Global Agenda Catch-all

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gaming+nda+lifted Try that, then click on the pages of links. I could cut&paste a few dozen games that had their NDAs lifted prior to release. Its really a standard practice. Lifting the NDA prior to the Open Beta is also a standard practice. Not lifting it then is not a good sign.

*edit never mind.

Is it open beta or just for pre orders?

Just for pre-orders, sadly.

docbadwrench wrote:

sadly

Those of us in the open beta should have received an email asking a very few questions. Be sure to fill it out. Using the discussion in this thread, I included a number of things that I'm not completely happy with. Make your voice heard.

I may come off as something of a fanboy, but I have a lot of criticisms that have been echoed in this thread, so I let them know. Be sure to do the same.

And happy hunting to all of you.

I created a Gamers with Jobs - Global Agenda steam group. It is public at the moment so join away. Once we have some members I will make it private.

docbadwrench wrote:

Those of us in the open beta should have received an email asking a very few questions. Be sure to fill it out. Using the discussion in this thread, I included a number of things that I'm not completely happy with. Make your voice heard.

I may come off as something of a fanboy, but I have a lot of criticisms that have been echoed in this thread, so I let them know. Be sure to do the same.

And happy hunting to all of you.

Oh? Who was the sender of that so I can go hunting for it in my spam folder?

So far I am not very impressed. I am concerned that the talent trees give high level characters too much advantage. One of the nicest things about Planetside was that leveling only gave you more options, not more power. I'm reserving passing judgement until I have tried out Conquest mode, which seems to not be up whenever I log on.

Also wondering about the NDA during open beta, because there are things in the game that are very concerning to me. I guess I'm not supposed to go into details, so I won't. They're being very strict about screenshots, too, so it really does seem that there are things they don't want out in public.

BadKen wrote:

I'm reserving passing judgement until I have tried out Conquest mode, which seems to not be up whenever I log on.

It is up right now as a matter of fact.

Okay, now that I've played a game of Control, let me say this clearly so there is no misunderstanding:

[size=16][color=red]Global Agenda is nothing whatsoever like PlanetSide.[/color][/size]

The OP needs to be edited to reflect this fact. Anybody comparing this to PlanetSide never played PlanetSide.

Global Agenda is pretty much just a garden variety FPS with servers provided by the developer. The main difference between this and other FPS games is that in Global Agenda, you have to level up to use a wide variety of weapons and to survive a furball.

Calling it an MMO is misleading at best, deceptive advertising at worst.

I played Planetside since launch and I consider Global Agenda an MMO because there is (1) a persistent, global map that can be fought over, (2) it's an FPS, and (3) there are leveling mechanics.

I'm not sure how that doesn't make it an MMO, except that there isn't the sprawling open-world that we were used to. On that, I very much agree with your sentiment. I would frankly prefer the open-world of Planetside, but nobody's stepped up to the plate with a suitable upgrade of that idea.

I don't want to get bogged down into more tired semantics about "what is an MMO." For the record, I don't know any garden variety FPS's with such depth of character development or deep customization. I think the fact that it appears differently to so many of us speaks to its unique design.

That is chiefly why I still lump it into the MMO-space. This is certainly a perspective thing. While I may not agree with all your assertions, I thank you for the contribution.

There's nothing massive about the multiplayer in Global Agenda. It's a bunch of unconnected multiplayer FPS maps with some bookkeeping for who owns what. I really meant "garden variety FPS" in terms of gameplay--there's nothing new in the actual gameplay, though there are some interesting meta-game mechanics.

I just want it to be real clear to everyone that Global Agenda is not like Planetside. It is not balanced the same way as Planetside: experience ends up granting much more combat power in Global Agenda. Combat does not have the same feel as Planetside: you're never going to have the kind of experience in Global Agenda where you're in a small team of 10-20 defenders holding off literally hundreds of attackers. The gameplay is nothing like Planetside: Global Agenda matches are fairly standard FPS small map arena matches with fairly standard goals and victory conditions. They're nicely designed maps, but they're nothing you haven't seen before in a dozen other games.

That's much clearer. I agree with your assertion. The power balance (as I've experienced it) isn't nearly so skewed toward the WoW end (where if you have ten levels over a group, you can waste them), but it's also not completely toward the Planetside end (where there is literally no difference in hit points and weapon damage).

And yes, the fights aren't massive. That's certainly true. On those counts, you are completely correct. I appreciate the clarification.

BadKen wrote:

There's nothing massive about the multiplayer in Global Agenda. It's a bunch of unconnected multiplayer FPS maps with some bookkeeping for who owns what. I really meant "garden variety FPS" in terms of gameplay--there's nothing new in the actual gameplay, though there are some interesting meta-game mechanics.

I just want it to be real clear to everyone that Global Agenda is not like Planetside. It is not balanced the same way as Planetside: experience ends up granting much more combat power in Global Agenda. Combat does not have the same feel as Planetside: you're never going to have the kind of experience in Global Agenda where you're in a small team of 10-20 defenders holding off literally hundreds of attackers. The gameplay is nothing like Planetside: Global Agenda matches are fairly standard FPS small map arena matches with fairly standard goals and victory conditions. They're nicely designed maps, but they're nothing you haven't seen before in a dozen other games.

From reading and watching videos of the game, this was my understanding, but thanks for clarifying. I had a passing interest in this game lately, but being honest with myself, it's just not the game I want to play.

I'm confused BadKen has played control which is the non-subscription aspect of Global Agenda and is making assumptions how the subscription element will play - the two are different. Whether they play the same or not is to be seen - but as they have other nda aspects it will be different.

Tals

Is there anyway in the beta to experience anything outside of the small pvp battles and random generated pve battles? I'm only level 9 but I'd like to see what the game has for the future, heck I didn't even know there were vehicles until a loading screen said something about them in Conquest mode. How do I get into Conquest?

Elliottx wrote:

Is there anyway in the beta to experience anything outside of the small pvp battles and random generated pve battles? I'm only level 9 but I'd like to see what the game has for the future, heck I didn't even know there were vehicles until a loading screen said something about them in Conquest mode. How do I get into Conquest?

Conquest is being tested now, it is the AvA map that you can see by hitting Y and seeing the map.
You can bid to own bases, mines, and general territory. Or you can bid to attack them.
Right now then you are in a 10v10 map to take either defend it or take it over.

There is talk of larger scale AvA but I have not seen it yet.

I am a strike team leader for our Agency and have been running missions nightly either defending or attacking it is a ton of fun. But running a small group outside of an alliance it would be tough to break into.

Elliottx wrote:

Is there anyway in the beta to experience anything outside of the small pvp battles and random generated pve battles? I'm only level 9 but I'd like to see what the game has for the future, heck I didn't even know there were vehicles until a loading screen said something about them in Conquest mode. How do I get into Conquest?

The best way for you to experience AvA is by joining an Agency that participates in conquest. Outside of that, you would have to pay attention in local chat for people trying to form pub strike groups to attack territories. I see people asking around local chat for more people to form a strike group from time to time. However, even then, you're not going to see what Conquest 'can be'. Even now, the larger agencies don't have enough resource to really build anything worthwhile. So the battles play out as just simple Breach Mode (with a little bit more boost to the defenders).

Okay, so I thought I had played in a Conquest match yesterday, but it wasn't a Conquest match? I realize that's the subscription thing (agency vs agency combat), but I thought it would be easily accessible in the beta.

Now I'm confused.

If people are expected to subscribe to play Conquest, but the only way you can play Conquest is to be part of a powerful agency, that somewhat limits the appeal of Conquest, doesn't it? I mean, I'd want to just be able to jump in and use the cool stuff, especially if I'm paying monthly for it.

I would also expect that being part of the beta means that I would be beta testing the whole game, not everything except the subscription part. I'm certainly not going to subscribe until I knew what I was paying for.

EDIT: I don't want to give the wrong impression here--I don't hate this game. It's a perfectly cromulent FPS with a lot of nice features. I just have issues with it being called an MMO, and I want to make sure that nobody else is seduced by the lure of Planetside as I was. It was... disappointing.

In this interview on Ten Ton Hammer, GA Executive Producer Todd Harris answers a few of my questions:
* Agency vs. Agency matches are 10 vs. 10. The main difference from "mercenary" PVP matches is that you can choose all ten team members. Mercenary (non-subscriber) teams have only 4 members.
* The only type of game in Agency vs. Agency combat is "Breach" (3 linear control points, each adds capture time to the clock, all must be captured for the attacker to win).
* Conquest maps are larger than "mercenary" PVP maps, and do not have built-in spawn points. The type of map depends on the type of territory you're fighting over. Conquest maps also have other goodies and equipment you don't get in free PVP.

hehe well you want your coordinated battles without the coordination:) The whole agency aspect makes a lot of sense in that respect. Quite brave of the devs as well imho to open up most of the game but have a section only available by subscription - it has to be a pretty good section to pay the extra.

You can form a strikeforce and invite pubs to join in an attack I don't believe you have to be part of an agency

Tals

So what's the largest fight you can get into in Global Agenda? 10 vs 10?

BadKen wrote:

Okay, so I thought I had played in a Conquest match yesterday, but it wasn't a Conquest match? I realize that's the subscription thing (agency vs agency combat), but I thought it would be easily accessible in the beta.

Now I'm confused.

If people are expected to subscribe to play Conquest, but the only way you can play Conquest is to be part of a powerful agency, that somewhat limits the appeal of Conquest, doesn't it? I mean, I'd want to just be able to jump in and use the cool stuff, especially if I'm paying monthly for it.

I would also expect that being part of the beta means that I would be beta testing the whole game, not everything except the subscription part. I'm certainly not going to subscribe until I knew what I was paying for.

Conquest is being tested to everyone not just subscribers, in fact I am not aware of a way to subscribe. Also with purchase of the game everyone will have full access to all subscriber content for the first month.

To address the powerful agency thing, it appears that way right now in this beta because we are being limited to 1 of the AvA world maps. They have mentioned there are few more of those large maps but are not opening them up to consolidate everyone together to force as many concurrent battles as possible for stress testing.
Once the world unlocks I would figure that smaller agencies would be able to carve out their corner of the world with out the likes of CTC and BG taking over the entire map when everyone else goes to bed at night.

I am with you though that calling this an MMO is a bit (maybe a bit more then a bit) misleading. The hard part would be categorizing this game if not and MMOFPS.

What is encouraging is that last night after AvA testing HiRez employees contact myself and other strike team leaders in game to chat about our thought of the system and seemed very responsive to ideas and issues we brought up in the chat channel.

So these guys really appear to get it and I am trust them to continue to craft the game in a cool direction. It helps I enjoy where it is now, so in my opinion it can only get better. But I do see issues that bother others that at this time do not bug me.

Elliottx wrote:

So what's the largest fight you can get into in Global Agenda? 10 vs 10?

Right now this is true, but they brought up again they are working on releasing 40vs40 eventually but that wont be ready for launch.

Badken, don’t take this the wrong way, but don’t feel duped, Steam is offering full refunds right now on the pre-order a friend of mine didn’t enjoy the game either and got his refund right away from steam.

So from what I'm reading, this sounds pretty much like the Chromehounds setup, only with a subscription fee?

Farscry wrote:

So from what I'm reading, this sounds pretty much like the Chromehounds setup, only with a subscription fee? :D

Never played Chromehounds so if this comment should be met with fanboi rage consider this that

WiredAsylum wrote:

So these guys really appear to get it and I am trust them to continue to craft the game in a cool direction. It helps I enjoy where it is now, so in my opinion it can only get better. But I do see issues that bother others that at this time do not bug me.

I'm really enjoying the game right now. Outside of the Conquest stuff, the actual gameplay is a blast. The Conquest stuff can be frustrating right now, but I think it will be a lot better once the game is out of beta and launched and we don't have to deal with the constant restarts and resets of the map.

But I really wanted to highlight what Wired said above. I have never, let me repeat, NEVER seen a dev team that seems to really get how to run a beta like the way the HiRez guys do. They aren't afraid to tell off players who are acting like idiots (just read their forums), they have a very detailed plan of what/how to test and they are constantly in touch with the player base. We'll be in the middle of a Conquest match and something will go wrong (i.e. servers crash for the conquest map) and within minutes the dev team is sending global messages to the players letting them know what's up and what they are doing about it. We even had the leader of our Agency start talking to one of the HiRez developers asking him questions about the beta and what to expect. This dev team gets it!

A number of people who were leaders of teams got pulled into a chat channel to have a quick Q & A at about 2 am last night was pretty fun.

WiredAsylum wrote:
Farscry wrote:

So from what I'm reading, this sounds pretty much like the Chromehounds setup, only with a subscription fee? :D

Never played Chromehounds so if this comment should be met with fanboi rage consider this that

I'm being a little facetious. But seriously, the subscriber bonuses sound like content that would be integrated into the typical team-based shooter game, so I'm not seeing what the real motivation for a subscription is.

Farscry wrote:
WiredAsylum wrote:
Farscry wrote:

So from what I'm reading, this sounds pretty much like the Chromehounds setup, only with a subscription fee? :D

Never played Chromehounds so if this comment should be met with fanboi rage consider this that

I'm being a little facetious. But seriously, the subscriber bonuses sound like content that would be integrated into the typical team-based shooter game, so I'm not seeing what the real motivation for a subscription is.

Yeah I agree with you considering they just decided to add the free to play side, I assume they are not done fleshing out what you get for being a subscriber. They have mentioned a lot of possibilities and for some reason ignoring past dev teams Fing me in the past I have trust in these guys.

I'll certainly be watching with interest, though I'm really waiting for Planetside 2.