Naysayers be damned: Gameloft has posted on the upcoming Order & Chaos (O&C) patch, despite the fact that most critics insisted that Gameloft’s lazy attitude on updating previous titles would negatively affect O&C. The bullets:

• New quests will be added in the last two high-level regions
• A server migration system will be implemented, allowing you to change your server
• The cost needed to teleport from one city to another will be adjusted
• The amount of money lost upon dying will be adjusted
• All cemeteries will become non-Player-versus-Player areas (non-PvP), meaning no player will be able to attack another one in a cemetery
• A teleport will be added in Greenmont
• Additional content and several bug fixes will also be implemented…

What this does is confirm that the game was pushed out the door without being fully done. That is to say, the lack of quests at certain levels was suspicious, in that it felt like Gameloft didn’t spend as much time on quest content as they could have, and just wanted the game out to start generating money. If the lack of quests in the mid-20 level range is any indication, the high-level tiers must be truly quest-sparse, which the update should address. Same is true for dungeons¹ and PvP.

Presumably, the server migration system will be RMT-based², and is of questionable worth; after starting our first character, we realized that the Goons were on another server, so we briefly considered re-rolling. Switching servers would be useful, but since guilds have a max capacity of 60 people, most people who’d use this feature would switch servers to play with a smaller group of friends, rather than switching to play with larger groups.

We wonder if the likelihood of cheaper transportation³ and less of a death penalty is any indication that Gameloft expects to make adequate money via other RMT, or if they’re afraid that the complaints about these things will drive off new players. The teleport hub in Greenmont is a logical addition, and it’s amazing that it wasn’t added already.

Overall, it’ll likely be a couple patches down the road before O&C feels like a complete MMO, if things beyond solo PvE are important to you. We’d start to get more enthused about dungeons if there were a parallel announcement about a good group-finding system, but there hasn’t been one as yet. The arenas don’t intrigue us too much, as we’re skeptical that they’ll work well given the small amount of abilities, specs, and classes the game offers. But at least Gameloft is trying, and they do still have a veritable lock on the genre right now on iOS.

Similar Posts:

• A bit more on Order & Chaos. – Questions about Order & Chaos (O&C) are still making the rounds, because the game’s features aren’t …
• RMT, and Order & Chaos. – The business model of Order & Chaos (O&C) is irking us a bit more now, and it might help us to have …
• Order & Chaos, initial impressions. – As a former World of Warcraft (WoW) gamer, we found ourselves intrigued when Order & Chaos (O&C) was…

Questions about Order & Chaos (O&C) are still making the rounds, because the game’s features aren’t documented well, and finding out more about the game is either a practice in raising your Googling skills, else based on in-game experience. For some, neither of these options is desirable. Since we’ve wasted time on both endeavors, we’ll happily regurgitate our findings, and correct some of our misunderstandings from our post two weeks ago.

The classes.

We pointed out earlier that we actually wanted O&C to invest in the Diku-genre, as it’s a solid starting point for a robust MMO scene on iOS. It turns out, however, that the holy triad concept is watered down in O&C, which in a way makes sense, since O&C is just watered-down WoW to begin with. What we mean here is that in games like WoW, aggo is a function of threat, which can be generated in a variety of ways. In O&C, threat is based purely on damage, which means that healers can freely spam spells, and DPS classes need to be aware that they will likely be expected to kill anything that runs towards them, or at minimum, tie it up until someone else does. This makes the defensive Warrior spec rather questionable, because while it helps keep a Warrior alive, it doesn’t really aid in herding mobs, and decreases the Warrior’s damage output.

We suppose that at end-game, and/or when Gameloft places further emphasis on team dynamics, that Warriors will be expected to hold adds, while the DPS classes help burn down main targets, but the lack of taunting, or threat mitigation via skills for DPS classes, means that Mage AoE abilities are basically too dangerous to use against difficult mobs. Since so much of the game is solo-friendly, like WoW, most Warriors are speccing offensively, and the rage-like generation that Warriors are capable of keeps them fighting with little downtime. Gear is pretty self-evident here, with a focus on strength and stamina. With the exception of maybe fighting over one-handed weapons with Rangers and military Monks, Warrior itemization should be easy, since Warriors are the only class that wear plate.

The same can be said for Rangers, whose specs basically determine whether they are ranged or melee capable¹. Ranged Rangers² specialize in slow, high-damage attacks, with crowd-control abilities keeping enemies distant so they hopefully die before getting in our face. Melee Rangers, on the other hand, mimic World of Warcraft’s Rogue class, which emphasizes stealth, fast dagger attacks, and some crowd-control to keep adds at bay until a primary target can be neutralized. The obvious downside to the Ranger is that it’s a pure DPS class, which means if more Diku-style encounters are to be added in the future, these classes will likely be a dime-a-dozen. Gear is all about agility, with melee Rangers likely looking for some stamina items as well. Since this is the only class that exclusively wears leather, itemization shouldn’t be a problem for the most part.

The Mage is pretty straightforward, with one tree focused on pure damage output (fire), and one with slightly less damage output (ice) but with arguably more utility. Both versions of the class are for ranged DPS play, so if played correctly, Mages, like non-melee Rangers, shouldn’t be getting hit much. Mages may fight over some cloth gear and weapons with healing Monks, but most leveling Monks should be military-specced anyway, so gearing up in a team shouldn’t cause too much heartache.

Monks are different than the aforementioned classes because the specs differ so much; healing Monks rely on Wisdom, while militant Monks require Strength and Stamina gear. The former is also ranged, while the latter is melee. The former is a great support class in teams, while the latter is more of a utility DPS class. Geared up correctly, a healing Monk should have adequate mana regeneration, such that downtime is minimal, but in our own experience pre-level 20, there’s a lot of eating food between fights to regenerate health and mana. Long-term, this is supposedly more of a problem with militant Monks, who blow through mana a lot quicker than their healing-focused counterparts. Still, the potential nice thing about the Monk is that you can spec for melee DPS, and as long as you have healing gear stashed away somewhere, you can probably get away with healing in a team without re-speccing³. Healing Monks are also incredibly boring to play, because they don’t have many combat abilities, and quickly get beaten in the face.

The world.

Travel is painfully slow, especially if you need to run back to a major city in order to upgrade skills. There’s a teleport system in place, but it’s arguably expensive, and doesn’t go everywhere you’d want it to. There are no mounts in the game yet, which is curious considering this would be a perfect use of RMT⁴. The main city starting out is not easily traversed, and it’s somewhat of a pain to run from one side to another; the main city needs to be redesigned to be less linear, and have vendors more easily accessible.

The auction house remains the most viable method for acquiring gold, especially considering that your character is docked money whenever she dies. At least one of the minor towns has a convenient-placed auction “vendor” near a chest, so you have a decent way to bid on and post items. It seems that raising the cash at early levels to afford skills, deaths, inventory upgrades, and the occasional purchase relies on the auction house or RMT. We hear that at later levels, there’s enough gold coming in from quests and mobs that this is less of an issue, but at earlier levels, expect to price gathered crafting materials competitively at auction in order to have reasonable spending money.

While Gameloft is known for being slow or simply unresponsive in getting game updates out, they seem to be committed to rolling out updates to O&C; some form of team-based Diku-style encounters for end-game seem planned, though it’s unclear if these will be instanced, or simply be world objectives. Currently, PvP is based on dueling or World-PvP at later levels, but a WoW-like arena system is also planned. The World-based PvP is complainant-prone, thanks to loss of gold after each death. This may be mitigated somewhat by better cash inflow at later levels, but we can see this being very annoying if it happens often.

The rest.

Crafting is actually useful, but an extremely long grind. Only smithing relies on items gathered from ore nodes around the world, as leather-working and tailoring are based on items collected from mobs. This means that ore is generally priced a bit cheaper on the auction house, while leather and cloth are less bountiful and more expensive. Expect to spend cash at the auction house for these items, unless you’re okay with farming low-level mobs for crafting supplies. We’re told that high-level crafting relies on RMT-derived items, which we’re not a fan of, but we don’t expect to get to that point anytime soon considering how much of a grind professions are.

O&C is a great way to get a WoW-like fix in a less complex package, and Gameloft has a lot of potential here to make huge waves with the game. However, updates will need to be iterative, and the business model needs to be tweaked to keep a dedicated player-base that won’t cry foul if RMT is required for success in-game; RMT should be a crutch at best, but not mandatory, especially on top of a subscription fee and up-front purchase.

We’re looking forward to how the game evolves, but with reports that the grind becomes unbearable at the later levels, we question whether Gameloft can get end-game updates out in time for more casual players to hit the level cap. Unless Gameloft gives level-60 characters something to do, World-PvP ganking will likely become more commonplace before people get bored of the game and move on. A proper end-game PvE and PvP experience will keep players around for longer, however, and with the iOS distribution model, expansions can be funded quickly and easily as time progresses. Gameloft had better lock this down now before another big player makes their entry into the iOS MMO arena.

Similar Posts:

• Upcoming Order & Chaos patch. – Naysayers be damned: [Gameloft has posted](http://onlinegames-forum.gameloft.com/index.php?topic=106…
• Order & Chaos, initial impressions. – As a former World of Warcraft (WoW) gamer, we found ourselves intrigued when Order & Chaos (O&C) was…
• RMT, and Order & Chaos. – The business model of Order & Chaos (O&C) is irking us a bit more now, and it might help us to have …

We’ve long held that the problem with most MMOGs is that they don’t offer up enough of a developed sandbox to capture the imaginations of a broader gaming audience who may not want a mere hack’n slash adventure. In other words, casual pursuits like thorough, in-depth crafting systems in lieu of adventuring were not concepts that most developers considered. So too, the idea of a robust roleplaying system for those who did not want to simply go out and kill things.

As it turns out, Blizzard managed to simplify even hack’n slash, by pushing the high of a constant item reward system, combined with a simplified skill-rotation algorithm, making World of Warcraft (WoW) appeal to the largest possible audience. To many, this is interpreted as WoW catering to the lowest-common-denominator. In this respect, focusing on more complex non-crafting pursuits was hardly necessary.

Syncaine suggests that MMOGs different from WoW (e.g. EVE, Darkfall) will never be able to attract the large player-base that WoW boasts, simply because the elements that would foster that attraction are the very same elements that would detract from these games being “true” virtual worlds. (For the purpose of this post, we think it’s a fair assessment to suggest that games with more sandbox-like qualities are a “truer” representation of an ideal virtual world, and so we’ll follow Syncaine’s lead here, even though WoW is a “virtual world” in a more abstract sense, too.)

Gamers at large want their avatars on a fairly level treadmill; too much of an incline for progression, and players will get frustrated and quit. But games like Darkfall and EVE are all about frustration because a big factor in their success is player-driven events. Only by avoiding the things about these games that make them popular among the niche audience can you avoid as much frustration as possible.

So maybe the issue is PvP, here: maybe sandbox MMOGs reliant on PvP cannot attract the type of audience WoW has, because progression is in great part limited by what other players let you do, and what they let you get away with. We can look at a game like Minecraft, for example, and say that yes, a robust, non-combat MMOG has the potential to obtain a pretty large audience, even one rivaling that of WoW.

But this presents another challenge: balancing combat vs non-combat professions. If we try to capture the elements that make games like Minecraft and, say, Farmville popular, then how do we balance that against the combat elements that other MMO gamers desire? In effect, developers will be building two games in one, and adding a strong degree of synchronicity such that interactions between the two remain meaningful for all involved, and no “true path” exists for the average player (i.e. investing one’s time exclusively in either path will not provide the majority of game benefits).

We can look at one aspect of this argument by analyzing MMOG crafting, which in most games is a part-time endeavor to be done alongside the chief objective, combat. Yet to capture a larger audience, say, including people who desire to chiefly craft, then perhaps there needs to be a cut-off point in which part-time crafting ceases to make sense, and to become a great crafter, a large skill and/or time investment becomes mandatory. In other words, if you want to “max-out” a crafting profession, then you can’t max-out a combat profession, and artisan crafters will require players who spend most of their game-time on crafting, rather than on combat (like traditional MMO gamers).

But what we now have is a deeper game with more paths for players to take, but it doesn’t alleviate the issue of combat itself, in which “hardcore” players want combat more akin to EVE and Darkfall, but more casual gamers want something like WoW. In a sense, we’re back at the PvE vs PvP argument.

Games like Warhammer Online have attempted a PvE/PvP experiment to surpass that in WoW, to questionable success. Mythic had the idea right, but perhaps the implementation is where the problem is. Returning to our initial issue, rather than offering a PvE game game like WoW and focusing on simplifying and expediting progress, nor focusing purely on the niche sandbox PvPers, what if we had a game with multiple paths for players to take, some dependent on PvE, and others on PvP, each with different “max” outcomes? Some characters would be PvP soldiers aiding their kingdom in Darkfall-esque battles, while others would focus primarily on collecting resources in PvE scenarios, which they could then provide crafters who made the majority of goods that all characters needed for their respective professions.

In this example, players could choose which role they fulfill in the game, but no role would ultimately be more important than any other, and while those who enjoy combat would be in it for the glory, other players may be in it for the cold, hard cash. Either way, end-game items would be obtainable by everyone, as their acquisition would primarily be a cash affair, as they’d be crafted items.

Syncaine may be half-right in his assertion. Developers should be creating the best-possible niche MMOGs, but if they have the resources and come upon a formula for developing true professional tiers in an MMOG that offer more than just combat, then by all means, go with it and see if you can capture an audience that may one day rival that of WoW.

But in the meantime, we’d be happy with a more accessible niche title, too.

Similar Posts:

• Most self-described “hardcore” PvP gamers are likely full of shit. – Scott Jennings makes a great point about why Darkfall won’t make it in the end: …people enjoy har…
• Artisan fishing. – I intended on posting a shoutout to my Twitter status about achieving Artisan-level fishing in World…
• World of Warcraft’s success is greatly because of luck. – One of the primary reasons that World of Warcraft (WoW) managed to make MMOGs mainstream is because…

We got rid of our World of Darkness (WoD) books a couple years ago; we stopped playing games in the WoD setting years before, and while we held onto our WoD library for sentimental reasons, the success of the revised (new) WoD pretty much made our library deprecated anyway. So when more and more rumours of a WoD-based massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) hit the blogosphere, we assumed (though hoped otherwise) that the game would be based on the new WoD setting. It wasn’t until we read developer Justin Achilli’s notes about what players wanted to see in the game that we were surprised; the WoD MMOG will be based on Vampire: the Masquerade (V:tM), which is a component of the old WoD (oWoD), rather on the new WoD’s Vampire: the Requiem setting.

At first thought, we’re disappointed that other WoD campaigns won’t be featured as player characters, but the scope of implementing that kind of game is extreme: just getting the scope for V:tM is more than enough for a developer to deal with. And it’s not like the game can’t feature werewolves, mages, wraiths, and changelings later.

Let’s focus a moment on what some players want, and that’s to capture the setting accurately. The one thing that would utterly ruin a V:tM-based game is if the server population were made up entirely of Kindred (vampires). In the oWoD, Kindred hide from humans for obvious reasons, despite manipulating them from behind the shadows. And there’s no reason this can’t be emulated online.

Visiting cities, and fealty to the Prince.

Let’s assume that every server represents a city and its surroundings. Going beyond that, you’d enter a different city, and thus connect to a different server. But straying away from your city should be risky, or at least not be obstacle-free. However the game decides it, be it via a particular system, developer-run characters, or simply sorted out by the players themselves, each city has a Prince, who rules the city and keeps tabs on all its supernatural denizens. When a player leaves their home city, they should feel like they’re in foreign territory; in the oWoD, Kindred laws require visitors to check in with their destination’s Prince, else are trespassing. An easy mechanic to handle this would be to require every Kindred character to check in with the Prince or his counsel. Only then will he be flagged as a guest (safe), and able to go about his business normally, whether that’s meeting with other characters or simply grinding through quests. If the visiting Kindred fails to check in, however, or his request to visit is denied, he is flagged as a trespasser, and everyone in the city is free to hunt him.

This does two things: one, it keeps Kindred populations down in most cities, and two, it introduces a controlled PvP atmosphere to the game, especially when you have to consider the masquerade.

Using minions, and not getting caught.

In the oWoD, Kindred don’t walk around in the sun because they’d burn. And they don’t walk around using their powers around regular people because they’d eventually get caught and… burn. The masquerade is basically the Kindred’s philosophy of fitting in: acting like a human around most people. If they don’t, they’re not only likely to be noticed by Hunters (humans who seek out and destroy the supernatural), but by other supernaturals as well.

So, we have a pretty contained system here: if the WoD MMOG has a day/night cycle, it means that free movement outside is impossible. Yes, Kindred can move around freely indoors, and maybe even get around the city via a subway, tunnels, et al. But either way, they’re limited in what they can do by day. So, limit players by how many Vampire characters they can play, but let them play several humans over time, maybe by letting them unlock human character slots as they progress through the game. These human characters would serve several purposes: ghouls, blood dolls, retainers, etc. Basically, characters that serve some purpose to the Kindred character, by supplying them with sustenance, or running daytime errands. And during the day, this can be useful; there’s no reason that these minions can’t grind quests on behalf of the Kindred character during the day, or, really, be the only ones who can do most daytime quests.

At night, when Kindred characters can roam city streets freely, there’s still the issue of the masquerade, and CCP merely needs to populate the streets, bars, clubs, et al with human non-player-characters (NPCs). Most such NPCs don’t need to be sophisticated: they’d walk around, dance, and do other banal activities. And if a Kindred character does something clearly supernatural around them, be it throwing a small car or turning into mist, then there should be repercussions. One, from other player characters in the vicinity (by immediately flagging the offending character), else by other NPCs in a Grand Theft Auto-style chase. This doesn’t have to be by lowly police officers who are called on scene, but by more supernatural peace-keepers: werewolves and mages, who themselves don’t want people stumbling upon the supernatural, and especially hate vampires.

These measures, too, will keep Kindred characters from becoming too comfortable out and about, making the WoD MMORPG a more elegant affair than the traditional hack’n slash MMORPG; Kindred characters need to be subtle around human characters, utilizing their minions effectively, and utilizing their powers only when desperately needed.

More EVE and less Warcraft.

Will CCP push elements of the irregular MMOG play-style associated with EVE, rather than focusing on “traditional” MMORPG elements embraced by games like World of Warcraft? We hope so, but in the end, it will likely be a blend of the two. Yet, a WoD MMOG has a lot of potential to break the mold, assuming it’s development team is willing to take the time to truly study the source material and understand what makes it different from typical hack’n slash roleplaying games. The end result probably won’t be a game that caters to the World of Warcraft crowd, but then again, neither is EVE, and only a fool would consider that to be unsuccessful.

Similar Posts:

• Firefly MMOG mimics the TV show: cancelled. – We’re not sure why people love Buffy so much, but it’s somehow made Josh Whedon a cult superstar. Wh…
• Increased XP shitty for legacy players. – Cameron Sorden at Random Battle pointed out how Blizzard’s decision to drastically alter the amount…
• Player attachment to characters a potential feature? – Much commentary has been made on the addictive components of MMOGs, particularly regarding the item …

Electronic Arts (EA) is already preparing the Command & Conquer (C&C) franchise for the future vehicle for software proliferation: digital distribution. Kotaku, meanwhile, says that some fans are skeptical:

News of the transition was sending fears of a Facebook-ized, watered-down C&C among some series fans.

And yet C&C always was watered down, offering little more than eye-candy to recent sequels. The good news is that EA CEO John Riccitiello hopes to change that, and bring more innovation to the real-time strategy (RTS) genre.

“…I have a shared vision that the RTS category is due for fundamental innovation and not just cooler graphics,” Riccitiello said. “We’ve gotten to the point where you can see the particles around individual grenade explosions inside rooms where windows fall apart. That was never what made RTS good. That was just sort of eye candy on top of a very traditional game mechanic. From when Red Alert and Starcraft sort of defined the genre, it hasn’t moved.”

While Riccitiello’s take on RTS games mirrors our own, his seniority is at question when he uses Red Alert and Starcraft as examples of genre-defining games. In reality, predecessors Command & Conquer (yes, the original), Warcraft, and Warcraft II, solidified the genre that Dune II built. And really, nothing fundamental has changed since then, either. And that portends danger for developers not willing to let go of the tried-and-true method of simple throwing a new unit or two at a player each level, while making them rebuild from scratch on a new map. The repetitive play is what kills the genre in one game alone, let alone when looking at new RTS games.

“Some of what Facebook does, in terms of letting you collectively experience things, have not been stitched together by the game industry in terms of lessons learned there. You start applying that thinking to a C&C franchise you get something pretty special.”

This is where Riccitiello’s price as CEO may be worth it, because at least Riccitiello is looking at some aspects of what make Facebook games, and MMOGs, so alluring. If RTS games are meant to illustrate a greater struggle, then the thousands of players participating in battlefield combat should be able to assist one another, participate in local battles, and change the tide of war one small step at a time. In many ways, this mirrors the idea of Warhammer Online’s Realm vs. Realm PvP scenario, but at a less granular level.

If there’s a clear disadvantage for one player to effectively handle a large army, compared to many players handling less units at a more focused level, then new aspects in RTS titles emerge: buildings alliances, strategies, and resource flows become important. And ultimately, the complexity of individual units can grow, because with less units, players have the ability to use more unit abilities in order to create battlefield synergy, whereas in purely single-player games, players must first be concerned with amassing large armies and rushing the enemy head-on.

Adopting certain key aspects of social and multiplayer games can be a good thing for the RTS genre, as long as it’s done right and with the intent to grow the genre “up,” rather than “out.” That is to say, adopting the wrong aspects of social games will result in a watered-down RTS experience that may be more accessible to non-gamers, but at the expense of the RTS faithful. Maintaining the complexity of strategy and risk-taking, however, and adding on top of this formula a perpetual battlefront that all players share, will only satiate RTS gamers more.

Similar Posts:

• I spent my weekend killing Nazis. – Strategy games based on World War II are a dime a dozen, which says something about the purchasing p…
• Review: Warzone 2100. – Until now, real-time strategy games have become rather bland. Not that they’re not fun anymore, but …
• Free Realms like Harry Potter – attracting adults? – We raise an eyebrow as commentary on Free Realms continues. Not because Free Realms is a poor idea, …

As I’m now in a prolonged struggle against the forces of The Alliance evil on multiple fronts, it’s become fantastically apparent that players with significantly more time allotted to grinding honour than myself are mysteriously without a clue as to how to win a Battleground (BG) in World of Warcraft (WoW), which all the more illustrates just how much time they have considering they’re spending three times as long to earn badges as anyone else.

In other words, even at the level 70 BG bracket, players in full epic PvP gear, who have undoubtedly played BG upon BG, are dumb as a brick when it comes to any semblance of strategy. Do these clowns enjoy losing? Or, as per my earlier post, are they more concerned with grinding honour than they are with earning badges? If the former, their inability to defend rather than be on the offensive is somewhat explanatory, else their idea of “defense” is horribly skewed as it relates to positioning.

In part, a solid defense is less about overt killing as it is intimidation and control. For example, in Arathi Basin (AB), nodes are successfully defended with a show of force; just as it can be useful to lure unsuspecting Horde into a an area with shadow-melded Night Elf defenders, a high population of defenders will keep would-be attackers moving onto another node.

Other BGs are even less combat-reliant. Take a look at Warsong Gulch (WG), in which a flag carrier is escorted by a number of flag defenders. When the opposing faction is trying to keep the flag from reaching the capping-area, they shouldn’t be trying to focus fire the entire opposition. Rather, crowd-control abilities should be used on everyone but the flag carrier, thus creating distance between she and her escorts. This distance is vital in focus-firing the flag carrier when no escorts are within range. Similarly, for the team defending the flag carrier, they ought be using crowd control abilities on the attacking force, in an effort to keep them away from the flag carrier, and the flag carrier should keep on moving in order to gain distance between herself and the attackers.

It’s uncanny how many times I’ve entered WG and wanted to defend the flag carrier, but all she does is engage in combat. I successfully Wyvern Stung one attacker, Scatter Shotted another, and was busy Wing Clipping a third, and my retarded flag-carrying teammate loses herself in bloodlust. Meanwhile, she could have gotten away.

This frustration is not unique. A good portion of all BG sessions are filled with idiots, and the occasional voice of reason drowned out by ad hominems from the former. Jokingly, I told one such voice of reason today that there should be a test to enter BGs such that some semblance of strategy would be inherent in every game.

In reality, BG mechanics simply need some tweaking. While Blizzard has begun doing just this, the changes don’t seem to be significant enough to prevent poor gameplay. Perhaps Blizzard should consider some of these changes:

1. In all BGs, honour earned from killing opposing players away from nodes/towers/flags is worth less than honour gained near BG objectives. Hopefully, this would reduce the combat mid-field in WG, on the roads in AB, and away from key objectives in Alterac Valley and Eye of the Storm.
2. Honour earned from killing players near nodes/towers/flags are worth more than normal honour from killing a player. In other words, players either gain above-average honour for proper positioning on the battlefield, or sub-par honour for poor positioning.
3. With the exception of honour gains, the losing team in a BG earns nothing. This would force the losing team to try hard, and displace many honour-farmers.
4. Winning teams gain more MoH than they do in normal BGs.

These are but a few basic changes that could be implemented to foster a degree of strategy that is missing from most BG instances. Even a simple change in the introduction of a BG, or hints placed on the loading screen such as “Fighting near nodes is a better defense than fighting on roads” might prompt even the daftest players from repeatedly making horrible strategy decisions.

Similar Posts:

• Welfare epics hardly welfare. – In late November, I complained about reaching end-game late compared to many World of Warcraft (WoW)…
• Blizzard loves PvE players more. – To all those who keep whining about Blizzard turning World of Warcraft (WoW) into a PvP game, I’ll v…
• Great potential for a zombie MMOG. – If it’s one thing nerds love, it’s pirates ninjas Warcraft zombies. There are zombie movies, board g…

Perhaps the pinnacle of online roleplaying is when organizational politics erupt into full-scale drama. When such occurs, the main problem isn’t the existence of drama, but rather the inability to keep that drama in-game. Sadly, it’s when out-of-character issues influence in-character politics that the real trouble begins.

In some ways, the demise of the Shadow Cartel offers an interesting look into just how poorly OOC/IC relations work, in that on a roleplaying server, the premise of an organization should be built on in-game practicality, yet in most all cases, the formation of guilds is actually built on totally OOC issues, like real-life friendships and extended acquaintances.

In essence, that’s the very thing that doomed the Shadow Cartel – a lack of understanding of what roleplaying means. Naturally, the lack of roleplaying-designated PvP servers was part of the cause, but the open recruitment process, and OOC-based invites, were primary in this dissolution.

In the end, the Shadow Cartel is only a memory now. The forums will be taken down soon to reflect this.

For those interested in a second take on a more RP-oriented guild, head on over to the best PVP-RP site for World of Warcraft, where we’re already talking about a very unique idea – the Dreadhorn Tribe.

Similar Posts:

• Playing in the shadows. – After much consideration, and a decision deeply stemmed from the realization that there is no time f…
• Watch the ‘hollow bleed. – While it’s occurred to me in the past, I’ve never stated it outright: coming up with witty news titl…
• Deadhorn – gaining rank. – The following is a general guide for gaining rank within the Tribe: Orphan to Youngling – Submit a c…