PVP:Yes | Distribution: | Retail Price:$49.99 | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:n/a
Desktop Client | System Req:
Global Agenda Previews: The End Game: Exclusive Sneak Peek
Executive Producer Todd Harris gives us a sneak peek inside the Agency vs. Agency (AvA) PvP driven campaign that will be the end-game of this MMOFPS.
By Dana Massey on October 09, 2009
For months, Hi-Rez Studios has been quiet on what we can expect from the Global Agenda end game. Until now. We spoke to Executive Producer Todd Harris who gave us a taste of how their planned “Agency vs. Agency” (AvA) campaign end-game is going to work.
Unlike many competitors that organize players into pre-developed factions, Global Agenda lets player Agencies (their equivalent to guilds) drive the action in an end-game that evokes elements of everything from Counterstrike to EVE Online.
;)
Exclusive: AvA Action
“[We wanted] a gameplay style that would be more emergent, as far as the politics that come into play,” explained Harris. “We thoughts the community would enjoy the shifting alliances, diplomacy and backstabbing that come from that.”
At a high level, this end-game revolves around territory control, resource management and a dynamic, player driven war over that territory and those resources.
The game will feature a series of HEX Maps. These are collections of instances linked together in a group of roughly 100 or more per map. At the map level, players will be able to see which guild controls each area, what is in that area in terms of resources, and what structures await them.
There will be multiple HEX Maps for players and guilds to fight over, each with its own engagement rules. This largely divides players by how hardcore they want to be about the entire enterprise.
;)
Exclusive: AvA Action
For example, one map might have a daily window of eight hours in which enemies can attack new territory. Another map might just be open to attack for an hour a day. The idea being that players will self-select based on their own guild, the timezones they live in, when they generally play and how much time they want to put into the Agency vs. Agency meta-game.
The advantages to controlling territory are many for the guild. Harris wouldn’t go too deep into it, but generally they want guilds to fight to control specific building types, each of which will provide them with some kind of resources. How exactly this all works, he wouldn’t say, but he made it clear these are areas they’ll want.
;)
Exclusive: Robotics agent
protecting the spawn beacon
by buffing/repairing a turret
and a Recon sensor.
There are also strategic reasons to capture territory on behalf of your guild or alliance. For example, say an enemy guild is a few zones a head. You can parachute in during the open period and make an attack, but there are distinct disadvantages to going deep into enemy territory. On the other hand, if your guild/alliance controls the adjacent zones, there will be inherit advantages.
“Currently you can attack anywhere, but the way buffs stack up, you’re definitely at an advantage when you’re attacking from a supported position,” he said.
Each zone in the map is, as I mentioned, an individual instance. These are aimed at what they call a “Strike Force,” which is a group of about 8 to 12 people. To capture the average factory, lab or piece of territory, a StrikeForce is all that’s needed.
To initiate an attack, a Strike Force bids on the attack during the open window. This is to prevent one area from being constantly bombarded or a guild being forced to actually fend off multiple raids at the same time. Whoever has the highest bid (a money sink in the game) then enters the instance in a Strike Force vs. Strike Force PvP scenario.
;)
The defending Agency, who should be aware that their HEX Board is open to attack, gets a brief window to assemble a defense and then the 12 vs. 12 encounter begins. The winner of the encounter then takes control of the area.
There are also larger encounters. These are base raids. Guilds can control large bases that provide defensive advantages to adjacent hex tiles and a base of operations for their guild.
To take these on, an attacking guild needs to form a Raid Group. This is a collection of six Strike Forces, and a maximum of 60 players per side.
When the winning bid is accepted during the attack window, again the defending Agency gets some time to get players together. If they don’t have enough online, they can always recruit players from within their alliance, or turn to the game’s mercenary system.
The mercenary system is an extension on a traditional looking for group system. It allows individual players who have no stake on either side of the encounter to put themselves up for bid. They literally list that they’re looking to do some AvA and the Agencies can literally pay them to be on their team. True cutthroats, although exactly how much they’re paid, who decides and how bidding works, Harris wouldn’t yet share.
Once both sides are ready to go, they enter into a scenario that may be the first of its kind in an online game.
;)
“There are actually multiple instances involved that are linked together in real time and the raid leader is doing the coordination of that,” explained Harris.
Each team has one Raid Leader with six Strike Forces under their command. Each Strike Force has a leader as well. The Raid Leader has access to a map and can decide who is in each group, allocating resources to important encounters and moving personnel around to manager the entire raid. So, for example, if you decide one instance is a lost battle, you can stack up to 12 players in another, and cut that one down to the minimum eight. Currently, the Raid Leader also participates as an active gun on top of his other duties.
I know that there has been a lot of debate as to whether or not this game even qualifies as an "MMO", but all of that aside, this end-game PvP has the potential to be game changing... something very new, and very exciting.
/agree
More details needed but so far me likey AvA!
video or it didn't happen...=/
Really looking foward to this game.
Bits of information like the following get me excited.
"For example, if one Strike Force is out to take down a generator and they succeed, it might power down the automatic base weapons in the other five instances."
I just love this whole concept of the small battles contributing to larger picture. I mean it's nothing new, but looks like someone will finally get it done right.
On the downside, I just discovered my first negative of the game. I had no idea there would be some kind of "economy" in the game. I was hoping it would be more like Planetside...that is, no economy at all. I have no idea to what extent the bidding and monetary system is, but I just hope this will not become another game where you get eight thousand spam messages an hour in whispers, and global channels. Would totally ruin it for me. I just hope nothing can be traded.
Looks good in theory I hope the can execute this system to make it as fun as we can imagine it could be.
I am not sure if an instance game like this can really stir up the politics like Eve but we will see.
Hi guys.
From reading the comments I can see you all havnt gone over to globalagendagame.com to read the knowledge base so let me drop some knowledge on ya. I'll try to say as much as i can w/o breaking NDA.
There is no direct trading. Only AH.
We havnt tested AvA yet, but the battle we have tested is very unlike what you may be thinking. Its the best kind of addicting and challenging at the same time.
For those worrying about its being primarily instanced, don't be. If you look at a game like wow or planetside with their open evironments you will find that (as far as world pvp goes) there are hotspots and all that empty space between is just a time sink in travel. GA doesnt have that. Pick an area to fight in, and hit the action. Period.
Come on over to the forums, sign up. Get your learn on. It's really a great community to be a part of.
The company is going to have to have dedicated in-game guild leaders, because if they are expecting the players to foster any kind of community, they are doomed. Just my opinion.
Couldn't care less about the instances or not, just release this thing so I can play it.
Jesus bloody christ I do believe I just wet myself with excitement. This game sounds incredible! I was very much intrigued from stuff that I had read before but the level of world changing action that is being proposed by Hi-Rez Studios basicly.....ermm.....pisses all over the pvp gameplay that has been offered by every other mmo. If the game matches up to what these guys are describing then it will basicly make a laughing stock of its competitors. Hmmm well.....actually thats probably not quite true as I dont really think it will have much competition as no other game offers anything close to what these guys are aiming for.
Actually Epicor, AvA battles have been tested a lot. They've even done a handful of full on base raids.
Really looking forward to GA, nice to see an update. Finally a truly competitive game with great team based pvp.
With the launch of four big name titles turning a bit sour within the space of a year, you could hope people would be a little more level headed.
Yes the game looks very interesting, but reserve your judgment till you see the reviews and have played the game.
Whats described in this Agency vs. Agency struggle doesn't sound bad. Its just sounding like they haven't implemented it in code yet. Too many things aren't concretely described. Plus we know that the beta testers have only been testing the combat.
I'm highly interested in this game but even after reading this article, have many questions.
Actually Epicor, AvA battles have been tested a lot. They've even done a handful of full on base raids.
Yeah, prob shoulda been more specific by 'we' i meant beta testers. The alpha guys have tested this as i understand.
sounds killer! Saw this game at PAX and couldn't stop watching the combat (even if I wasn't playing). Wish they'd release more combat videos because there is so much interesting stuff going on in each map. and then i wanna play so i can build hatred for enemies and kick their ass mwwahahahaha
This is the future of MMO's? 12vs12? 60 man engagements? Instances?
That's it? That's a regular game with a metamap that, for some reason, is classified as an MMO. Man this is dissapointing.
[quote]"if you look at a game like wow or planetside with their open evironments you will find that (as far as world pvp goes) there are hotspots and all that empty space between is just a time sink in travel".[/quote]
Yeah all that "empty space" is what constitutes a world. It's what defines most MMO's. Without it, you have "maps", as in every other MP game ever made. And that is what Global Agenda is. A regular FPS with lesser graphics and a meta campaign. I hope there's no monthly fee to it.
Here is the FAQ question on it being an MMO.
Is Global Agenda a "real" MMO?
I've heard that Global Agenda has a lot of instancing and relatively small battles. Is the game a "real" MMO?
Answer
Global Agenda's unique fusion of shooter-based action, role-playing mechanics, and grand territorial strategy gameplay can make the game difficult to easily pigeonhole into a "classic" game genre. At Hi-Rez Studios, our number one objective is to bring a fresh, insanely fun game to market -- not necessarily to fit neatly into an existing category.
That said, however, the game has a broad set of features that MMO players have grown accustomed to and that are traditionally considered when discussing whether a game is a "true MMO."
These features include:
* Player vs Environment missions with boss fights
* Player vs Player missions with different objective types
* A large-scale, persistent territory control framework and Campaign
* Multiple character classes and subclasses
* Character leveling and progression
* Skill trees
* Social Hubs
* Achievements
* Loot with various qualities
* Blueprints and crafting
* Economy and auction system
* Gear upgrades
* Alliances and Agencies (our version of "guilds").
* Grouping systems (for easily teaming with other players for missiosn)
* Character customization and dyes
* Flair and seasonal items
* Alliance/Agency/Group/Side/Team text chat
* Integrated Voice Chat
* Thirty+ different major weapons/devices for each class
* Scores of character emotes
* A "Raid" system that is part of the campaign system that allows coordinated teams of up to 60 persons (working inside up to 6 different strike teams) to simultaneously raid the enemy, working toward a common raid objective.
* Single server-shard per major geographic region -- meaning you can communicate with and compete with/against tens of thousands of other players.
Here is the FAQ question on it being an MMO.
Is Global Agenda a "real" MMO?
I've heard that Global Agenda has a lot of instancing and relatively small battles. Is the game a "real" MMO?
Answer
Global Agenda's unique fusion of shooter-based action, role-playing mechanics, and grand territorial strategy gameplay can make the game difficult to easily pigeonhole into a "classic" game genre. At Hi-Rez Studios, our number one objective is to bring a fresh, insanely fun game to market -- not necessarily to fit neatly into an existing category.
That said, however, the game has a broad set of features that MMO players have grown accustomed to and that are traditionally considered when discussing whether a game is a "true MMO."
These features include:
* Player vs Environment missions with boss fights
* Player vs Player missions with different objective types
* A large-scale, persistent territory control framework and Campaign
* Multiple character classes and subclasses
* Character leveling and progression
* Skill trees
* Social Hubs
* Achievements
* Loot with various qualities
* Blueprints and crafting
* Economy and auction system
* Gear upgrades
* Alliances and Agencies (our version of "guilds").
* Grouping systems (for easily teaming with other players for missiosn)
* Character customization and dyes
* Flair and seasonal items
* Alliance/Agency/Group/Side/Team text chat
* Integrated Voice Chat
* Thirty+ different major weapons/devices for each class
* Scores of character emotes
* A "Raid" system that is part of the campaign system that allows coordinated teams of up to 60 persons (working inside up to 6 different strike teams) to simultaneously raid the enemy, working toward a common raid objective.
* Single server-shard per major geographic region -- meaning you can communicate with and compete with/against tens of thousands of other players.
That is literally PR talk for "no, this is not an MMO. But if we call it one, we get more attention and maybe we can even slip in additional payment methods as well!"
It's like Guild Wars but with a campaign map. Guild wars did not have a monthly fee. If this game is also F2P, I will most likely enjoy it. If they require 15 dollars/month or microtransactions for 12vs12 or instanced raids, then I will probably never look in the games direction ever again.
To be honest, it all comes down to how they handle payment.
For being an Indy game it's got the goods to compete on a certain level. Until you actual play it (not sure if you have) I wouldn't really debate the future of it. I won't go into detail, but GA is damn fun. No RMTs are planned, currently, if they were to pop into the game I'll split, want nothing to do with them. The game is worth a montly fee, the only thing I will tell you, is the game feels extremely polished.
I don't care if it's an MMO, FPS, 3rd person shooter, I could give a damn what they label it. But right now, its got my attention.
What he said.
Also, if it's on MMORPG.com, various MMOFPS sites, and MMO sites, then you better believe the industry considers it an MMO.
AvA looks sick. Its like EvE, yet not at the same time. I'm very excited about this game.
The amount of actual AVA full blown campaigns that has been tested in GA by the alpha testers and even the in house testers is not nearly enough, its very concerning and I hope to see A LOT more testing on this aspect of the game. This is definately something that needs to be heavily tested over and over and over because its the core to what will make GA a long term game or not.
The guy earlier who said this game needs dedicated in-game Guild Leaders to help foster the community is right on about this, its something that needs to be looked at very seriously.
Why should i stop playing Battlefield 2142 and start playing (and PAYING every month?!) this game instead? It dosnt make sence.
Sure, ill probably try it out a month or two, but i dont think i wanna pay every month for a regular FPS game with some MMO features tossed in for good measure. That would be kinda stupid when i can play games with better graphics and much better gameplay for free.
... unless the game rocks... then i will pay whatever to play it.
You guys are looking into it with such negative views and getting cought up with genre titles. You're setting yourselves up for disappointment because when you get your hands on the game you're just going to nitpick on stuff. You can't come into beta (where not even everything they have is active let alone even built yet) and say "NOT LIKE WOW IT'S NOT AN MMO!" That's like comparing a fetus to an olympic athlete.
This is the firts game HiRez will be pushing out the door. I don't really expect it to be a smooth ride out the gate, they don't expect that either. Global Agenda does have the potential like many other games did, but the difference here is the developers have the balls to do the right thing. If the community is level headed and supports the team, I think we might just like the result.
I went through VanGuard. I pre-ordered my CE of Age of Conan. I let Darkfall go. I know there are people out there that just don't believe in developers anymore. Just keep your eye on HiRez, I think if anyone is going to restore your faith it will be them.
I just got done reading Smed's blog about Planetside Next aka Planetside 2. I can see that there appears to be a superior product in the category of MMFPS and its Global Agenda.
do i have to do instances
is their a game world. can all my friends be in the same spot at the same time. do i have to do instances
do i have to do instances
is their a game world. can all my friends be in the same spot at the same time. do i have to do instances
You can all hang out in the city/HQ no problem. The actual combat is all instanced, but you can group up and all play together anyway.
The key difference and the reason we cover it and not BF2142, for example, is persistence. Yes, BF has added some persistence to characters, but take this end-game for example. The end-game has all sorts of persistence, MMO elements, even if the actual battles do not have 1000 people in them.
To me, that argument is a dated one. Sure, it is nice when you can have 1000 people in the same place, but to me it's more important that I could play with any of those 1000 people and we're all working towards persistent goals in the same world. No MMO lets 1000 actual characters run around in the exact same space without blowing up the server and client.
It's good to finally get to see the end-game. I think it's this feature that will serve to be the most interesting for players.
In Planetside the time it took to go from one base to another or from one continent/planet to another could mean huge fights errupting out in the open or running battles from one base to another and some of those were far better than the base fights themselves. Bridge battles in Planetside were some of the best.
What I am seeing in GA amounts to small battle maps like we see in Halo. Nothing wrong with that, if you like the small battle maps you'd find in such a game. I however like the large openess of a game like Planetside.
Can't wait for GA to come out!!
Seriously! How awesome would it be to be 1 of the best mercenaries! Just going around for the highest bidder (if they decide to do that) and be totally awesome! ... I wanna be that guy!
Guilds, actually fighting over who gets you and when they see the opponent got you, they just think.. oooh shite!
If that really happens I am SO there!
In Planetside the time it took to go from one base to another or from one continent/planet to another could mean huge fights errupting out in the open or running battles from one base to another and some of those were far better than the base fights themselves. Bridge battles in Planetside were some of the best.
What I am seeing in GA amounts to small battle maps like we see in Halo. Nothing wrong with that, if you like the small battle maps you'd find in such a game. I however like the large openess of a game like Planetside.
Except that what you're completely failing to acknowledge is that there is no game world in Halo. Each of those maps is a completely seperate mini-game, the outcome of which is totally meaningless. It is literally just a match and when a team wins it resets and the players just start another battle all over again. This is nothing like Global Agenda as it does have a persistent game world comprised of lots of zones and each of those battles means something.
The open world pvp in a game like Planetside is nice but it doesnt neccessarily make for a better game. It's simply a different approach. The problem with the open world approach is that it tries too hard to simulate realism and just ends up coming across as being silly. I dont like the way open world pvp plays out in games like Darkfall, WAR or Aion. You just get masses of immortal headless chickens zerging each other. They kill each other. They respawn. Two minutes later they run back. They die. They respawn. They run back. They die. They respawn. Eventually the only way to "defeat" your enemy is to make them give up through boredom or frustration.......usually by outnumbering them. Then when you do gain control of the keep or whatever you.....ermm.....stand around waiting for the next zerg mob to try and take it back or you run off at high speed to take the next one. I think we're all well aware of how craptastic the keep swapping was in WAR.
With the approach that Hi-Rez Studios are taking, the action will be focused and a lot more structured. You form a strike force and invade a particular place, knowing that you have specific objectives in mind because claiming those objectives will provide a strategic advantage elsewhere in the ongoing war. The enemy forms a team to defend. This = balanced meaningul PvP which = fun. They are waving goodbye to the mindless zerg bullshit and a good thing too.
I personally think Hi-Rez Studios will succeed where all the other open world pvp games have failed, simply because they are focusing on making their game play like a game while the other mmos tried too hard to provide a world simulation. Open world pvp is crap when all the participants are insta-regenerating immortals. Also it might be worth paying attention to the fact that there approach has never been done before. Sure we've all seen instanced PvP but not when each of those zones is part of a map which forms a persistent game world. In a sense its still open world pvp where the combat only takes place around meaningful objectives in a fair and fun way. I'm not sure about you but I play games to have fun and I find this new approach to online gaming being offered by Hi-Rez Studios to be pretty exciting.
I for one wouldn't say there is anything Massive about 16 v. 16. but who cares, as long as its fun. A poster a few pages ago made a good point, maybe MASSIVE pvp will never be fun -- it never has been -- so maybe GA has it right.
I for one am going to give it a try after it comes out... and maybe a couple months after so I miss all the mandatory new-MMORPG launch bugs that will crop up in the first 3 months.
If its awesome, great. If it sucks, ahhh well. I'm not getting my hopes up though. Damn MMO advertisers have got me excited too many times before - I'm not falling for that crap again. We will see it when it comes out.
I hope they make a believer out of me.