In my opinion big scale should be atleast 1000 players on ONE map/zone whatever.
If Planetside which is an FPS could pull of 400 players at once, a tab based game should atleast be able to do 1000.
Off course this won't happen since in my opinion we are moving backwards with regards to online gaming. And not only mmo but online pvp in general. (console 8 vs 8 nonsence while Battlefield 1942 TEN years ago already had 32 vs 32)
I also think 3 factions is better then two. Still far from perfect though. NPC's have no place in pvp.
I think we have to keep in mind PS2 is only doing pvp and big battles. They have more reasorces working on that, mmos have many other things to work on. So I give them a pass on that.
Well I don't. I was talking about PS1, not 2 and other companies had eight years to catch up to SOE regarding network code.
I misunderstood the title and OP then. So the thread is just about Faction Warfare?
I was a bit confused as well after reading comments. :P
As for faction warefare, the more factions the better in my opinion. I think the two faction design has been fully backed, and a little boring at this point. A three faction system adds a little more chaos, but only marginally so.
I know we're not discussing sandboxes, but what I do like in regards to factions and pvp is the ability for players to essentially define factions. And, mostly pvp revolves on the acquisition or sustaining of territor; giving something 'real' for players to battle for.
With respect to GW2, and SvS PvP, is I do hope the designers stea ... err borrow a lot from DAOC.
I also like the idea of player-created factions, especially if they are allowed to define some of the faction (class/race restriction, ARAC, region of control, diety/government, titles, etc)
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). ...
Funny, this genre.
There we had 300 vs. 300 battles in DAoC 10 years ago and today a 50 vs. 50 counts as "Big Scale PvP". Funny. Or maybe rather sad?
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
Well...it's basically impossible to completely balance large scale PvP fully. It's really just a matter of how close you can get to that goal or not, but since it's such a moving target that's the best you can hope for.
In this regard I think 3 factions is the best way to do this, even though it's not a perfect solution either. Having everything on one server would also help, but again, not a perfect solution. A couple things are abscent from this discussion that I think are extremely important.
1) Incentive. Having balanced incentives on all sides is what really makes or breaks PvP. They also have to be good incentives, and feel forth doing. This is where I feel DAoC and GW2 are doing things right. Incentives not only keep people PvPing, but they also help breed rivalry, as it sparks competition.
2) Population Balancers. This isn't something you generally see, but is something that is very important. For example, GW2 has siege weapons that allow a small force to take down a much larger one fairly quickly. They aren't free, but can be used as needed when things go badly. In most games, if you're side is outnumbered, it becomes either a mass rage quit or a game of hide & seek until you get more players. This again makes PvP go stale, and ultimately people stop doing it.
3) Time zones. Again, not something that is really discussed. I don't know of any game that has really tried to balance for this. However, all of us that have played a lot of MMO PvP should know the situation I'm talking about. It's when one side waits for the other to log off, and then takes over all their stuff. It basically feeds into population imbalance.
- As you kinda pointed out in the OP, no system is perfect. No system will ever be perfect. I think this is one of those hard facts certain MMO fans are going to have to learn. Every big design choice is a trade off. Think of it almost like a rubix cube. Every choice you make gives you a benefit at the cost of something else, until eventually you (hopefully) have the right fit of colors.
Agreed. Time zones specifically didn't even cross my mind and it can be very important. Kind of made me a bit worried about GW2s WvW, since its server vs server. I doubt anet will just match same timezone servers togeter because the pool of servers might be too small then.
Population balance is the biggest problems with having pvp restricted to be per server.
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). ...
Funny, this genre.
There we had 300 vs. 300 battles in DAoC 10 years ago and today a 50 vs. 50 counts as "Big Scale PvP". Funny. Or maybe rather sad?
Lets be honest, 50, 300, 500, 1 million. You wont really notice much difference. You are always in a microcosm of the battle and wont really notice a difference past a certain number of players. I know it adds to the feeling of massive scale to know there are that many people but you really wont even see most of them. Besides, numbers are irrelevant to the discussion.
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). This means battlegrounds/arenas don't count neither does open world sandbox pvp. Again, I am not defining what "Big Scale PvP" means Im just establishing what it means for the purposes of this discussion. Keep in mind, I havent played many of the old school games so you guys can keep me in check.
Lets start by detailing the current implementations:
2 Factions: This can be seen in games like WAR and TOR, were two factions pit against each other.
3 Factions, 1 of them is NPC: We have seen this in Aion, were there are two player factions and a third NPC faction.
3 Factions: Yes its DAOC, TESO, TSW. 3 player factions going against each other.
3 Servers: GW2 is the only I know of that uses this setup. 3 servers go up against each other.
If anyone feels I left any style of pvp out please let me know. With that said I want to examine what we have. Lets start from the beggining:
2 Factions
2 faction pvp might be the least desirable. In paper it seems fine but there are two problems with the implementation. One is that its per server. This means that you will see many servers were one side is always beating up the other, which takes us to the other downfall. The fact that its just two factions. If one is too good then you run into very big problems because you basically end up with a bad apple server.
Not to say this could be done better though. For example, most sports are played by two "entities". How do you keep a balance? by rankings and matchups. There will always be bad and good teams you just have to balance them. WIth current day setup this is not possible since it all lives in one server.
3 Faction, 1 of them is NPC
This is a noble attempt at fixing the 2 faciton problem. Bring in an NPC faction into the mix. Unfortunately this shares some problems as well. One is that your NPC factions AI has to be really really good. You don't want them beign useless or overpowering, but just the right mix. Two is that you lose the sense of pvp when one of the factions is not player made. It can for some cheapen the experience.
3 Faction
3 faction pvp looks to aliviate the problems we see with 2 faction pvp by introducint a 3rd faction. Here you have more balance since you expect that a super power faction can be countered by two others. One problem is still is that its per server. You can still see servers were it will be a ghost town or just one side can be way too overpowering.
It does bring a good bit of meta game since factions can create alliences and mix up things a bit with a bit of drama.
3 Servers
This looks to model more after arena based pvp. Have servers battle against each other and rotate them and try to match them agaisnt good competition. This too has big problems. One is that you need a big population in order to keep the system working well. Another is that it can break the sense of animosity and rivalry that is constantly present when the pvp is in the same server. There can still be rivalries, but in a different way.
So, that is what I think of the different "Big Scale PvP" setups. What do you think? How viable is a 4 faction pvp or more? would it be better if all types of pvp were server vs server based instead of per server?What do you think are the pros and cons of these and others and what do you think would be a better approach?
So basically you just wanted to hear yourself talk. DaOC and Planetside nailed pvp...why? you ask, check em out and you tell me, but when I think of great PvP (non open world sand box, yadd yadda BS you put out) I think of those 2 games. I played both and both in my opinion have not been followed to any degree of success worth mentioning.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). This means battlegrounds/arenas don't count neither does open world sandbox pvp. Again, I am not defining what "Big Scale PvP" means Im just establishing what it means for the purposes of this discussion. Keep in mind, I havent played many of the old school games so you guys can keep me in check.
Lets start by detailing the current implementations:
2 Factions: This can be seen in games like WAR and TOR, were two factions pit against each other.
3 Factions, 1 of them is NPC: We have seen this in Aion, were there are two player factions and a third NPC faction.
3 Factions: Yes its DAOC, TESO, TSW. 3 player factions going against each other.
3 Servers: GW2 is the only I know of that uses this setup. 3 servers go up against each other.
If anyone feels I left any style of pvp out please let me know. With that said I want to examine what we have. Lets start from the beggining:
2 Factions
2 faction pvp might be the least desirable. In paper it seems fine but there are two problems with the implementation. One is that its per server. This means that you will see many servers were one side is always beating up the other, which takes us to the other downfall. The fact that its just two factions. If one is too good then you run into very big problems because you basically end up with a bad apple server.
Not to say this could be done better though. For example, most sports are played by two "entities". How do you keep a balance? by rankings and matchups. There will always be bad and good teams you just have to balance them. WIth current day setup this is not possible since it all lives in one server.
3 Faction, 1 of them is NPC
This is a noble attempt at fixing the 2 faciton problem. Bring in an NPC faction into the mix. Unfortunately this shares some problems as well. One is that your NPC factions AI has to be really really good. You don't want them beign useless or overpowering, but just the right mix. Two is that you lose the sense of pvp when one of the factions is not player made. It can for some cheapen the experience.
3 Faction
3 faction pvp looks to aliviate the problems we see with 2 faction pvp by introducint a 3rd faction. Here you have more balance since you expect that a super power faction can be countered by two others. One problem is still is that its per server. You can still see servers were it will be a ghost town or just one side can be way too overpowering.
It does bring a good bit of meta game since factions can create alliences and mix up things a bit with a bit of drama.
3 Servers
This looks to model more after arena based pvp. Have servers battle against each other and rotate them and try to match them agaisnt good competition. This too has big problems. One is that you need a big population in order to keep the system working well. Another is that it can break the sense of animosity and rivalry that is constantly present when the pvp is in the same server. There can still be rivalries, but in a different way.
So, that is what I think of the different "Big Scale PvP" setups. What do you think? How viable is a 4 faction pvp or more? would it be better if all types of pvp were server vs server based instead of per server?What do you think are the pros and cons of these and others and what do you think would be a better approach?
So basically you just wanted to hear yourself talk. DaOC and Planetside nailed pvp...why? you ask, check em out and you tell me, but when I think of great PvP (non open world sand box, yadd yadda BS you put out) I think of those 2 games. I played both and both in my opinion have not been followed to any degree of success worth mentioning.
Im not asking which games are the best at pvp.......but thanks for your VALUABLE feedback
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). ...
Funny, this genre.
There we had 300 vs. 300 battles in DAoC 10 years ago and today a 50 vs. 50 counts as "Big Scale PvP". Funny. Or maybe rather sad?
My first major battle in DAoC is one of the few moments that truly wow'd me in MMOs. It was 300 or so people (number from reading the posts afterwards) on the battlefield and it blew my mind that this was actually happening. For me, Shadowbane was the next MMO that delivered on large scale PVP. In EVE, a 300-player battle is a daily thing these days, but EVE is the extreme exception in this case, which is disenchanting. I was hoping by now we'd have stuff like this in our MMOs.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). ...
Funny, this genre.
There we had 300 vs. 300 battles in DAoC 10 years ago and today a 50 vs. 50 counts as "Big Scale PvP". Funny. Or maybe rather sad?
My first major battle in DAoC is one of the few moments that truly wow'd me in MMOs. It was 300 or so people (number from reading the posts afterwards) on the battlefield and it blew my mind that this was actually happening. For me, Shadowbane was the next MMO that delivered on large scale PVP. In EVE, a 300-player battle is a daily thing these days, but EVE is the extreme exception in this case, which is disenchanting. I was hoping by now we'd have stuff like this in our MMOs.
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). ...
Funny, this genre.
There we had 300 vs. 300 battles in DAoC 10 years ago and today a 50 vs. 50 counts as "Big Scale PvP". Funny. Or maybe rather sad?
Lets be honest, 50, 300, 500, 1 million. You wont really notice much difference. You are always in a microcosm of the battle and wont really notice a difference past a certain number of players. I know it adds to the feeling of massive scale to know there are that many people but you really wont even see most of them. Besides, numbers are irrelevant to the discussion.
I 100% disagree with this. 50 vs 50 is completely different then 300 vs 300. Atleast if the designers designed the game and maps to take benefit of this fact.
Planetside again as an example. If I was in a group of 20 players defending a base against 20-30 enemy players my role would be a whole lot more important AND different then if it was 300 vs 300. And my game play would reflect that.
In a larger group you can spend more time doing support roles like laying mines, doing reckon, putting character in afk and just chat in command doing macro strategy, whatever.
The most important distinction isn't really faction count (although 3 factions kinda helps with population-balancing.)
The most important thing is a population limit. Every world PVP game I've tried sucked, ruled over by zerg-favoring gameplay, whereas Planetside had massive PVP with population limits and was completely awesome. Oh you still experienced an occasional population imbalance on the final continent, but that was the exception rather than the norm (because there would be 1-3 full continents with completely fair teams.)
Fair teams means skill and teamwork are what wins games. Winning due to skill and teamwork is tremendously more satisfying than winning due to zerging.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You are digging a few levels deeper than what I was posing here. I was trying to keep it at a higher level because we wont design a balanced pvp system here. I think we can both agree there is no ultimate balance, but there has to be a system that provides the best foundation for balanced pvp. And actually we can go beyond and look at fun factor. Which one of these, or others, could be the funnest?
But that's what i'm trying to say. You ask "Which of these 4 choices are better to give balance to large scale pvp?", but there isn't a clear answer and it's not that simple. An npc faction might be a good option to give better balance in the present of 2 unbalanced factions, but they'd have to be unvein in the first place for it to be so, which might change from game to game. I just don't agree that we can generalize it like that. All of them are good options, but i don't see 1 of them being a universal choice.
Also, which one is more fun also depends on many factors. I like faction based because of lore and story and faction pride and rivalry. An npc faction could be a cool factor, but it could also ruin everything.
Lets change the question. Which one would you choose if it was your task to decide the grand scale of your game? Remember, it could be something else too not necessarily any of those.
Alright then. Like i already said, not a fan of svs. NPC factions are not really good IMO, might as well put 3 factions. Personally, while i'd say that the more sides you as, the more depth it gives, i'd have to say 5-6 (around a max of 10) factions is the good spot to make it really awesome. Of course, the problems then start to rise.
Between 2 and 3, it's a mix. Normally 3 is better, but 2 can lead to so great stuff on it's own.
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). ...
Funny, this genre.
There we had 300 vs. 300 battles in DAoC 10 years ago and today a 50 vs. 50 counts as "Big Scale PvP". Funny. Or maybe rather sad?
Lets be honest, 50, 300, 500, 1 million. You wont really notice much difference. You are always in a microcosm of the battle and wont really notice a difference past a certain number of players. I know it adds to the feeling of massive scale to know there are that many people but you really wont even see most of them. Besides, numbers are irrelevant to the discussion.
I 100% disagree with this. 50 vs 50 is completely different then 300 vs 300. Atleast if the designers designed the game and maps to take benefit of this fact.
Planetside again as an example. If I was in a group of 20 players defending a base against 20-30 enemy players my role would be a whole lot more important AND different then if it was 300 vs 300. And my game play would reflect that.
In a larger group you can spend more time doing support roles like laying mines, doing reckon, putting character in afk and just chat in command doing macro strategy, whatever.
Agreed. A 50v50 is often one big cluster of players, whereas most large scale PVP usually experiences more strategic combat as teams are created specifically for different tasks. When we seiged Val Haven on Treachery (SB), we had one group building/running the seige equipment, another group protecting them, another scouting, and two main armies - one that was fighting the incoming enemies outside the city and the other that was the main group to storm the city once we breached the south wall. It was a massive war, whereas 50 v 50 is a skirmish, at best.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). ...
Funny, this genre.
There we had 300 vs. 300 battles in DAoC 10 years ago and today a 50 vs. 50 counts as "Big Scale PvP". Funny. Or maybe rather sad?
Lets be honest, 50, 300, 500, 1 million. You wont really notice much difference. You are always in a microcosm of the battle and wont really notice a difference past a certain number of players. I know it adds to the feeling of massive scale to know there are that many people but you really wont even see most of them. Besides, numbers are irrelevant to the discussion.
I 100% disagree with this. 50 vs 50 is completely different then 300 vs 300. Atleast if the designers designed the game and maps to take benefit of this fact.
Planetside again as an example. If I was in a group of 20 players defending a base against 20-30 enemy players my role would be a whole lot more important AND different then if it was 300 vs 300. And my game play would reflect that.
In a larger group you can spend more time doing support roles like laying mines, doing reckon, putting character in afk and just chat in command doing macro strategy, whatever.
Agreed. A 50v50 is often one big cluster of players, whereas most large scale PVP usually experiences more strategic combat as teams are created specifically for different tasks. When we seiged Val Haven on Treachery (SB), we had one group building/running the seige equipment, another group protecting them, another scouting, and two main armies - one that was fighting the incoming enemies outside the city and the other that was the main group to storm the city once we breached the south wall. It was a massive war, whereas 50 v 50 is a skirmish, at best.
That is true, a big team and goals affects the gameplay. How much do you expect from a game in terms of facilitating tools to help with organization of big teams? or should it all be player driven?
I personally think good tools to help is the way to go, Im lazy like that
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). ...
Funny, this genre.
There we had 300 vs. 300 battles in DAoC 10 years ago and today a 50 vs. 50 counts as "Big Scale PvP". Funny. Or maybe rather sad?
Lets be honest, 50, 300, 500, 1 million. You wont really notice much difference. You are always in a microcosm of the battle and wont really notice a difference past a certain number of players. I know it adds to the feeling of massive scale to know there are that many people but you really wont even see most of them. Besides, numbers are irrelevant to the discussion.
I 100% disagree with this. 50 vs 50 is completely different then 300 vs 300. Atleast if the designers designed the game and maps to take benefit of this fact.
Planetside again as an example. If I was in a group of 20 players defending a base against 20-30 enemy players my role would be a whole lot more important AND different then if it was 300 vs 300. And my game play would reflect that.
In a larger group you can spend more time doing support roles like laying mines, doing reckon, putting character in afk and just chat in command doing macro strategy, whatever.
Agreed. A 50v50 is often one big cluster of players, whereas most large scale PVP usually experiences more strategic combat as teams are created specifically for different tasks. When we seiged Val Haven on Treachery (SB), we had one group building/running the seige equipment, another group protecting them, another scouting, and two main armies - one that was fighting the incoming enemies outside the city and the other that was the main group to storm the city once we breached the south wall. It was a massive war, whereas 50 v 50 is a skirmish, at best.
That is true, a big team and goals affects the gameplay. How much do you expect from a game in terms of facilitating tools to help with organization of big teams? or should it all be player driven?
I personally think good tools to help is the way to go, Im lazy like that
You should definitely research SB and EVE, then. I'd even include Puzzle Pirates in that list, as well.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There we had 300 vs. 300 battles in DAoC 10 years ago and today a 50 vs. 50 counts as "Big Scale PvP". Funny. Or maybe rather sad?
Lets be honest, 50, 300, 500, 1 million. You wont really notice much difference. You are always in a microcosm of the battle and wont really notice a difference past a certain number of players. I know it adds to the feeling of massive scale to know there are that many people but you really wont even see most of them. Besides, numbers are irrelevant to the discussion.
Please? You won't notice a difference? It just so happened that I played a character in DAoC that led quite a number of raids on keeps and a score on relics - and you tell me it doesn't make a difference?
Heck, when I led a raid I would have teams with scouts out in the frontiers a few hours before the main group would even gather at the portal. Equally I would have teams with strong fighters organised that could carry the parts for the siege equipment (rams), some of them might have been dispatched with their guard peleton a day before to log out already in enemy territory not to be spotted near the milegate at the day of the raid.
I would organise a few trustworthy people to serve as communication liason, leading the chatgroups and relaying information to the chatgroup and back to the leader chatgroup as well as a communication officer organising the raid lead chat group.
Other teams might have been setup to stage a raid on another keep to lure the enemy forces away from the real target, other teams might have the order to watch over the 3rd realm in order not to get untimely problems with a 3rd faction joining into the frenzy.
And you tell me it won't make a difference? I can assure you that all these people in all these teams knew pretty well that it would make a difference - and they had the feeling to be part of something big for sure.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
I wanted to start a thread about how big scale pvp is being implemented in current day MMOs. To start off I want to point out what I mean by "Big Scale PvP". Its pvp that happens in big zones/areas with many players(give or take over 50 on each side). ...
Funny, this genre.
There we had 300 vs. 300 battles in DAoC 10 years ago and today a 50 vs. 50 counts as "Big Scale PvP". Funny. Or maybe rather sad?
Lets be honest, 50, 300, 500, 1 million. You wont really notice much difference. You are always in a microcosm of the battle and wont really notice a difference past a certain number of players. I know it adds to the feeling of massive scale to know there are that many people but you really wont even see most of them. Besides, numbers are irrelevant to the discussion.
I 100% disagree with this. 50 vs 50 is completely different then 300 vs 300. Atleast if the designers designed the game and maps to take benefit of this fact.
Planetside again as an example. If I was in a group of 20 players defending a base against 20-30 enemy players my role would be a whole lot more important AND different then if it was 300 vs 300. And my game play would reflect that.
In a larger group you can spend more time doing support roles like laying mines, doing reckon, putting character in afk and just chat in command doing macro strategy, whatever.
Agreed. A 50v50 is often one big cluster of players, whereas most large scale PVP usually experiences more strategic combat as teams are created specifically for different tasks. When we seiged Val Haven on Treachery (SB), we had one group building/running the seige equipment, another group protecting them, another scouting, and two main armies - one that was fighting the incoming enemies outside the city and the other that was the main group to storm the city once we breached the south wall. It was a massive war, whereas 50 v 50 is a skirmish, at best.
Yes exactly. I don't know which game you are referring to but it was the same with Planetside. Specialized teams (and individuals) doing certain task you would not see if it was only 50 vs 50.
It's actually the same but on a smaller scale with normal FPS. If you play team Fortress 2 4 vs 4. You should not play Sniper or Spy or Engineer even. But when you play 12 vs 12 (or more) those classes become very viable to the point you NEED those support classes.
The second best time I've ever had in pvp (1st will always be daoc) was in guild sieges in Age of Conan. I rained arrrows down from our keep's walls, it was so awesome.
Nearly every thread I read on any PvP MMo forum mentions DAOC is number 1 and always will etc, so my question is ... why the hell cant someone make a bloody game similar to DAOC ??? Surely it cant be that hard ?
Nearly every thread I read on any PvP MMo forum mentions DAOC is number 1 and always will etc, so my question is ... why the hell cant someone make a bloody game similar to DAOC ??? Surely it cant be that hard ?
Simply cause they're afraid of running the numbers and balancing skills and being PVP focused. You know the #1 dread of every publishing house: listening to the crying teenagers on the forums.
* Good, honorable, gamers will continue to pay the bills so freeloaders can enjoy the game. * Sandboxers and Carebears are 2 sides to the same coin.
Nearly every thread I read on any PvP MMo forum mentions DAOC is number 1 and always will etc, so my question is ... why the hell cant someone make a bloody game similar to DAOC ??? Surely it cant be that hard ?
you are looking for something like large scale open balanced PvP. unfortunately this is impossible, imho. if it would balanced, it would be just a strongly regulated huge battleground. so live with the unbalanced large scale pvp and perfectionize it.
the best open PvP i ever saw is EVE and this is persistent territorial GvG. you dont need pvp-ffa in order to implement this. you could make the core-PVE zones fully safe (not just partially safe like EVEs Empire). you also could implement such a system in a theme-park. of course you would need a working player driven economy, which is the motor of EVEs pvp. but even this was made already in a theme-park.
the bigger problem is, to provide the huge pvp-space you need, for this type of PvP in a fantasy-setting. in EVE you have some thousand solar systems to conquer & defend. in GW2 for example you would need 10 times or more of the space of the current WvW area, in order to provide space for hundreds of guilds. i guess this is not impossible. servers could run such a huge landcape with some tricks. but no dev-team could create it in time, if not using generators, which just provide a very rough, partially repeating waste land. now give players tools for terraforming , city-building, planting, breeding and they will do the rest.
of course this part of the game is sandbox. well, you could add some DEs into these waste lands for further entertainment. but this other safe starting continent could be fully theme-park for PVE levelling and endgame. just the player driven economy would be sandbox over there. and of course this type of economy has a huge impact on the loot & reward system, which therefore would be very different to a standard theme-park.
so my message is: your are on a mission impossible, if you deny to discuss sandbox-pvp, because sandbox-pvp (not pvp-ffa) is the solution.
Comments
Well I don't. I was talking about PS1, not 2 and other companies had eight years to catch up to SOE regarding network code.
I also like the idea of player-created factions, especially if they are allowed to define some of the faction (class/race restriction, ARAC, region of control, diety/government, titles, etc)
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Funny, this genre.
There we had 300 vs. 300 battles in DAoC 10 years ago and today a 50 vs. 50 counts as "Big Scale PvP". Funny. Or maybe rather sad?
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
Agreed. Time zones specifically didn't even cross my mind and it can be very important. Kind of made me a bit worried about GW2s WvW, since its server vs server. I doubt anet will just match same timezone servers togeter because the pool of servers might be too small then.
Population balance is the biggest problems with having pvp restricted to be per server.
Lets be honest, 50, 300, 500, 1 million. You wont really notice much difference. You are always in a microcosm of the battle and wont really notice a difference past a certain number of players. I know it adds to the feeling of massive scale to know there are that many people but you really wont even see most of them. Besides, numbers are irrelevant to the discussion.
So basically you just wanted to hear yourself talk. DaOC and Planetside nailed pvp...why? you ask, check em out and you tell me, but when I think of great PvP (non open world sand box, yadd yadda BS you put out) I think of those 2 games. I played both and both in my opinion have not been followed to any degree of success worth mentioning.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Im not asking which games are the best at pvp.......but thanks for your VALUABLE feedback
My first major battle in DAoC is one of the few moments that truly wow'd me in MMOs. It was 300 or so people (number from reading the posts afterwards) on the battlefield and it blew my mind that this was actually happening. For me, Shadowbane was the next MMO that delivered on large scale PVP. In EVE, a 300-player battle is a daily thing these days, but EVE is the extreme exception in this case, which is disenchanting. I was hoping by now we'd have stuff like this in our MMOs.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Im sure it will come with time
I 100% disagree with this. 50 vs 50 is completely different then 300 vs 300. Atleast if the designers designed the game and maps to take benefit of this fact.
Planetside again as an example. If I was in a group of 20 players defending a base against 20-30 enemy players my role would be a whole lot more important AND different then if it was 300 vs 300. And my game play would reflect that.
In a larger group you can spend more time doing support roles like laying mines, doing reckon, putting character in afk and just chat in command doing macro strategy, whatever.
The most important distinction isn't really faction count (although 3 factions kinda helps with population-balancing.)
The most important thing is a population limit. Every world PVP game I've tried sucked, ruled over by zerg-favoring gameplay, whereas Planetside had massive PVP with population limits and was completely awesome. Oh you still experienced an occasional population imbalance on the final continent, but that was the exception rather than the norm (because there would be 1-3 full continents with completely fair teams.)
Fair teams means skill and teamwork are what wins games. Winning due to skill and teamwork is tremendously more satisfying than winning due to zerging.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Alright then. Like i already said, not a fan of svs. NPC factions are not really good IMO, might as well put 3 factions. Personally, while i'd say that the more sides you as, the more depth it gives, i'd have to say 5-6 (around a max of 10) factions is the good spot to make it really awesome. Of course, the problems then start to rise.
Between 2 and 3, it's a mix. Normally 3 is better, but 2 can lead to so great stuff on it's own.
Agreed. A 50v50 is often one big cluster of players, whereas most large scale PVP usually experiences more strategic combat as teams are created specifically for different tasks. When we seiged Val Haven on Treachery (SB), we had one group building/running the seige equipment, another group protecting them, another scouting, and two main armies - one that was fighting the incoming enemies outside the city and the other that was the main group to storm the city once we breached the south wall. It was a massive war, whereas 50 v 50 is a skirmish, at best.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Can anybody tell me how big was DAOC's rvr map compared to GW2's wvwvw just to get an idea.
That is true, a big team and goals affects the gameplay. How much do you expect from a game in terms of facilitating tools to help with organization of big teams? or should it all be player driven?
I personally think good tools to help is the way to go, Im lazy like that
You should definitely research SB and EVE, then. I'd even include Puzzle Pirates in that list, as well.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Please? You won't notice a difference? It just so happened that I played a character in DAoC that led quite a number of raids on keeps and a score on relics - and you tell me it doesn't make a difference?
Heck, when I led a raid I would have teams with scouts out in the frontiers a few hours before the main group would even gather at the portal. Equally I would have teams with strong fighters organised that could carry the parts for the siege equipment (rams), some of them might have been dispatched with their guard peleton a day before to log out already in enemy territory not to be spotted near the milegate at the day of the raid.
I would organise a few trustworthy people to serve as communication liason, leading the chatgroups and relaying information to the chatgroup and back to the leader chatgroup as well as a communication officer organising the raid lead chat group.
Other teams might have been setup to stage a raid on another keep to lure the enemy forces away from the real target, other teams might have the order to watch over the 3rd realm in order not to get untimely problems with a 3rd faction joining into the frenzy.
And you tell me it won't make a difference? I can assure you that all these people in all these teams knew pretty well that it would make a difference - and they had the feeling to be part of something big for sure.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
Yes exactly. I don't know which game you are referring to but it was the same with Planetside. Specialized teams (and individuals) doing certain task you would not see if it was only 50 vs 50.
It's actually the same but on a smaller scale with normal FPS. If you play team Fortress 2 4 vs 4. You should not play Sniper or Spy or Engineer even. But when you play 12 vs 12 (or more) those classes become very viable to the point you NEED those support classes.
The second best time I've ever had in pvp (1st will always be daoc) was in guild sieges in Age of Conan. I rained arrrows down from our keep's walls, it was so awesome.
GW2's map is a bit more then double the size. A LOT of walking.
* Good, honorable, gamers will continue to pay the bills so freeloaders can enjoy the game.
* Sandboxers and Carebears are 2 sides to the same coin.
Nearly every thread I read on any PvP MMo forum mentions DAOC is number 1 and always will etc, so my question is ... why the hell cant someone make a bloody game similar to DAOC ??? Surely it cant be that hard ?
Simply cause they're afraid of running the numbers and balancing skills and being PVP focused. You know the #1 dread of every publishing house: listening to the crying teenagers on the forums.
* Good, honorable, gamers will continue to pay the bills so freeloaders can enjoy the game.
* Sandboxers and Carebears are 2 sides to the same coin.
Was DAOC a commercial success?
You forgot to include "NO Factions", the only type I can really say I enjoy. Example is Lineage 2.
you are looking for something like large scale open balanced PvP. unfortunately this is impossible, imho. if it would balanced, it would be just a strongly regulated huge battleground. so live with the unbalanced large scale pvp and perfectionize it.
the best open PvP i ever saw is EVE and this is persistent territorial GvG. you dont need pvp-ffa in order to implement this. you could make the core-PVE zones fully safe (not just partially safe like EVEs Empire). you also could implement such a system in a theme-park. of course you would need a working player driven economy, which is the motor of EVEs pvp. but even this was made already in a theme-park.
the bigger problem is, to provide the huge pvp-space you need, for this type of PvP in a fantasy-setting. in EVE you have some thousand solar systems to conquer & defend. in GW2 for example you would need 10 times or more of the space of the current WvW area, in order to provide space for hundreds of guilds. i guess this is not impossible. servers could run such a huge landcape with some tricks. but no dev-team could create it in time, if not using generators, which just provide a very rough, partially repeating waste land. now give players tools for terraforming , city-building, planting, breeding and they will do the rest.
of course this part of the game is sandbox. well, you could add some DEs into these waste lands for further entertainment. but this other safe starting continent could be fully theme-park for PVE levelling and endgame. just the player driven economy would be sandbox over there. and of course this type of economy has a huge impact on the loot & reward system, which therefore would be very different to a standard theme-park.
so my message is: your are on a mission impossible, if you deny to discuss sandbox-pvp, because sandbox-pvp (not pvp-ffa) is the solution.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds