| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (7)

Posted: Dec 17th 2009 10:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is a great idea, I kind of wish wintergrasp in Wow was a little more like this.

From what i can tell of my few wow servers wintergrasp control is very one sided on most servers and that just makes people want to faction transfer so they have access to the raids within.

Something like this, where, the more common loser has a building advantage to be able to capture would be great.

Although, its almost as if the people who are better, the winning team. Seem to be getting penalized for dominating. but just a little bit.

Posted: Dec 17th 2009 7:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yep, I agree. People on my server are always bitching about being 2shotted by Horde with 15+ tenacity, but the fact is we still own WG 95% of the time (that's not intended to be hyperbole. I would honestly estimate it at about 95%.) Tenacity can only do so much.

What I always thought would be a good idea was, on top of Tenacity, for each time in a row your faction successfully defends WG, the health of the walls in the next game should be reduced 10% or so. So in other words, if Alliance captures WG and then holds it for 3 games straight, the walls of the fortress will only have 70% of their normal health during the next game.

I don't think it would be horribly unfair or punishing to the dominant faction, since if they lose WG, they will probably win it back the very next game. It would just help ensure that the underdog gets to do the raids once in a while. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to almost always be locked out of the ultimate loot pinata in the game.

Anyway, back to WAR, I'm curious to hear how this new underdog system is playing out. I unsubbed a couple months ago, mainly because I was just so sick of logging in only to find that there was no RvR to do other than the city siege. That gets old real fast. The wide variety of scenarios, and the different keeps (besides being essentially the same experience at each keep) make for a much more interesting experience. I might have to resub for a bit and check it out.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2009 12:42PM Holgranth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Great, wonderful, amazing its only what 1 year and 2 months late?

Seriously this has been one of my BIGGEST beefs against WAR since DAY ONE. I mean COME ON, all it takes is a look at some of the more imbalanced times in DaoC or better yet Magtheradon EU in WoW to see how easily the pvp end of the game becomes one sided.

The first question I asked when I first heard of WAR was, "How are they going to adress faction balance."

Now finally somthing that they should have started tinkering with in ALPHA has finally made it in, lets hope it works.

Posted: Dec 17th 2009 1:10PM Kalex716 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
These things interest me the most about competitive facets of MMO's.

Isn't the nature of WAR, to ultimately beat the other side? Should everyone have the right to win? Does it have to be fair to be fun?

Does putting two equal sized teams in a map, with "bacon" in the middle emergent at all if the very nature of the game mechanics promote a meta sense of a pendulum swinging one way, then inevitably swinging back the other? Does it become too predictable?

The alternative is even more interesting, if you take away measures of control (like maps with clear goals, instanced off with fair numbers), you have two sides just trying to bring more numbers to the conflict to tip the odds in their favor. Or they naturally seek out moments/areas/mechanics of exploit etc to "win".

Do we idealize conflict in games, where that theirs a way we always wish it was, and then a way that it actually is? What is the difference between conflict, competition, and sport?

If you were making a game that banks heavily on PVP, and doesn't have very very consistent and strong philosophies on these dichotomies then you will have a flawed gameplay experience in my opinion. Enter Warhammer Online.

Posted: Dec 17th 2009 2:03PM Valentina said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think this is a good idea, now they just need to focus on making their PVE stronger and more immersive.

Posted: Dec 17th 2009 9:48PM Xii said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not going to happen. WAR is an RvR game, PvE is an afterthought.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2009 11:55PM Anatidae said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Funny thing about most PvP MMOs is that they reward the winners with better and better loot to make them more powerful - making it easier to win and harder and harder for the loosing side to catch up.

After playing Left for Dead 2 way too much the last few weeks, I love how every game is based on your personal growing skill - not a ton of gear.

This also reminds me of the early Ultima Online days. The PvP there was somewhat balanced (minus cheaters) because people lost their gear so often or it wore out and broke that almost everyone had pretty equal stuff. Although it is cool to get some crazy colored item that makes you godlike in PvP - I do wish that items in MMOs just wore out and always had to be replaced. That would help even the playing field a little.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW