rivalries -- only for sports?

A rivalry is basically a fun sort of feud. And is it ever fun!

We rarely see them outside of sports games, because a necessary condition is that victories and defeats are not final. A nemesis or archenemy is different from a rival in that a rival cannot be permanently defeated. Each time you defeat a rival, there's a chance that rival will be back one day to defeat you. Victories are only temporary.

In fact, for the rivalry to retain emotional gravity, the competitive balance must remain relatively even. If you know you're always going to win against the enemy, then there's little emotional investment in the game.

Another necessary element of rivalries is history. Pointing a player to another as his rival can add a bit of fun, but the emotional investment in that rivalry is meek compared to if the two players shared a history. The longer and more eventful the history, the more powerful that rivalry becomes... which is why I can't wait to see Bama roll over Auburn this year!


Mario vs Bowser can be called a rivalry in Mario Kart and Super Smash Brothers. I grew up on Nintendo consoles, so I knew those two had been locked in a never-ending battle for years. I still would not call that rivalry if the those characters met only in Mario adventure games, but the many competitive spin-offs have allowed Bowser to have his share of wins, too.

Even so, Bowser and Mario share a public history only (to my knowledge) in the adventure games. Their interactions in the competitive spin-offs are limited to personal histories. Mario always wins in the adventure games, no matter who's playing. Bowser's victories were seldom recorded and shared.

Notice that those Mario spin-offs in which a rivalry exists are, again, sports games.

Warhammer Online is a non-sport that includes rival factions. For long-time Warhammer IP fans, those rivalries have long and eventful histories, so they are powerful. But for players new to the IP, like me, WAR is like suddenly joining a centuries-old feud you know nothing about. Thankfully, the history there is a living history, seen in the game's environments and felt throughout gameplay. But the rivalries are still shallow in comparison to sports if you're new to the IP. And while sports have dozens of teams with many rivalries, WAR is limited to just three (not counting the broad Order vs Destruction).


So, considering all that, how can deep and lasting rivalries be included in non-sports games or developed over time among their players? How can that gap between sports and non-sports be better bridged?

classes vs roles (response to Warhammer news)

If you're interested in Warhammer Online at all, you've probably read about Mythic's decision to drop four classes before their imminent launch. I respect that they're willing to abandon or postpone so much content for the sake of quality, but I'm not sure yet if this specific move was a smart idea.

Questions arise only because they removed the tank of two factions and the barbarian (melee DPS) of two factions... while leaving other factions with both tanks and barbarians. Jacobs has said they don't expect a balance issue, despite the uneven role distribution. I think whether or not they're right depends on the fundamental nature of classes in Warhammer Online.

It's possible for the removal of classes (on one side but not the other) to not upset balance... but only if the classes are designed more in the style of Diablo 2 than in the style of typical MMOs.

• In a typical MMO, each class is designed primarily to fulfill a specific role in group combat. The class's efficiency outside a group or outside that specific role in the group is secondary and generally suffers in some way(s).
• In Diablo 2, on the other hand, each class is designed to be a damage-dealing powerhouse in itself, and any class can be tailored to a variety of roles in group combat. The specific skills, open skill selection and upgrade system, open stat selection, and mostly-open item system make this possible. Even the barbarian can be made into a ranged support role through skill and stat selection.

I prefer Diablo 2's system. There was no need to nerf one class and empower another after release, because every character is so unique and optimization is subjective in that game. Also, it's possible to have a very effective group comprised of any class combination... including all characters of one or two classes. Any choice can be both fun and efficient in that game.

I know that WAR is abandoning many ridiculous MMO traditions. And I know they want every class to be capable of soloing. So it's possible that Jacobs is right, and there's really not a severe balance issue caused by this recent move by Mythic. We'll just have to wait and see, right?

In any case, I recommend Diablo 2 as a model for anyone working on a skill or class system.