3 things Battlegrounds should borrow from SW:TOR's Warzones
by Michael Gray 
Feb 22nd 2012 at 3:00PM
Warzones offer a different game, different playstyle, and significant change of pace for a grizzled PvP veteran. While I could just go all mushy about my assault cannon, I'm more interested in the design aspects that really work well in Warzones. With that in mind, here are three things I think WoW should borrow from Warzones.
(And no, I'm not talking about Huttball here. Huttball is fun and all, but it's just a specific game. That'd be like saying "SW:TOR isn't good because of Alterac Valley." That's not particularly helpful, even if I do love scoring a goal through a sweet ball-passing chain. I'm talking about overall game dynamics.)
3. Minimal downtime
When you die in WoW's Battlegrounds, it could easily be several minutes before you're back in the action. Some of the Battleground strategy is even predicated on making death incredibly inconvenient for opposing players, so that's not a surprise.
But even in the games where inconvenient death isn't a specific factor, like Warsong Gulch, it takes a long time to get back into the action. Heck, you even mount up in the BGs to get back to fighting. You have to mount to get to the fight.
Not so in Warzones. You die, you instantly rez in a holding pit. Not quite the same as being in the fight, but at least you can buff before you get out of the gate. (Waiting to rez and then buff, as you do in WoW, further delays your time before the fight.) As soon as that holding pit opens up, you run to the fight. Running to the fight (or, I guess, your defense spot) takes like 10 seconds. You can barely finish buffing in WoW in that time.
This constant action in SW:TOR's PvP is perhaps its single greatest strength. When you're fighting in PvP, you are actively fighting. Not waiting as a dead ghost, not buffing, not mounting, not running across a huge open field. You're actually playing the game, actively engaging and moving.
This design aspect is a huge success for Warzone PvP, and it's one I hope we see mirrored in Mists of Pandaria.
2. Rewarding objectives
One of the SW:TOR Warzones is essentially Arathi Basin. Instead of accruing nebulous points, though, you're counting down to zero. Every base (cannon) you capture means the enemy points (armor) counts down faster. Get it? It's Arathi Basin, except cannons instead of Stables and armor instead of points. It's Arathi Basin.
Something bizarre happens in this Warzone. People get yelled at to get the hell off defense and go fight. Let me say that again: You sometimes have to get people to stop defending! I know, right? Why? Why does this happen?
SW:TOR has a medal system. Under the hood, you accrue invisible points for damage, healing, and being near defense targets. Accrue enough points, you get a medal. You get bonuses at the end of the match for having medals.
While WoW has tried to give defenders bonuses, it's never quite managed the trick. However, I really like this system of under-the-hood points that grant bonus honor to players at the end of Battleground. It encourages people to focus on objectives instead of HKs. (Did I mention there are no honor kills in SW:TOR? At least, none that I've seen yet.)
1. Smaller scale
Warzones in SW:TOR have 16 players, eight people on each team. We've already discussed that the Warzones are much smaller in scale than the Battlegrounds; you can reasonably run the entire distance on foot within a short period of time.
This smaller scale translates into a much more personal experience than the huge zergs of the Battlegrounds. Your personal performance plays a very direct role in your team's success. While you could argue that 5-man Arena matches are similar in WoW, those encounters are just last-man-standing PvP matches. They don't have diverse objectives and the same kind of dynamic game goals.
The smaller teams make a difference. You get to know your team members as well as your opponents. The names are familiar, especially since SW:TOR doesn't have cross-server matching. It's a much more personal kind of PvP, and it's one that helps build community. So my hat's off to SW:TOR for that aspect as well.
For that matter, the lack of enforced premade teams (via arena or ranked battlegrounds) forces the SW:TOR community to actually play with each other. Sure, you can queue as a group, but that's not the same as a separate, rostered fish bowl. The difference is obvious when you come back out of a Warzone and chat up your servermates. That power should not be underestimated.
I don't think you can blithely say whether PvP is better in one game or the other. But you can compare the two and come to rational reasons for having a preference. My personal jury's still out, but contrasting the games has been interesting.
Filed under: PvP
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Langis Langley Feb 22nd 2012 3:04PM
There's much good to borrow from TOR's PVP.
matt Feb 22nd 2012 3:24PM
much good there is to borrow in tor's pvp
ftfy
Titusx Feb 22nd 2012 4:00PM
To borrow much from pvp in tor is much good?
malaika Feb 22nd 2012 4:40PM
/Yoda voice
Much good to borrow in SW:TOR PvP there is.
Eirik Feb 23rd 2012 4:47AM
TOR PvP? The Onion Router? :)
exogenesis. Feb 22nd 2012 3:10PM
As I mentioned on the other thread, I think WoW should use some in-battleground narration.
I also would like to see the MVP system integrated. It's nice to be able to vote for the player you think contributed the most.
Kunikenwad! Feb 22nd 2012 3:13PM
Oh, this comment thread should be fun. /popcorn
For my 2 credits, I'll say that both WoW and TOR have a lot to learn from RIFT's Black Garden. Most fun I've ever had in PVP. TOR PVP ain't half bad; all the classes whine about the other classes, so that must be good. If everyone thinks every other class is OP, they must have done something right!
Oh, and nerf commandos.
Kuro Feb 22nd 2012 4:15PM
The best quote ever about MMO's :
"Cows go 'Moo!', Dogs go 'Woof!', mmorpg'ers go 'the PVP is unbalanced'."
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/5323-Star-Wars-The-Old-Republic
P.S. Nerf commandos.
Pyromelter Feb 22nd 2012 10:50PM
Black Garden is a form of pvp called Murderball, a quick search traces it's origins to an Unreal Tournament map. It's been utilized very well in rift, also in warhammer.
WoW is going to have a murderball battleground called "Valley Of Power," we don't know much about it, probably won't until open beta. So wow is also copying this - I have to agree too, this form of pvp is about as close to a straight out deathmatch as you get in MMO's, which is pretty fun if there is some decent class balance, but is really crappy and can get quickly out of hand if there is a skill/gear imbalance between the two teams. I'd say over 80% of the black gardens i was in was a blowout win for one side or the other.
Outcastelf Feb 22nd 2012 3:30PM
I love that STOR has a level sync for all the players. When you queue your skills and stats are buffed to the level of the highest level player in the game. If you join a warzone with a level 50 you will have level 50 stats in the game. since they have this system even though theres no cross-realm warzones you still have to wait less than you do in wow. Also the PvP quests in STOR dont reward winning they Reward you for playing. The first PvP quest you pick up tells you to complete a warzone. Regardless if you win or lose, you complete the quest just because you participated. Also i love the Flashpoints that STOR has. You actually know WHY your fighting the bosses in an Instance and what the results of you doing so are. STOR is much more Story oriented, I can't quest for long in WoW due to the fact that i don't feel like I'm being Incorporated into the story or quests like you are in STOR. If you haven't Tried STOR you should, it was well worth it to me but i still like wow.
littlelingos Feb 22nd 2012 3:45PM
I'm surprised the Bolster mechanic wasn't mentioned
Jebediah54 Feb 22nd 2012 4:12PM
From the limited sources that I have, I've heard that it's actually not that great. I'm sure the queue times are good, but there are two problems I see with the system right away.
1. There are some key abilities that make or break your PvP capabilities that you don't get until higher levels. Imagine a frost mage without Cone of Cold or Ice Lance, sure it's playable but it's not nearly the same.
2. Those that are higher levels will have much more experience with their class, so if you're on a team where the majority are, say, really level 10, it will cause an imbalance in skill.
I think it's an interesting idea, but really difficult to implement well.
Kaphik Feb 22nd 2012 7:18PM
@ Jebediah54
It actually is that great. Yes, there are many abilities and talents that a lower level character doesn't have, but they can be very effective in a warzone. And no one is yelling at the low levels to "GTFO my battleground" or any garbage like that.
brain314 Feb 22nd 2012 8:03PM
The bolster mechanic is pretty good. The only change Bioware made to it was to separate the group levels into 1-49, and 50's-only.
The only drawback to lowbies is the lack of skills gained as you level. But this isn't a huge problem as both sides suffer from this. In fact, I was in a game where a lowbie 14 agent topped the DPS chart. Honestly, the toughest part is from level 10-15ish because of the lack of skills, but by 15 or so, you should gain enough to carry your own weight during matches.
Natsumi Feb 23rd 2012 2:48AM
I went into a Warzone as a level 10 Sniper, got 30 KBs and didn't die a single time. You CAN do very well in a Warzone as a lowbie, even with a limited skill set and lack of talents, you just have to remember that it's a TEAM thing. I may have had the best KB/Death ratio, highest damage, and most medals, but I couldn't have done it without the rest of the team. The Healers healed, the Tanks protected, and the rest of us used CC and captured objectives. Winning was EASY.
Of course the next game was full of people that think because you're level 11 (I made hella exp that battle lol) you can't contribute and basically ran around like a bunch of idiots in an AB circle jerk where you lose 5 flags in 30 seconds because someone wants to blame everyone else and call them names.
Prelimar Feb 22nd 2012 3:43PM
i disagree entirely with (1) and (3). i personally like and use the downtime when i'm dead and waiting to rez to catch up on the raid chat, and to look at the map to figure out where to go next. it's valuable space for me. as for smaller BGs, forget it -- i love the epic, large-scale battles. obviously, i miss the Wintergrasp of old, too : (
Faith Trust Feb 22nd 2012 4:09PM
you have downtime in swtor as well, you are locked inside the spawn point waiting to come back into action, but you can buff up, look map and read chat while you are waiting, difference is no gy camping and when you get out you can sprint into fight instead of wasting more time buffing.
Misaochankun Feb 22nd 2012 3:49PM
I have to ask, is it Arathi Basin?
Kev Feb 22nd 2012 3:54PM
No, no, and no. This article is retarded.
1. Death should have a penalty. If killing the opposing team's healer only meant a 10 second downtime, then how are tanks supposed to die?
2. Overcrowded objectives is a sign that the designers don't know what they are doing. There should be only one objective: to win. Games are enriched when the strategies deepen, not when the objectives get conflated. You don't see anyone complaining about the lack of side quests in Go or Chess, but you do see myriads of people in swtor playing bgs in a style to maximize their number of medals earned instead of trying to win. It may be fun for the people doing it, but I doubt any of their teammates appreciate it. WoW already have some dodgy bg achievements, don't need any more.
3. Don't queue for AV if you don't want to. Just because SWTOR's screwed up engine can't handle multiplayer doesn't mean it should be illegal for anyone else to offer it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uT90g1-hJg
Not saying there is nothing WoW can learn from SWTOR (I'm thinking Huttball maybe?), but your ideas are retarded.
Micheal Feb 22nd 2012 3:58PM
100% agreed with your criticism of #1. Finally killing a healer in a BG only to have them right back in the action doesn't seem like it would be very pleasant.
#2 makes me think of current AV where the honor rewards are all that matter. A beautiful battleground with tons of side activities and everyone just pushes for the main and major reward, ignoring everything else.
#3, for sure, I like the large scale battles. That's what's fun. Seeing 40 people fighting on a bridge against 40 attackers is exciting and feels massively multiplayer. If I had to do 8 vs 8, I wouldn't be sure if I wasn't playing on an old dial-up connection with some of my friends.