Battlegrounds vs. Scenarios

September 22, 2008 – 7:03 pm

So, I have honestly been thinking about disregarding this entire subject simply because I think that we may all be getting a bit tired of the typical comparisons between WoW and WAR. However, after giving it a lot of thought, I think that this subject is extremely applicable to both WoW, in general, and our very own Warhammer Online. After all, both are very similar in the basic gameplay design and both roughly follow the same fantasy design. So it should only make sense to compare their various PvP schema as well, right?

Before I begin, I want to go ahead an point out that, yes, I know Warhammer Online was built from the ground up with PvP in mind and that WoW was not. However, after being in existence for 4 years I think WoW has had more than enough time to catch up in that department and that any faults to their PvP “BG” (battlegrounds) systems are due to their own follies. So please, keep that in mind while reading the rest of my post.

As I am sure you may well know, Warhammer Online employs a BG-esque type of PvP called a “scenario.” These are designed in much the same way as WoW’s battlegrounds are, in that you are automatically assigned to a team and are given mission based objectives in a specific, closed off area. However, unlike WoW’s battlegrounds, WAR’s scenarios (from what I have experienced so far) actually make sense in a worldly sort of way. For example, WoW’s Warsong Gulch boils down to little more than just capture the flag, where as WAR’s first scenarios (Gates of Ekrund, Khaine’s Embrace, and Nordenwatch) throw you into a much more realistic battle for strategic points. Now I understand that WoW has Alterac Valley which works in much the same way, but if WAR’s first scenarios are reminiscent of some of WoW’s more advanced battlegrounds, one can only dream of what WAR’s later scenarios may hold, or what they may come up with in future expansions and updates.

Of course, that’s not to say that WoW’s BGs are terrible. I don’t want to make it sound like that. WoW employed a system that wasn’t seen until they built it into their game. However, as newer MMORPGs come out, the system that WoW made will only get expanded upon and I think we are already seeing that with WAR’s scenarios which already, in the early levels of the game, feel more fleshed out and better developed. Something that doesnt exactly spell out good tidings for the future of WoW’s sandboxed PvP.

Stay tuned for impressions of the T2 scenarios once I get there (Stonetroll Crossing, Mourkain’s Temple, and Phoenix Gate)!

Related Posts (auto-generated)

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Post tags: Geoff, opinions, RvR, Warhammer Online

10 Responses to “Battlegrounds vs. Scenarios”
I got to tell you, when I first started Warhammer I though I had just wasted $50. However, after experiencing their senarios and RvR content I realized that this is the game for me. I’m now giving myself the official Warhammer Fanboi title.

Yesterday when the WAR servers were down for maintenaince, err … This morning. Sorry I work nights and sleep during the day. This morning was yesterday for me. Anyways, while the servers were down I jumped into WoW since my subscription is still active and played some BG’s. They really felt dumbed down by comparison now.

WAAAGH!!!

By nerrollus on Sep 22, 2008
Erm was this just an anti-wow rant ? I was hoping to learn something about the 3 scenarios…

@ nerollus just return your box copy ..thats what i did…its works with out the cds

By Evrett on Sep 22, 2008
Realistic? LOL. WAR was prepared with RvR in mind and all we get is the same instanced bgs we had in WoW. Because levelling and renown farming is fastest in scenarios, EVERYONE and their mum plays them, which makes the so-called world-PvP dead. And after 10th bg it becomes a chore and a farming spot rather than anything close to realistic RvR…

Furtermore, the scenarios in WAR are plain ugly. I HATE the look of Khaine’s Embrace (it looks like a AD 1997 Quake map) and Stonetroll’s Crossing is pretty much in the same league.

By kuba on Sep 23, 2008
I have played WAR pretty extensively the past 4-5 days (since normal release).
I have been playing WoW since release too. At the current state of both games, I prefer WAR, despite the fact that its full of bugs (animation ending although spell is not cast, teleporting mobs, bad mount animations).

Since the above do not have to do with scenario or battlegrounds, I’ll focus on those now. I have been in the 1st and 2nd tier scenarios up to now.
The 2nd tier scenarios seem to be broken when people that have mounts join one side, while the other side does not.
Apart from that, WAR gives big incentives for inactivity in scenarios. One can go to a warcamp, take the scenario quest and scenario kill enemy players quest, enter the scenario, and idle there (or toggle autorun and run into a rock) and after 10minutes max, he will have gotten a minimum of 5k xp (1500[quest1] + 1500[quest2] + minimum 2K[realm loss in the scenario]) and 50silver. In the mean time he can cook, watch TV, take a bath, talk on the phone etc. At least in WoW you have an AFK timer, and if you leech in WSG you don’t take home anything (from a 3-0 loss).

Moving on, Blizzard can make good PvP content. It just that they have not really been interested in doing it up to now. Just remember how interesting WSG and AB was when they got released.
Also wait and see Lake Winterspring

By dimitris on Sep 23, 2008
this topic is not important as much….

tell us more about your squigy.

ive been checking the site daily to see updates, i just wanna see how ya goin as ya level and what ya think of the abilities your getting.
cheers

By Borr on Sep 23, 2008
I would equate the first tier scenarios in WAR more with WoWs Arathi Basin; capture strategic points on the map and increase the amount of resources being gathered. Not quite exactly the same, but pretty close.

By Ryver on Sep 23, 2008
I think you will be dissapointed once you reach tier 2 and see that they have many good ideas with poor exectution and poor ideas with poor execution.

STC is just a contest to see who can build the biggest zerg and keep the zerg together on the move. MT is just a contest to see who can grab the token and then run back to their own side the fastest so they can grave yard zerg the other realm.

Phoenix Gate at least has siege weapons to play with and requires you to attack and defend and involves some strategic play. Sadly, Elf lands are probably the least popular to play in.

Hopefully tier 3 is better.

By Centuri on Sep 23, 2008
@Borr - This was written by Goeff, not I. Don’t worry, I’ll have plenty of squig-talk coming your way, but the levels aren’t coming as quickly as they once were, so it may be 2-3 days between diary posts considering I only play 1-2 hours per night.

By Snafzg on Sep 23, 2008
“For example, WoW’s Warsong Gulch boils down to little more than just capture the flag, where as WAR’s first scenarios (Gates of Ekrund, Khaine’s Embrace, and Nordenwatch) throw you into a much more realistic battle for strategic points. Now I understand that WoW has Alterac Valley which works in much the same way, but if WAR’s first scenarios are reminiscent of some of WoW’s more advanced battlegrounds, one can only dream of what WAR’s later scenarios may hold, or what they may come up with in future expansions and updates.”

I think you’ll be wildly disappointed when you hit T2 scenarios, which are all a variation on the CTF mechanic. Not to mention all the T1 scenarios you mention are very similar to Arathi Basin - trying to make a point that they are much more ‘realistic’ is rather funny.

This is not to say I don’t like WAR’s scenarios. I like (and play them) a lot, but that’s precisely because they are a fresh variation of WoW’s mechanic. Just like WAR itself, I like that it’s very similar to WoW but it’s fresh content that is not WoW.

The real question, in my opinion, is : will WAR have the same end-game appeal as WoW did, to retain players for years? Remains to be seen - it’s very easy to get all blurry eyed and enthusiastic in the first days of launch, when everyone is leveling and there is new content to wade through - will it be the same 6 months after release? Remains to be seen.

By Tuncal on Sep 23, 2008
Overall, one big reason I like scenarios better is the terrain is interesting. WoW’s scenarios, even their newest one (Eye), have a very open field feel. The subtle hills, rock formation and other features (mudpits!) that present interesting tactical possibilities.

The Arathi Basin comparison in a comment above is fair as the mechanic is the same, but Arathi is so much more wide open and with 5 capture points, the fights just aren’t as intense.

I agree, though that your impression of the T2 scenario will be interesting to hear. I miss the T1 scenarios for sure.

There are a few problems with T2 scenarios. The mount issue was mentioned, but they do also lose that intense combat feel that the earlier ones had. Another I felt that there have been times I have been a lot more use than my teamates but they end up with more kills/renown. For example, I follow the carrier in Troll Country, using snares and knockdows to keep enemies off of them and allowing them to pacify the trolls. There’s no real reward for this.

Mourkain (sp?) Temple was good until the accepted strat became a bunker down scenario. Khaine’s embrace is ok but the way that flags can be captured feels a bit cheap. Troll Country feels a lot like football.

By AW on Sep 24, 2008