PVP:Yes | Distribution: | Retail Price:$49.99 | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:n/a
Desktop Client | System Req:
Global Agenda Interviews: PvP Interview
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood had the opportunity recently to ask a few questions of Global Agenda Executive Producer Todd Harris about the upcoming MMO's PvP system.
By Jon Wood on August 31, 2009
| MMORPG.com: | What is the primary focus of Global Agenda, PvE interactions or those based in PvP? |
| Todd Harris: | Global Agenda really offers three tracks of combat interaction: PvE, PvP, and AvA. In PvE your team is infiltrating facilities belonging to an oppressive NPC faction called the Commonwealth. In PvP you are joining a queue based on desired mission-style. You are then matched with and against other player agents so there are balanced teams of 10 mercenary agents per side. In AvA you are fighting on behalf of a specific player-created group called an agency. And you are participating in a massive meta-game to control land and resources involving hundreds of territory locations and tens of thousands of player agents. There are very real consequences to AvA because agencies gain or lose territory and other valuable resources based on match outcomes. At the same time our AvA Campaign is much more than a sequence of PvP battles. The Campaign does involve combat between pre-made teams but also resource allocation decisions, crafting and placement of high-tech security packages, politics, and occasionally betrayal. |
| MMORPG.com: | Will Global Agenda PvP be limited to arena and / or battlegrounds, or will there be an element of open world PvP as well? |
| Todd Harris: | Global Agenda offers PERSISTENT World PvP rather than Open World PvP and we see those as being very different. Global Agenda does not offer Open world PvP because in our experience that devolves into either zerging (overwhelming the other side simply by having more people online) or ganking (attacking players, and usually weaker players, without their consent). There are certainly players who want open world PvP but they will not find that sort of experience within Global Agenda. Instead, with our AvA campaigns, we offer players a Persistent world where player actions have real consequences. My victory in one hex location within the world can affect a neighbouring hex location. If I install a defensive security turret within an agency owned facility, a counter agency has to deal with that turret when they raid my location two days later. So, we considered Open World but chose balanced instances and a Persistent World instead. |
| MMORPG.com: | How is PvP beneficial to players? What rewards are available? |
| Todd Harris: | Global Agenda PvP does earn your character experience and credits, so players can choose to level entirely thru PvP or entirely thru PvE or a mixture of both. We offer many additional rewards via an achievement system and there are a set of optional achievement-based rewards for PvP contribution in addition to PvE contribution. AvA Campaign activity yields player rewards and/or agency rewards but the specifics are really up to each agency around what they want to maximize. |
| |
| MMORPG.com: | Will PvP be voluntary, or will all players have to engage in it at some point? |
| Todd Harris: | Global Agenda PvP is voluntary. Most of our current beta population is very engaged in PvP, but there are also a number of beta players who are strictly PvE. |
| MMORPG.com: | Will players of all levels be in combat together, or is the game designed to allow only players of similar level to do battle? |
| Todd Harris: | In our mercenary, queued PvP, players are grouped with and against players of similar level. Behind the scenes we have a matchmaking system that balances teams based on classes and player skill in addition to similar character level. However in AvA Campaigns, the current implementation allows all players to participate together regardless of character level. |
| MMORPG.com: | How does the integration of jet-packs change the PvP dynamic? |
| Todd Harris: | First off, it is important to clarify that our combat is based upon shooter mechanics and not tab-targeting mechanics. For example, players need to aim their reticules for ranged weapons vs. assisted or lock-on aiming. The player (collision cylinder) needs to be entirely behind cover to avoid enemy projectiles vs. a statistics-based cover system. This alone makes the PvP play very intense because you need to concern yourself with all the elements important to an FPS/TPS game (positioning, map knowledge, aiming and hitting your target, etc) AND all the elements important to an RPG game (maximizing your build per mission type, managing your cool-downs in heat of battle, working with complementary classes, etc). So, on top of all that we add jetpacks and make liberal use of vertical space in our combat areas to add a new dimension, literally, to combat. Fighting from rooftop to rooftop is tremendous fun! |
| |
| MMORPG.com: | Will Global Agenda PvP be based primarily on 1 v 1 encounters, or is it more of a group v group scenario? |
| Todd Harris: | Global Agenda is a team-based game and so our PvP is based primarily on group vs. group in objective-based missions, rather than 1 v 1 death matches. |
| MMORPG.com: | How does Global Agenda plan to interest more traditionally PvE style players in the game's PvP? |
| Todd Harris: | Well, many traditional PvE players really enjoy the Global Agenda PvE because of the setting variety - sci-fi instead of fantasy; and because of the more action oriented combat - true player aiming and projectile avoidance instead of tab-targeting. So, a set of Global Agenda players will be content to play only PvE and will have a great time with that content. Beyond that we do offer "safe PvP" areas such as the Virtual Reality Arena where players can taste and practice PvP with less risk of hearing 'learn 2 play n00b!' But fundamentally our intent is not to convert PvE players to PvP but rather to give everyone the experience of being part of a dynamic, player-driven world. Even PvE players will have visibility into the massive conflict between player-groups on the world Campaign map. And they will have ways to influence that conflict even if it is behind the scenes and never directly facing another player in battle. |
;)
;)
instanced pvp... I cant think of anything less entertaining, I mean sure its fun the first ten or twenty times but after awhile it gets really, really old.
You are most definitely incorrect. Instanced PvP allows for greater group coordination and strategy. A real team working together for a common gaol far out shines zerg raids and ganking. Just ask anyone who spent time in Guild Wars TA, HOH, or GvG. They wee all instanced and to date the best PvP experiences ever.
I'm interested in seeing how this all works out. I didn't make it into beta tho. Guess I'll have to wait until Friday night to try to get hands on at Dragon*Con. :)
Both open world and instance pvp have pros and cons. You can't just look at the negative of each. Yes instances get boring if not done right and yes open world pvp can get ganky and zergy if not done right. Neither is always bad. Its all about finding ways to work around those problems. Global Agenda, because they have chosen instances, need to make sure the game play does not get boring, that will be key. Guildwars had some of the best skill customization options of a game to date and no monthly fee so when you got board you could take a break.
If anything, zerg pvp gets boring and uninteresting fast because individuals can do little to turn the tide as numbers usually trump all. Set teams ensures that people and teams need actual skill to be successful competitively.
Sure open pvp can be fun, but for many it is ultimately unsatisfying because there is no way to tell who is the best beyond who has the most "pvp points" which mostly reflects playtime spent with the zerg.
If GA makes room for a variety of strategies and builds, and makes the interconnected zone system strategic and have cool effects, then I think they can avoid the stagnant instance issue since each round of play could actually mean something for the rest of the world and not just be the same thing over and over.
Yeah I agree but it has to be really good. Not being in beta, I have not idea how good the system is but I am pesmistic because of all the disappointing MMO of the last 2 years. I am sure they have executives and such who are saying the players are enjoying it release it soon. Meanwhile, once the players play the game for a month they will be burned out or simply yearning for more.
Agree withTekaelon & Nihilist: Open world PvP is messy and rarely fun, I much prefer instanced if the gameplay is good. Reviews make it sound like GA gameplay will hold up.
Glad to hear there's no zerg and still waiting on beta to check it out first hand.
Ya I am happy to hear about the instanced PVP, after almoast 10 months in war of nothing but zergs, I am ready for some non zerging fun. hopefully they make the pvp intergrated into the rest of the game that way it effects zones and buffs and defuffs. That would make the instanced PVP actually mean something and more enjoyable
Thats because you're being narrow minded and only thinking about other games that havent done it very well. Did you actually read the article or did you just switch off when you read the words "instanced pvp"? Try and visualise what they are talking about.
In Global Agenda each instanced battle takes place in a "hex" which is part of an overall map. What happens in each hex is PERSISTANT (the results of your actions stay in the gameworld after you leave) and the outcome of each battle has an effect on other adjacent hex's in the map. This sentence got me excited......
"If I install a defensive security turret within an agency owned facility, a counter agency has to deal with that turret when they raid my location two days later. So, we considered Open World but chose balanced instances and a Persistent World instead."
This means that although each battle will be instanced, your actions will actually matter. Its not gonna be like the scenarios in shitty WAR where each "match" has no effect on anything and are just a place to grind up levels. You will get to select the area of the map that you feel needs your help and then attempt to change the face of the map with the help of your agency.......and whatever you do in that part of the map remains there until opposing players do something about it.
This is meaningful pvp (about bloody time!) in which the developers are learning from the stupid mistakes of other failures (eg zerging & ganking). This is definately a step forward in my opinion as its what online gaming should be all about. Yes fighting "meaningless" battles in instanced pvp arenas does indeed get old in mmos......but thats NOT what this game is offering......which you would know if you bothered to read and absorb what they are saying in the article.
As those above have said, instanced PvP is not all bad. In Planetside, there was a prevelence towards zerging because of its total open world PvP. With the use of instanced PvP, the fights are more about skill rather than numbers. When you add in the persistent aspects of the game, each fight will matter in the greater scheme of things.
This was the complaint most of my friends had about Planetside. At the end of the day, nothing is gained and whatever accomplishments you may have made would evaporate overnight.
Persistence in GA means that your victories can be pointed at, defended and at the end of the "season" (like a RL sports season) successes will be rewarded.
Its A Great Game.
Yeah I agree but it has to be really good. Not being in beta, I have not idea how good the system is but I am pesmistic because of all the disappointing MMO of the last 2 years. I am sure they have executives and such who are saying the players are enjoying it release it soon. Meanwhile, once the players play the game for a month they will be burned out or simply yearning for more.
You know GA is self funded right? This is HiRez Studio's first game. They're going on the "When it's Ready" idea.
A prime example of someone that enjoys "zerg fest pvp games".
People can't grasp the fact that 300vs300 pvp is not balanced and never will be so they whine that a 12vs12 is stupid when actually its balanced and makes you have to cordinate a lot better with your team rather then spamming the same IWIN button that shoots long range Ice Bolts to get a killing blow.
If you don't like the fact a PvP game is balanced then stick to playing broken games like AoC and War.
I played early beta/aplha and it was fun, although all instanced. I played pretty reg. then I stop for ages and come back and the game is unplayable, really different and seemingly really more buggy which is was really wierd. just kept crashing...