PVP:Yes | Distribution: | Retail Price:$49.99 | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:n/a
Desktop Client | System Req:
Global Agenda Previews: Inside Beta: Conquest
In this final installment of Inside Beta for Global Agenda, MMORPG.com writer Bill Murphy gives us his take on the conquest aspect of the game.
By William Murphy on January 25, 2010
Global Agenda's free-to-play sections based entirely on PvE and PvP missions are reason enough for fans of FPS games to check the upcoming title out, but the real meat of the game's subscription model is centered entirely around what Hi-Rez calls Conquest. Only paying subscribers will have access to this part of Global Agenda, and it's obviously the portion of the game that's the most like other persistent online offerings.
It's one part RTS and one part FPS, where your Alliance (a cooperative group of Agencies) can claim different sections of the world in order to collect big on resources for crafting heavy hitting weaponry, modifications for your agents, and lots of other helpful tools. But holding onto the land you claim proves more difficult than it might sound, as during different points of the day other Alliances and Agencies can siege your sectors of the map and take ownership themselves. You'll have plenty of time to fight back and defend what's yours, but you'd better bring your "A"-game and teamwork to the battle. But how does it all work? Let me try to detail that process as best as I can:
Global Agenda doesn't have traditional zones that we're used to in our standard MMORPGs. In beta there have been three different "maps" that are divided into hexagonal zones, each one ripe to be claimed by different Alliances. Each map has active and inactive periods, so that all times of the day are covered. Once a map closes, it won't open again until the next day, so whoever owns the zone at the end of the open time can call it their own at the very least for a day. When you own a hexagon (or many depending on the strength of your Alliance), your Alliance can build different crafting facilities on it or defense buildings to aid in keeping the zone. Top-end weapons and other gear can be made through the use of these facilities, as well as modifications to enhance your agents.
Mining facilities allow you to gather resources for crafting, Labs allow you to research blueprints to build different items, and factories will combine the former two to actually craft the items and place them in your agency's shared inventory. It's important to note that there are certain hexagons on each map that are denoted "resource" hexagons. Building the appropriate facility on these will provide additional bonuses to that facility's output.
Aside from the regular hexagons and resource hexagons, each of the maps has its own area specified for a base. In order for your agency to control the base, you must also own the six hexagons surrounding the base, and once this is completed the base begins to add "shields" to all hexagons you control on the map. In order for competing alliances to open up your shielded regions for attack, they must build a missile silo to launch a strike on the base, thus bringing down the shield temporarily and allowing them to lay siege to your occupied territory.
This might make it seem like only the largest of Alliances will have a chance to dominate, but the attacking and defending is limited in my experience to parties (Strikeforces) of eight to ten players. Larger alliances certainly still have the advantage of being able to do more at any given time, but at least the fights for control will remain balanced in numbers.
In order to attack an occupied hexagon, there are certain requirements that must be met. Your alliance must own a dropship and a respawn beacon. Basic versions of these are available for a price from vendors in the Dome City, but more advanced versions can be crafted later on as well. Your alliance can then place a bid on an enemy hexagon, which costs a number of credits out of your shared bank, but hopefully smart agency and alliance managers will set a decent enough tax rate on their agents to fund these sort of ventures. Once your alliance places a bid, unless contested by another bid, the PvP mission for control of that territory will begin in five minutes.
;)
Something spiffy about dropships is that they allow you to carry certain cargo into battle with you. Siege vehicles, robotic mechs, and other advanced technologies can be brought into battle with you. But keep in mind that these items are destructible, and once they're blasted apart they're gone forever. This goes for respawn points as well. If you manage to find the enemy's, it's worth focusing on taking it out. Not only does it make it harder for them to return to battle, but it costs them funds as well.
The better your dropship, the more items you can carry with you into battle. So it's definitely in your agency and alliance's interest to save some credits and gather the resources necessary to upgrade your dropships. Defending agencies don't need to bring a dropship into battle (since they already own the land and have items stored there), but the option to do so is there should they want to bring extra goods onto the battlefield. Just be aware that your dropship is in harm's way whenever it's brought into battle.
As you can see from this outline, the Conquest mode of Global Agenda is a whole lot more involved than the basic PvP and PvE matches that fuel the free portion of the game. The ongoing conflict between agencies and alliances is what drives the subscription-based model of Global Agenda, and for the competitive and hardcore groups out there, it may well be worth your monthly funds to invest in Conquest. Each copy sold of Hi-Rez Studios' upcoming release has a free 30-day trial of the subscription package as in any other retail MMORPG, so you'll have plenty of time to decide if it's up your alley. With the funds coming in from subscription, the developer is planning on releasing bunches of new content every few months which I can only assume will mean new missions, new PvP matches, and plenty of enhancements to the Conquest system. At its core, Global Agenda is already a very enticing competitive game with truly addictive mechanics and gameplay. The Conquest mode only makes it more robust in its offerings, especially if you and your guildmates are keen on the idea of world domination.
Just a minor correction.
Dropships are not risked in a conflict, atleast not at this point.
They are a substantial time and resource investment.
I cite myself, and that I've been playing a LOT of AvA the last while.
Sounds good but not as good as Planetside was. Planetside was so much more open
good article, sorry if LP(CTC) is ruining the experience for you. We seem to be able to just take whatever we want.
Hopefully player skill/organization will pick up more when release hits.
The basic game is free to play and subscribing players get more plus subscription fees will fund updates that will come every few months sounds almost EXACTLY like Hellgate London's model.
Conquest mode sounds very interesting but a subscription fee for an objective map based first person shooter is risky. Charging a monthly fee for a game is only sorta like an MMO is risky business. FPS fans will be turned off by the monthly fee and MMO fans will be turned off by non MMO features(lack of content, non persistant world).
I mean, yeah, drop ships and mechs is neat but Section 8 for PC and Xbox 360 has that stuff as well. It doesnt have captureable maps but it also doesnt have a monthly fee.
Another "sorta like an MMO" that offered free to pay and bonuses to subscribers was Fury. So, remind me, what happened to Hellgate London and Fury?
Currently playing the open beta of this now... very addictive mechanics and game-play, matches are intense and have the potential to be extremely skillful. I'm worried about the lack of content however, and it's worth noting that the territorial war-fare resets every 45 days iirc, the lack of persistance here is a little disappointing. I haven't played the AvA yet, but i'm hoping for a lot from it , as there are only 30 instances to choose from otherwise. If you want a new MMO to put many many hours a week into this isn't the game, but if you just want to play a fun fast paced casual shooter, GA might be just for you =)
Afterthought: It's also worth emphasizing that there isn't a monthly fee to play everything but AvA, and the simple shooter matches are entertaining in their own right.
im getting just a little tired of these arguments: EVE has no instancing, PS has open world engagements, WoW has better PVE, etc. as a WHOLE, section 8 is not a very good game nor is it an MMO. you also fail to mention that Hellgate and Fury were not solid games overall. just because they have similar features, it does not mean GA will suffer the same fate. in fact, it wont because it's already more fun and has more content in beta than those games ever did
so if you like little pieces of a well-rounded game, play the other MMO's. but as a whole, GA has a little bit of everything, with most focus being on pvp. and as a whole it works well. obviously, if i wanna play just with mechs, i'll buy Mechwarrior 5 when it comes out.
GA is a game with MMO features, such as massive updates. so people will sub if they like the mix of things it offers.
im getting just a little tired of these arguments: EVE has no instancing, PS has open world engagements, WoW has better PVE, etc. as a WHOLE, section 8 is not a very good game nor is it an MMO. you also fail to mention that Hellgate and Fury were not solid games overall. just because they have similar features, it does not mean GA will suffer the same fate. in fact, it wont because it's already more fun and has more content in beta than those games ever did
so if you like little pieces of a well-rounded game, play the other MMO's. but as a whole, GA has a little bit of everything, with most focus being on pvp. and as a whole it works well. obviously, if i wanna play just with mechs, i'll buy Mechwarrior 5 when it comes out.
GA is a game with MMO features, such as massive updates. so people will sub if they like the mix of things it offers.
I'm getting a little tired of hearing these weak fanboi defenses as well. "MMO features, such as massive updates"... are you serious? You expect that to qualify a game as an MMO? There is a reason people are complaining about the weak amount of content for a subscription based game.
Does the game run like Borderlands where the basic non-sub game can be played offline or on LAN?
I'm getting a little tired of hearing these weak fanboi defenses as well. "MMO features, such as massive updates"... are you serious? You expect that to qualify a game as an MMO? There is a reason people are complaining about the weak amount of content for a subscription based game.
yeah and the reason is: it's beta, and people forgot what that actually means for MMO's.
im just stating facts. take the game for what it is. GA is the most complete MMO on release to date. all the big titles started off much much worse. what matters is having devs who listen to the fan base, and who have a vision for their product. reminds me a lot of EVE, and it will probably follow a similar growth pattern. game's not for everyone. but there is endless pvp and pve content (sure, at the moment without too much variation).
I would like to first congratulate you on using 2(two) of the defenses from the article "The List: 10 Defenses of MMO X". Well done.
Also, its a fact that GA is the most complete MMO on release to date? Didnt you just say that it was still in beta and that was one of its excuses for being content light?
Ok, its great that you are excited for the game but please post more rationally. Your wild statements and contradictions are not doing Global Agenda or Hi Rez Studios any favors.
There's no such thing as GA Fanboys, just people who aren't idiots. :p
Seriously though, the game is worth a look. It won't be everyone's cup of tea, there's no denying that. The Beta Forums have their far share of FPSer's posting 'Can we haz headshots? CS has headshots.' and MMOer's posting 'WOW has an Open World, why doesn't GA? '. These people certainly aren't wrong, but that's not what this game is. This is not a traditional FPS and this is not a traditional MMORPG. This is something else and rather different. However, the best way to describe something new is by comparing it to the old things to which it is most similar, hence we call GA an FPS/MMORPG hybrid.
People get stuck on the whole instancing aspect. That's fine but that isn't necessarily what makes an MMO. In GA, much like in EVE, you have the chance for a player-controlled economy, and an actual world (no, not an open one) that is affected by the actions of player-run organizations. GA is more like EVE Online or Darkfall than just about anything else you'll find. What you do actually matters. Someone mentioned that everything resets after 45 days; we have not been told exactly how long a zone will be open for. Honestly, the most important persistence will come from the relationships between player-run organizations (Agencies and Alliances), long-term friendships, rivalries will develop. There will be intrigue, drama, back-stabbing, etc.
I think that anyone coming from EVE (ok, maybe not anyone. Miners and Pirate maybe not, but definitely people who participated in fleet actions and the sovereignty system) will appreciate what Hi-Rez has created.
Anyhow, Conquest will be free until at least March 2nd so if you're in any way interested, buy the box (which lets you play match-made PVP and PVE forever) and check it out.
Also, I guarantee you cannot find a dev team more honest, receptive and responsive than Hi-Rez. Those people are just class.
Am I fanboy? I guess so, it's been a long time since I've enjoyed playing a game as much as GA (though I'd be happy to mention the things that I personally are wrong atm). It is by no means perfect, nothing is after all, but it's still awesome.
This game looks interesting, except that I don't think the monthly fee will fly. We saw how bad it went for other games that have tried this. This game is going to have to be a lot better if it is to be a success.
you dont need your ateam just a bunch of robotics
Why do so many people act like the monthly fee is mandatory? If you don't think the content offered by the fee is worth it, then don't pay it. You'll still be able to PVP and PVE with everyone. The game is shardless (including between EU and USA) and subs and non-subs can play all the PVE and PVP game-types together. If you later decide that AvA sounds awesome you can sub at that time.
Why do so many people act like the monthly fee is mandatory? If you don't think the content offered by the fee is worth it, then don't pay it. You'll still be able to PVP and PVE with everyone. The game is shardless (including between EU and USA) and subs and non-subs can play all the PVE and PVP game-types together. If you later decide that AvA sounds awesome you can sub at that time.
Just like with HG:L, people get irritated when any content is subscription locked in what already feels like a content-light game. It's like paying extra for 'extra' vs. paying extra for 'the rest of the game.'
youre being melodramatic. nothing im saying is wild or contradictory, youre just fumbling and reaching. every single MMO was light on content on release. GA is light, but in a better place than others were on release. by far. success of MMO's always depended on a strong, expandable set of core mechanics, and a good dev team with a vision yet not too proud to listen to their fans. GA has a very solid core that will support a huge amount of new content. AvA is one of those things...given the way it was designed, there will always be interesting pvp content. the pve formula is successful because it engages the player in the action (i,e. youre not spamming frostbolt while sitting in one spot, and encounters arent scripted but random)...so this is a solid core feature, which will be expanded on in terms of content. so you need to look at quality vs. quantity.
I want to comment on the persistant world part. When I first started to look into WoW, and saw the "persistant world" part, I was excited. Only to find out what it means: There is a world that will go on even after I logged out, but nothing ever changes! I cannot make my mark in this world.
What I initially was thinking what" persistant" means is that player can change the world, and those changes will stick, even after they log out. For example Shadowbane. That is the only game I can think of that I would label as a game with a true persistant AND open world. Players could built a city, and destroy cities. Every time you logged in the other day, the map could have totally changed. Cities gone, new ones built.
While GA doesn't have an open world, it is in my world in some aspects more "persistant" than other, "true" MMOs, like WoW, Warhammer Online, LotRO. Players can make their mark on the map, and it will stay, even after they log out (Well, as long as no one else takes it).
I really enjoy GA and I hope it’s a huge success.
The people comparing it to Hellgate, Tabula Rasa, etc are right about the similarities but I think it’s fair to say that just because one game is similar to another in terms of feature set, it doesn’t mean the experience of playing it is similar at all. To someone who doesn’t play many MMOs, games like WoW, AoC, WAR, Vanguard, LOTRO, etc are all very, very similar. Yet one has far more players than all the rest put together because - among other things - it’s overall gaming experience is extremely good.
The other issue some people site is that MMO gamers will be disappointed as the game is totally instanced and content-lite (at present) and FPS gamers won’t like the sub, emphasis on teamwork or the lack of headshots. I’d like to think that most people approach games (and everything in life) with a fairly open mind and judge a game for what it is. And for what it is, GA is very well done. Think outside the box; GA isn’t an MMO or an FPS in the traditional sense, regardless of who or what may claim otherwise. It’s a hybrid based around what Hi-Rez, myself and hopefully many other people find to be some of the best elements of both genres. So no, it’s not going to compete well in an FPS round-up or an MMO round-up and people expecting it to slot neatly into one of those genres may well be disappointed. Ultimately, I think many people will find it enormous fun and won’t care what label it comes under but gaming purists may find it hard to digest.
With regards to content, this is the one area of the game where I think everyone would like to see more. I may well be wrong - I don’t work in computer game development - but I’m guessing content, such as maps, instances, etc, is a lot easier to work on once the core game is polished. If that’s the case, then Hi-Rez have it fairly easy and should hopefully be able to pump out quality content quite quickly. I just hope this is their primary focus after release.
Aryas
This game looks super cool, but after a few recent mmos I have played I am not going to buy another one without a free trial till SWTOR comes out or the new Final Fantasy online. Sticking with world of warcraft till then.
I am liking GA ganeplay quite a lot - plays like TF2, but has Guild Wars concepts like differing class builds and equipment customization.
At this point however I am not totally convinced that AVA is worth the monthly fee. The territory conquest and gadgets are there, but the main draw is that it allows agency 10v10 play while the regular game only lets you take in a party of 4 vs usually randoms.
HiRez is basically charging people to play pre-selected team 10v10 which is somewhat suspect since there is a plethora of shooer type games, and Guild Wars, that allow this for free. If AvA was truly worth a monthly fee on its own, then they should allow team 8v8 or 10v10 as part of the free game. Its like playing Guild Wars or any other team based game, but only having access to true guild vs guild if you play a monthly fee.
I feel the free protion of the game while fun, is empty for comeptitive minded players and they are forced to sub or more likely move on to another game that offers competitive play for free. I would really like to see a Guild Wars like system where agencies can face each other in ranked matches and have a rating / rank based on wins and loses.
My other problem with AvA is that Hi Rez constantly talked about having non-zerg based combat that requires teamwork and skill, not mass numbers. While this is true of each individual conquest match, a huge alliance with hundreds of people is still necessary to have enough people attacking different hexes, but moreso available to defend an ever expanding territory that can be attacked by anyone.
You only need 10 to expand a territory, but once you have say 4 hexes, you need 40 to defend if each was attacked separately. Its almost worse than zerg based combat because not only do you need a massive zerg, but you also need every member of that zerg to be a skilled player. The system just doesn't promote team based skilled combat since the best team of 10 in the world will have a hard time holding onto more than a few territories unless they are have dozens and dozens of skilled allies.
In its current form AvA is certainly an imposing challenge, but for a game touting itself on competitive play it needs a guild wars like matched based ranking system to give individual agencies recognition. It also needs to to add 8v8 or 10v10 team matches as part of the free game to give competitive minded players something to play once they get tired of the random or 4 vs random matches. Most free team games have this feature, and without it GA will end up beng a shallow experience.
lol, I always find you somewhere Beo!
Good article!
We all hope the skill/organization picks up at release.
The game sounds interesting, and it is along the lines of what I think would be my perfect mmo (Tribes with RPG elements and Eve Online Sovereignty). But, what sounds like a lack of depth/content and an instanced instead of persistant world definitely turns me off. I guess I'll wait and see how this game pans out, or give in and get a console when Dust 514 comes out.
"youre being melodramatic. nothing im saying is wild or contradictory, youre just fumbling and reaching. every single MMO was light on content on release. GA is light, but in a better place than others were on release. by far."
How is GA in a "better place" compared to real MMOs at release? Quests aren't bugged? There aren't any quests. There isn't enough content for all the levels? You run the same maps over and over. End-game raiding or sieging isn't in or working? End-game plays like a match you play when you first enter the game. Classes are fairly balanced in PvP? Well I hope so, the game is entirely dependent on teams and there are 4 classes.
What is there is solid. If the entire game was non-sub then it would feel a little closer to being worth the $$ to Guild Wars. Bragging on the foundation compared to MMOs though is silly. It is a much simpler concept, and right now there isn't nearly as much to go wrong. Maybe it will change in the future, but you shouldn't be selling subscriptions based on what you hope the game will be down the road.
The real issue is that the game is ok for an fps but not mod-able like HLs/tfs are. So basicly, for just buying the game you are getting less than from tf or HL (as you can play with and against the same people often when you pick servers to frequent).
Now GA has this entire other side to it which makes it more mmoish and gives people objects to work for and thus play and enjoy it more. However, this cost a monthly fee. So the question is, is that monthly fee worth what you get for paying it. The answer seems to be NO. Why? Because while it adds more depth to the game it hardly offers anything more than what other fps offer for free. I Feel that if hi-rez whats this to work they should take a page from reagan and any Austrian economist and drop their monthly fee to $5-6 (as they are not offering much in the way of AvA) and i bet they would not only double the number of people playing but they may grow their player base over time , where as in 6months they will see a very large decrease in players as it stands currently. (very few are going to pay to play GA's AvA after this time because it offers fewer experiences after 6 months than other MMOrpgs do). But at $5-6, maybe even $7, many people could pay that easily even if they are getting a tad board with the game.
i'd love to have a look on the beta test ... no success with getting in :(
As it has been said, the gameplay is fun, good ideas/concepts, the classes play well off of each other.
AvA is not worth the monthly fee though, in this persons opinion. Not going to say why or whyt not, just saying it is NOT worth even 5.99 a month. Let alone 12.99 or whatever.
You would be better off waisting your money on planetside, even though not many people play that anymore, it still might be a better investment than GA.
Awww... Somebody got rolled by GS/CTC
Awww... Somebody got rolled by GS/CTC
Naw, I never really did. I did some mercenary work, and got rolled by whoever we were fighting. Just wasn't the game for me, I am more of a persistent world kind of guy, though I do enjoy the non-monthly fee stuff. The AvA just isn't worth 12.99 for me.
having fun completely depends on your agency, very very much like EVE. whenever i played that game without a good corp, i felt i was wasting my money. GA is the same thing. sure, EVE has a ton of recently added pve content that might make solo play worth the sub, but this wasnt the case about a year ago. remember that GA is a brand spankin new MMO, so naturally it will be a little thin in the content department. right now, there's enough content to make most people happy for at least a month or two without AvA, longer with it. but within 6 months, they'll have a ton of new content churned out.
I'm not yet convinced by the AvA subscription model they have yet but there is more than enough content to justify the purchase price and just play the free part for however long. GA would be my perfect game on the side. Quick to jump online straight into fast, fun pvp/pve while able to be played casually and not worry about not being competitive enough gear/level wise or falling behind friends.
Now if only someone would release my perfect mmo i'd be happy......
Ok, So I am going to pick this game up for the "free" portion.
It sounds good and I might go for the AvA, but I want a shooter that I can play and enjoy that doesn't take a lot of time that has RPG elements to it. Currently the shooters that have persistance to it are mostly item shop based(which sucks since they either have the items OP in the shop or make it difficult to keep pace/momentum in the F2P).
I just wanted to add, this game has given me the most fun i had in a looong time, and it covers more then just 1 game genre and i really like that, i am without doubt gonna pay monthly fee for this game.
I hope my posts weren't too misleading. I would suggest buying the game for the free aspect, it is a lot of fun!
But as I say and keep saying, 12.99 or whatever for the AvA isn't worth it to me. Unless they open up the maps for bigger battles, say 20 on 20 or 25v25. 10v10 is just too smallscale for me.
EVE, WWIIOL, PS.
Though PS not so much since after a while you realize the map changes so fast (in a matter of hours) that any gains from one evening pretty much never carried over to the next night.
EVE's Sovereignty system is the stuff of legends in MMOs. The implosion of BoB from a highly placed Goon turncoat rocked the entire EVE population for months afterwards.
WWIIOL had campaigns that lasted 2-6 weeks. Gains/losses from one night were certainly felt the next.
I kinda like the GA model, really. The above three had territory vulnerable 24/7. GA's hybrid model of areas being vulnerable during certain time frames means gains/losses from one night will carry to the next. It avoids the problem Planetside had.
As for the "Zerg" effect mentioned elsewhere (not you, dodge) I think that is a non-issue. The poster saw it as a problem that a group of 10 couldn't hold more than a hex or two of territory. It ignores the fact that the very same system is what allowed them to take that hex or two in the first place. Yes, multiple hexes require a larger force to defend. This, too, is a good thing. Having large swaths of the map held by a relative minority is not good for the game as a whole. I think they system will work fine. It allows small groups to have an impact on the map while allowing groups of all sizes to have an impact on the map in proportion to their size. Larger groups can have a larger impact on larger swaths of the map but individually sections they are equal.