraft)., not to group based dungeon diving or other scenarios not directly related to RvR. You do however get renown points upon completion of the scenario.

  • butters88butters88 Toronto, ONPosts: 379Member

    I enjoyed reading the description on city sieges. There was some stuff I never heard of. Like the defending faction doesn't respawn in the city when they die and are being invaded. You know what that means? No turtling! w00t! I think the best part will of course be the initial fight in the outer city and seeing the Order (or Dectruction) try to take it back afterwards.

  • Hyperboy01Hyperboy01 Satellite Beach, FLPosts: 17Member

    Originally posted by butters88


    I enjoyed reading the description on city sieges. There was some stuff I never heard of. Like the defending faction doesn't respawn in the city when they die and are being invaded. You know what that means? No turtling! w00t! I think the best part will of course be the initial fight in the outer city and seeing the Order (or Dectruction) try to take it back afterwards.

    I am curious about the retaking of the city too. It would interest me to see if that is able to be accomplished. The original early discussions by the devs mentioned that the city would be taken, then the opposing faction of that city would have time to revel in their success, and play, and then the devs would make it VERY hard for that opposing faction to remain in the city after a certain amount of time. (I assume this means that they would spawn extremely hard bosses of the city's faction to retake the city and eject out all opposing faction members).

    However, this recent post makes it sound like there will be quite a bit of time (maybe even days) for the opposing faction to galavant through the town.

  • LoptlokiLoptloki EindhovenPosts: 5Member
    Originally posted by Alienovrlord


    Excellent interview and good information.
    But with the description of the city sieges I expect the WAR forums will start to flame with whiner who can't grasp the current limitations of technology.   The mechanic Mythic has proposed seems like a reasonable compromise between gameplay and bandwidth.    Keep in mind, they haven't said how many players will be on each side of the Inner City conflicts. 

    I agree. However, since everybody contributes to the war effort, there must be some fair way in which players are selected to fight in the siege. Does anybody know how that is going to be handled? (e.g. players with most renown since last sack).

  • markoraosmarkoraos Station alphaPosts: 1,593Member

    Crap.

    As always MMORPG staff can't get out of instanced PvP (read WoW) box...

    Read my lips: RvR = GOAL-BASED OPEN WORLD PvP!

    I don't give a rat's ass about scenarios.

    I've got my QW and TF2 for that. What a MMORPG can offer that online FPS's can't is the OPEN WORLD RvR.

    Scenarios are just an add-on to improve balance/add variety. The release has been pushed back in order to  boost and improve RvR (as OPPOSED to instanced BGs). So please next time ask some more questions about OPEN WORLD RvR which is the main point that distinguishes WAR from other upcoming and existing MMORPGs.

     

    /edit

    ... and the answers given in the interview on that subject are quite disappointing. Almost all the mentioned "rewards" for open world RvR aren't rewards at all - they're simple boosts to the defending side that will only make the game more static. Real rewards which would provide a motivation to take and hold RvR objectives should be permanent and personal - special quest givers and vendors that appear only in objectives held continuously for a period of time, special consumables, titles "defender of...", "conqueror of..." fluff, fluff, fluff etc.

     

    /another edit

    However it isn't all gloom... glad to see they revived the Dogs of War concept and no mention of the godawful cross-server instancing (phew!). Salute! (I'd like to see the Dog of War balancing mechanism in open RvR as well - maybe as a way to alleviate possible server faction imbalances)

  • JetrpgJetrpg Whitehouse, OHPosts: 2,376Member

    The only problem Mark is that itlooks like most of the PvP for taking the city , is just that 20ish man pvp groups and not open world.

    This may not be true but it looks more and more like the real fights will occur in this type of situation, and thast not RVR.

    "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine

  • SykomykeSykomyke Mount Pleasant, SCPosts: 116Member

    I like how the inner city defenders cannot respawn when they die.  Will make groups fight more strategically rather then the usual idealogy of zerging people until they grow weary of trying to inch foward and just give up (Read: Alterac Valley before the NPC nerf).  God damn good job Mythic!

    ~~Internet gaming is not for the faint of heart or the dumb of mind.~~
    image

  • daelnordaelnor Manteca, CAPosts: 1,569Member

    Sounds like it will be a lot of fun, but I agree with some of the other posters also. I want to know about the open world pvp. I really, really hope all of the pvp isn't "scenario's" and stuff that are all instanced maps. I could do that in an fps.

    Real world pvp is where its at. That is what made DAOC fun, once you hit the pvp area, all bets were off...none of this instance stuff.

    D.

    image

  • shakey2005shakey2005 LancasterPosts: 49Member



    However, this recent post makes it sound like there will be quite a bit of time (maybe even days) for the opposing faction to galavant through the town.

    The interview says a couple of hours.

  • Hyperboy01Hyperboy01 Satellite Beach, FLPosts: 17Member

    Originally posted by shakey2005




    However, this recent post makes it sound like there will be quite a bit of time (maybe even days) for the opposing faction to galavant through the town.

    The interview says a couple of hours.

    Not exactly, it stated:

     


    • Destruction will then have several hours of uninterrupted time to loot, pillage, quest, fight the king, etc.

    • After this period of time has ended, the Outer City will re-open for RvR combat and the forces of Order may attempt to retake this area

    • Should Order succeed, they can then enter the Inner City to clear out the forces of Destruction (who will no longer respawn in this area once killed)

    • The city will then revert to its original state of peace.

     

    Which means that they seem to have eliminated the overpowered NPC spawns (post city-siege).  There seems to now be the potential (although highly unlikely I assume) that the city can remain in the hands of the enemy indefinitely. Although, with the fact that after a few hours the enemy will no longer respawn in the city, they will probably find themselves removed post-haste!

     

  • HersaintHersaint Oak, WIPosts: 366Member

    Yes, I am concerned also about the PvP or RvR focused on instances and not open world RvR.  I was hoping that WAR would take teh good of DAoC and leave the bad.  Maybe I am just misunderstanding all the talk about instance fighting.

    image
  • SonicfloodSonicflood Williamsburg, VAPosts: 11Member

    I think there's going to be open world RvR but in these earlier stages they're advertising more the more instanced type because that's what's in alot of games. As time goes on and they perfect the instanced RvR I'm sure they'll make open world RvR just as fun.

  • mutantmagnetmutantmagnet Brooklyn, NYPosts: 274Member


    Originally posted by Sykomyke
    I like how the inner city defenders cannot respawn when they die.  Will make groups fight more strategically rather then the usual idealogy of zerging people until they grow weary of trying to inch foward and just give up (Read: Alterac Valley before the NPC nerf).  God damn good job Mythic!
    Yet it's implied by their omission that the attackers most likely are going to be allowed to respawn. Even during the brainstorming phase of planning this should've been seen as stupid. Hopefully the omission was just an error on the writer's part.
  • MLecl0001MLecl0001 Saint Paul, MNPosts: 153Member

    Originally posted by markoraos


    Crap.
    As always MMORPG staff can't get out of instanced PvP (read WoW) box...
    Read my lips: RvR = GOAL-BASED OPEN WORLD PvP!
    I don't give a rat's ass about scenarios.
    I've got my QW and TF2 for that. What a MMORPG can offer that online FPS's can't is the OPEN WORLD RvR.
    Scenarios are just an add-on to improve balance/add variety. The release has been pushed back in order to  boost and improve RvR (as OPPOSED to instanced BGs). So please next time ask some more questions about OPEN WORLD RvR which is the main point that distinguishes WAR from other upcoming and existing MMORPGs.
     
    /edit
    ... and the answers given in the interview on that subject are quite disappointing. Almost all the mentioned "rewards" for open world RvR aren't rewards at all - they're simple boosts to the defending side that will only make the game more static. Real rewards which would provide a motivation to take and hold RvR objectives should be permanent and personal - special quest givers and vendors that appear only in objectives held continuously for a period of time, special consumables, titles "defender of...", "conqueror of..." fluff, fluff, fluff etc.
     
    /another edit
    However it isn't all gloom... glad to see they revived the Dogs of War concept and no mention of the godawful cross-server instancing (phew!). Salute! (I'd like to see the Dog of War balancing mechanism in open RvR as well - maybe as a way to alleviate possible server faction imbalances)

    Actually if you have been following the game, as of late they seem to be leaning toward the open RvR side than the scenario side.  I remember when they first started talking about scenarios they were talking about lots, for all different aspects of RvR, I mean like 100+, that would have included scenarios for city seiging for all 3 pairings.  Since then they have wittled that down to 30, 10 per pairing.  They also opened up City seiging which was going to be a set of scenarios with open pillaging once you get in.  Also they have added capturable keeps and keep seiging to the game in open RvR, which a lot of people were clamoring for.  It seems to me that Mythic picked up on the fact people want more open field RvR from their testers and have gone back and are using this beta down time to redo some of it to make it more fun and appealing.

     

    Also they are making instances of cities, and the city fight because of technology reasons.  If there are a few thousand players on any 1 server and a good chunk go to 1 area, well any one in Silithus for the AQ gate opening?  Even EvE online which touts their 1 big server, get too many people into a small area and down it goes.  You can make instances of an epic battle like a city siege and still make it feel epic, you would be amazed how chaotic 100 vs 100 fight can be, and is much more manageable on average computers with average connections than 1000 vs 1000.

     

    Mythic has shown that it can and does learn from its mistakes, whether in the early stages of this game or mistakes made in their previous game.  Which is why I can not wait for this game to release and I think will offer the best possible controlled open world faction vs faction war.

    Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

  • A group size for six character?, heh. I kinda like that. After you pick the four arch-class like Tank, healer/support, Range/Melee DPS you can still pick two after you own personal choice.

  • fooflingerfooflinger somewhere, CTPosts: 121Member

    only thing I disliked was this...

    Please note that the city siege itself will be population limited (size to be determined) and could play out over several different instances.

    And yeah, the max group was sort of a let down, not really, everything else REALLY got me excited. BUT FOR FFS DONT MAKE THE SEIGE INSTANCED! >.<

    Waiting for: Archeage, Darkfall 2.0, and Planetside 2.

    R.I.P Shadowbane; The best MMORPG I've ever played...


    Check out my amateur gaming blog at: Thegamingbible.com

  • liujoyteliujoyte tetyPosts: 2Member

    Excellent interview and good information.

    But with the description of the city sieges I expect the WAR forums will start to flame with whiner who can't grasp the current limitations of technology.   The mechanic Mythic has proposed seems like a reasonable compromise between gameplay and bandwidth.    Keep in mind, they haven't said how many players will be on each side of the Inner City conflicts. 

Sign In or Register to comment.