PVP:Yes | Distribution: | Retail Price:$49.99 | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:n/a
Desktop Client | System Req:
Global Agenda News - PvP Interview
Posted by Jon Wood on Aug 31, 2009 | 13 comments in our forums
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.
)
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.
Read the PvP Interview
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...