It's very clear to anything who has followed TESO that the initial DAoC style design kept getting pushed back in favor of WoWification and making it more like a singleplayer game.
Nah.
EQ was the big cheese back then. And in an interview way back MJ said that "the team" decided to try and emulate EQ by releasing expansions to attract subscriptions.
That's pretty much entirely unrelated to what I said. But the funny thing is, by shifting the game to be more like EQ, hundreds of thousands of players were driven out of DAoC, because it ruined the RvR.
You all do realize that Mark Jacobs has nothing to do with ESO?
Its Matt Firor, the guy that was Exec Producer of DAOC: ToA, that in charge in ESO.
Bringer of Eternal Darkness and Despair, but also a Nutritious way to start your Morning.
It's very clear to anything who has followed TESO that the initial DAoC style design kept getting pushed back in favor of WoWification and making it more like a singleplayer game.
Nah.
EQ was the big cheese back then. And in an interview way back MJ said that "the team" decided to try and emulate EQ by releasing expansions to attract subscriptions.
That's pretty much entirely unrelated to what I said. But the funny thing is, by shifting the game to be more like EQ, hundreds of thousands of players were driven out of DAoC, because it ruined the RvR.
You all do realize that Mark Jacobs has nothing to do with ESO?
Its Matt Firor, the guy that was Exec Producer of DAOC: ToA, that in charge in ESO.
It's very clear to anything who has followed TESO that the initial DAoC style design kept getting pushed back in favor of WoWification and making it more like a singleplayer game.
Nah.
EQ was the big cheese back then. And in an interview way back MJ said that "the team" decided to try and emulate EQ by releasing expansions to attract subscriptions.
That's pretty much entirely unrelated to what I said. But the funny thing is, by shifting the game to be more like EQ, hundreds of thousands of players were driven out of DAoC, because it ruined the RvR.
Yep strong argument that new PvE content took DAoC away what many regarded as a successful format. I just see it as EQification though rather than WoWification!
And yep Mark Jacobs has no input on TESO. He was point for DAoC though which Matt Frior was involved in - and there "are/will be" people who are looking for a "DAoC style" end game. They may not even case about the ES mythos. Potentially it can be there from day 1 as well and the fundaments need never change. (New maps periodically but in essence complete.)
Must remember that to some end game is all about new raids, dungeons, new content drops whilst others may be looking for something totally different - and maybe the content drops as well!
It's very clear to anything who has followed TESO that the initial DAoC style design kept getting pushed back in favor of WoWification and making it more like a singleplayer game.
Nah.
EQ was the big cheese back then. And in an interview way back MJ said that "the team" decided to try and emulate EQ by releasing expansions to attract subscriptions.
That's pretty much entirely unrelated to what I said. But the funny thing is, by shifting the game to be more like EQ, hundreds of thousands of players were driven out of DAoC, because it ruined the RvR.
Yep strong argument that new PvE content took DAoC away what many regarded as a successful format. I just see it as EQification though rather than WoWification!
And yep Mark Jacobs has no input on TESO. He was point for DAoC though which Matt Frior was involved in - and there "are/will be" people who are looking for a "DAoC style" end game. They may not even case about the ES mythos. Potentially it can be there from day 1 as well and the fundaments need never change. (New maps periodically but in essence complete.)
Must remember that to some end game is all about new raids, dungeons, new content drops whilst others may be looking for something totally different - and maybe the content drops as well!
The PVE expansions in DAoC did not kill RvR, the RvR changes did. In an RvR system, PvE and PvP can be kept quite separate with minimal overlap. Besides, most of the exodus from DAoC had to do more with the releases of SWG and WOW than with any internal decisions.
ESO is indeed geared toward an AvA endgame and does not include the traditional EQ/WOW endgame raid and gear progresions, And frankly, I don't see why they should. There are enough MMOs out there that have stuck to that formula to keep players ocupied between expansions, and many are bored of doing that. This is not one of those games. Sure, there are end-game PvE things to do here, especially if you enjoy exploring. But that's clearly not the focus; AvA is.
This game will sink or swim depending on how much fun the AvA is or isn't. And "sink" and "swim" are subjective and relative terms, not the absolute sell and retain 1 million + forever that seems to be the criteria in these forums. I'm sure the devs are perfectly aware that some MMOers who live for raiding won't stick around if they try it at all, and that many will be in for 1 to 3 months and out... whch is actually the norm these days.
People here get bogged down in amteurish economic assesments and evaluate MMOs in terms of finacial viability and profitability... and then equate their conclusions to "quality." Maybe it's just the consumer phenomenom of wanting their purchase decision validated; and thinking that it's more valid if they purchased only the best of the best as evidenced by how profitable the product is... then you can feel like a good and smart consumer ... weird thinking, IMHO.
This MMO is not for everyone...none of them are really. If you enjoy it for a while be happy for as long as you do... and then go do something else you enjoy. If you enjoy it so much that you want to stick around forever, lucky you...just remember that you're the oddity, not the ones who move on.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
It's very clear to anything who has followed TESO that the initial DAoC style design kept getting pushed back in favor of WoWification and making it more like a singleplayer game.
Nah.
EQ was the big cheese back then. And in an interview way back MJ said that "the team" decided to try and emulate EQ by releasing expansions to attract subscriptions.
That's pretty much entirely unrelated to what I said. But the funny thing is, by shifting the game to be more like EQ, hundreds of thousands of players were driven out of DAoC, because it ruined the RvR.
Yep strong argument that new PvE content took DAoC away what many regarded as a successful format. I just see it as EQification though rather than WoWification!
And yep Mark Jacobs has no input on TESO. He was point for DAoC though which Matt Frior was involved in - and there "are/will be" people who are looking for a "DAoC style" end game. They may not even case about the ES mythos. Potentially it can be there from day 1 as well and the fundaments need never change. (New maps periodically but in essence complete.)
Must remember that to some end game is all about new raids, dungeons, new content drops whilst others may be looking for something totally different - and maybe the content drops as well!
The PVE expansions in DAoC did not kill RvR, the RvR changes did. In an RvR system, PvE and PvP can be kept quite separate with minimal overlap. Besides, most of the exodus from DAoC had to do more with the releases of SWG and WOW than with any internal decisions.
ESO is indeed geared toward an AvA endgame and does not include the traditional EQ/WOW endgame raid and gear progresions, And frankly, I don't see why they should. There are enough MMOs out there that have stuck to that formula to keep players ocupied between expansions, and many are bored of doing that. This is not one of those games. Sure, there are end-game PvE things to do here, especially if you enjoy exploring. But that's clearly not the focus; AvA is.
This game will sink or swim depending on how much fun the AvA is or isn't. And "sink" and "swim" are subjective and relative terms, not the absolute sell and retain 1 million + forever that seems to be the criteria in these forums. I'm sure the devs are perfectly aware that some MMOers who live for raiding won't stick around if they try it at all, and that many will be in for 1 to 3 months and out... whch is actually the norm these days.
People here get bogged down in amteurish economic assesments and evaluate MMOs in terms of finacial viability and profitability... and then equate their conclusions to "quality." Maybe it's just the consumer phenomenom of wanting their purchase decision validated; and thinking that it's more valid if they purchased only the best of the best as evidenced by how profitable the product is... then you can feel like a good and smart consumer ... weird thinking, IMHO.
This MMO is not for everyone...none of them are really. If you enjoy it for a while be happy for as long as you do... and then go do something else you enjoy. If you enjoy it so much that you want to stick around forever, lucky you...just remember that you're the oddity, not the ones who move on.
I have not looked into ESO at all, but one thing is for certain and has been proven time and time again, no subscription based game can survive post WoW unless it has deep and highly polished PvE endgame content that takes large organized groups months to conquer.
I still have hopes that there is content for pve (whatever that might be) at endgame as I have listened to some recent interviews that suggest the game is meant to be played in many ways (depending on your preference). I guess soon enough we will see how it pans out.
Originally posted by doodphace I have not looked into ESO at all, but one thing is for certain and has been proven time and time again, no subscription based game can survive post WoW unless it has deep and highly polished PvE endgame content that takes large organized groups months to conquer.
I don't know that this has been "proven time and time again". I don't completely disagree with you but there is also the issue that most games these days have leveling that is WAY too fast which means way too many people end up at max level in weeks or days which means whatever end game content there is will be burned through by a large number of people. Neverwinter was a perfect example of this poor design. The leveling was retarded fast (someone in my guild leveled at launch in like 28 hours or something silly)..so fast that it forced you to skip tons of content while leveling (level limited dungeons, skirmishes and bracket pvp) and then there was nothing to do at max level (including no hard mode versions of the lower level dungeons/skirmishes you missed). Worst design ever.
Maybe a game that forces you to experience more leveling content (including PVP) and gives devs more time post-launch to release more content is a better model. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a good amount of end game content at launch but if the leveling is too fast there will never be enough end-game content to keep up with the leveling masses. I know some hate "the grind" but honestly that is part of MMOs to some degree. So long as there is enough interesting leveling content it should be a pretty good experience even if it's slow. That will ensure that by the time the bulk of players level up and consume much of the "end game" content the devs are ready to release additional content and are not behind the eight ball too much.
Originally posted by doodphace I have not looked into ESO at all, but one thing is for certain and has been proven time and time again, no subscription based game can survive post WoW unless it has deep and highly polished PvE endgame content that takes large organized groups months to conquer.
I don't know that this has been "proven time and time again". I don't completely disagree with you but there is also the issue that most games these days have leveling that is WAY too fast which means way too many people end up at max level in weeks or days which means whatever end game content there is will be burned through by a large number of people. Neverwinter was a perfect example of this poor design. The leveling was retarded fast (someone in my guild leveled at launch in like 28 hours or something silly)..so fast that it forced you to skip tons of content while leveling (level limited dungeons, skirmishes and bracket pvp) and then there was nothing to do at max level (including no hard mode versions of the lower level dungeons/skirmishes you missed). Worst design ever.
Maybe a game that forces you to experience more leveling content (including PVP) and gives devs more time post-launch to release more content is a better model. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a good amount of end game content at launch but if the leveling is too fast there will never be enough end-game content to keep up with the leveling masses. I know some hate "the grind" but honestly that is part of MMOs to some degree. So long as there is enough interesting leveling content it should be a pretty good experience even if it's slow. That will ensure that by the time the bulk of players level up and consume much of the "end game" content the devs are ready to release additional content and are not behind the eight ball too much.
No themepark leveling process will last forever. What keeps players playing (and paying) long term is polished meaningfull endgame. When I say it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based games would not survive without it, I am referring to AoC, WAR, TSW, SWTOR, LOTRO, DDO, Rift...that isnt even an exausting list....if that doesn't indicate it "time and time again" to you, then I have no idea what will. Literally not a single themepark post wow has survived as a subscription based game, and that is mainly due to lack of quality endgame in each and every one.
There is a reason buttloads of people try out new MMOs, then flock back to WoW. Trust me, its not because of WoW's graphics and setting (lol), its because it has the most veried, polished, and challenging current endgame of any themepark on the market.
So far the only MMO that I think seems to understand this is Wildstar, but lets wait and see.
Originally posted by doodphace I have not looked into ESO at all, but one thing is for certain and has been proven time and time again, no subscription based game can survive post WoW unless it has deep and highly polished PvE endgame content that takes large organized groups months to conquer.
I don't know that this has been "proven time and time again". I don't completely disagree with you but there is also the issue that most games these days have leveling that is WAY too fast which means way too many people end up at max level in weeks or days which means whatever end game content there is will be burned through by a large number of people. Neverwinter was a perfect example of this poor design. The leveling was retarded fast (someone in my guild leveled at launch in like 28 hours or something silly)..so fast that it forced you to skip tons of content while leveling (level limited dungeons, skirmishes and bracket pvp) and then there was nothing to do at max level (including no hard mode versions of the lower level dungeons/skirmishes you missed). Worst design ever.
Maybe a game that forces you to experience more leveling content (including PVP) and gives devs more time post-launch to release more content is a better model. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a good amount of end game content at launch but if the leveling is too fast there will never be enough end-game content to keep up with the leveling masses. I know some hate "the grind" but honestly that is part of MMOs to some degree. So long as there is enough interesting leveling content it should be a pretty good experience even if it's slow. That will ensure that by the time the bulk of players level up and consume much of the "end game" content the devs are ready to release additional content and are not behind the eight ball too much.
No themepark leveling process will last forever. What keeps players playing (and paying) long term is polished meaningfull endgame. When I say it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based games would not survive without it, I am referring to AoC, WAR, TSW, SWTOR, LOTRO, DDO, Rift...that isnt even an exausting list....if that doesn't indicate it "time and time again" to you, then I have no idea what will. Literally not a single themepark post wow has survived as a subscription based game, and that is mainly due to lack of quality endgame in each and every one.
There is a reason buttloads of people try out new MMOs, then flock back to WoW. Trust me, its not because of WoW's graphics and setting (lol), its because it has the most veried, polished, and challenging current endgame of any themepark on the market.
So far the only MMO that I think seems to understand this is Wildstar, but lets wait and see.
The point is that none of them have enough. WoW had very little at launch. Even EQ had very little (some of which was literally left in an unfinished state because they didn't expect it to be seen anytime soon..ie a dragon in the form of a human iirc). The difference is how long does it take to get to end game and how long does it take to consume what end game content there is and how soon relative to that they start releasing the next wave of content.
It has nothing to do with sub or F2P. NW was F2P and was the worst end game I have seen ever. It was really more of an afterthought than it was end game. The big difference is that over time the leveling process has morphed from the herculean task it was in EQ to the trivial task in modern games. Not suggesting we should go back to EQ "hell levels" or anything but it shouldn't be so trivial to reach max level..especially when you know people will burn through content and leave. Good alliance PVP should help alleviate that but I think there needs to be substantial PVE content as well.
Maybe the game should be kinda endgame from the beginning - make it hard to lvl so the feeling of achieving something is always present even at the "low levels" So you actually spend time in all areas and you can enjoy the art work some developpers actually have spend time create "for us".
Some games had hell lvls, so games had losing experience, you could even lose lvl progress. That actually made you think of what you where doing, and it took loooong loooong time to get new abilities, lvls etc. You actually made "friends" more easy people you could have a talk with if you wanted.
Yes endgame should be coming all the time with or with out expansions. But i think if its slow progress and content is fun all the way people would stick longer IMHO.
If its like going to walmart or Ikea or whatever cheap big shopping mall, people will just vanish when content is done and "friends in the game never turned into some you actually "cared" about. then its like jumping around like headless bunny. you dont know why you jump.
I look forward to play ESO
Wish you all a happy holiday if you celebrate if you dont i wish you a joyful time until game is launched
Originally posted by doodphace I have not looked into ESO at all, but one thing is for certain and has been proven time and time again, no subscription based game can survive post WoW unless it has deep and highly polished PvE endgame content that takes large organized groups months to conquer.
I don't know that this has been "proven time and time again". I don't completely disagree with you but there is also the issue that most games these days have leveling that is WAY too fast which means way too many people end up at max level in weeks or days which means whatever end game content there is will be burned through by a large number of people. Neverwinter was a perfect example of this poor design. The leveling was retarded fast (someone in my guild leveled at launch in like 28 hours or something silly)..so fast that it forced you to skip tons of content while leveling (level limited dungeons, skirmishes and bracket pvp) and then there was nothing to do at max level (including no hard mode versions of the lower level dungeons/skirmishes you missed). Worst design ever.
Maybe a game that forces you to experience more leveling content (including PVP) and gives devs more time post-launch to release more content is a better model. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a good amount of end game content at launch but if the leveling is too fast there will never be enough end-game content to keep up with the leveling masses. I know some hate "the grind" but honestly that is part of MMOs to some degree. So long as there is enough interesting leveling content it should be a pretty good experience even if it's slow. That will ensure that by the time the bulk of players level up and consume much of the "end game" content the devs are ready to release additional content and are not behind the eight ball too much.
No themepark leveling process will last forever. What keeps players playing (and paying) long term is polished meaningfull endgame. When I say it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based games would not survive without it, I am referring to AoC, WAR, TSW, SWTOR, LOTRO, DDO, Rift...that isnt even an exausting list....if that doesn't indicate it "time and time again" to you, then I have no idea what will. Literally not a single themepark post wow has survived as a subscription based game, and that is mainly due to lack of quality endgame in each and every one.
There is a reason buttloads of people try out new MMOs, then flock back to WoW. Trust me, its not because of WoW's graphics and setting (lol), its because it has the most veried, polished, and challenging current endgame of any themepark on the market.
So far the only MMO that I think seems to understand this is Wildstar, but lets wait and see.
The point is that none of them have enough. WoW had very little at launch. Even EQ had very little (some of which was literally left in an unfinished state because they didn't expect it to be seen anytime soon..ie a dragon in the form of a human iirc). The difference is how long does it take to get to end game and how long does it take to consume what end game content there is and how soon relative to that they start releasing the next wave of content.
It has nothing to do with sub or F2P. NW was F2P and was the worst end game I have seen ever. It was really more of an afterthought than it was end game. The big difference is that over time the leveling process has morphed from the herculean task it was in EQ to the trivial task in modern games. Not suggesting we should go back to EQ "hell levels" or anything but it shouldn't be so trivial to reach max level..especially when you know people will burn through content and leave. Good alliance PVP should help alleviate that but I think there needs to be substantial PVE content as well.
WoW may have had "very little at launch", but it has literally set the standard for endgame content for many years since 2004. My statement was that it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based game cannot survive post WoW without polished, varied, and challenging endgame. You have yet to make a counter point to that.
While it is inevitable you cant really compare or contrast games and use that as a benchmrk of whether they will be good or not.
Seriously these latter games have ALL the benefits. They simply need to take everything that was 'good' about games in the past that have failed to hold an audience and put that system in their game with some tweaks if they dont want to be seen as blatantly 'staling' it.
So they just need to look at the 'most susccessful' aspects of past MMOs to build their systems around.
Crafting they have EVE, SWG, Pirates of the Burning Sea and Vanguard.
Economy they have EVE.
Housing they have EQ2 and Rift
Player based music Lotro
Cosmetic outfits and Mounts Rift and Lotro
PvP, despite what people contend here it has never been done 'perfectly' by any company. But EvE and vanilla WoW got it
mostly' right. Open world stuff not special places basically. And they have/had collision detection.
The ES IP has the best 'little things' aspect like exploring, interacting with objects, collecting butterflies, plants, ore etc. They just need to add a tracking system.
Reputation systems, a few out there but there should be an up and down so if you increase with a faction you decrease with their enemy and associates. Fallen Earth at release is the best example. But they didnt have many (any) NPC reputations which I think there should be.
Open world Dungeons/caves Vanguard and Elder Scrolls IP
"Raids"/instances no game has ever gotten those right either. But should be tied to changing and dynamic progression. Sure it splits the player base at some point but it also saves on doing the same thing over and over again a million times.
Open world events/co ops. Rift, GW2, and Warhammer. Good model but they also need to be less predictable and have more options, and more possible outcomes.
That is a decent place to start. Those things are a must have for a game to be released now and expect people to pay a sub.
Those things also are the beginning point and they also can add to so called 'end game' content and experience. Player housing, crafting, dynamic ever changing open world events, random spawn points of mobs and creation of random NPC outposts can make PvE 'end game' infinite. exploration conjoined with these things also does. So once you go someplace you might find some random crating node, a chest to pick, a chest to simply open, or a camp of bandits or colony of spiders. That, depending on how long they have gone unmolested may take you or 20 other people to dispatch. If people need rewards for these make up a system of tracking this. Not instant gratification but an ongoing system where the more you explore and fight and find random encounters like this you get credit which you trade in eventually. It used to be DOING the content was enough but now everyone needs something from it. So that would further 'entice' people to explore and ride around the map more than once.
That stuff comes right from the ES games and most notably Skyrim. Dungeons, mines, landscape all respawn as time goes by. I spent a few days just compressing time and seeing what happened and how long it took for things to be replaced. With an ever present MMO world that isnt necessary and the world is moving on even when you arent there.
Seriously to me thats a no brainer. It can also lead to 'raids' or attacks on outposts and towns, akin to GW2 and Rift (at release). But even more than what they did. The idea of losing quest givers sucks and taking back a spot might seem cool, but it still isnt enough, especially if they stop there. The more footholds and 'stuff' they take the stronger and bolder they should become. Now should they ever be able to take Daggerfall? Maybe not, But they should be able to maybe get into parts of it.
These so called 'dynamic' events were the next thing in MMOs, but they have not been done 'correctly' yet so they have sort of fallen to the wayside lately. But if done in an 'extreme; way it builds a game that is unpredictable and 'forces' you to play the frigging game or at least protect stuff you want to keep.
PvP is PvP and its the cheapest and easiest time consumption part of a game, but if 'dynamic' events and NPC AI could be done 'correctly it is a firs stage PvP encounter. But there arent too many games with proactive NPCs. Sure they re aggressive if you walk up to them but not many games have NPCs aggressively out looking for people and places to attack. If a game can do that they have something.
THAT is different, at least if it is done 'correctly.
At the moment the only endgame they have talked about is there version of GW2 wvwvw in the form of cyrodil as one big 3 faction pvp zone.
PvE they have said once you finished your factions story you can simply switch and play through a different factions story. And besides the story there is harder modes of dungeons.
That's about all they have really talked about although they have said they are not planning any raid pve content at the moment and none is development they have mentioned this a few times. I get the feeling like GW2 they are hoping to make there 3 faction pvp a major focus of the endgame. Plus all the best gear in game is crafted so I imagine there will be a heavy foucs on professions too.
It is RvR not WvWvW whatever that is.... RvR has been around since DAoC and ESO is based off of that not GW2. Just saying.
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
Other parts of EQN (art style, player-created penis towers, the actual game-play and character development...whatever that turns out to be) not so sure about.
There isn't one single current or upcoming MMO that does everything right according to my own list of "right." ESO and EQN are just two of several on my radar that I'm sure I'll play at some point.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
It is RvR not WvWvW whatever that is.... RvR has been around since DAoC and ESO is based off of that not GW2. Just saying.
Semantics
Not to people who enjoy meaningful open world PvP. GW2 WvWvW seemed shoe horned into the game world. I was fighting myself. Over and over again. There was no sense of commaraderie, there was no sense of rivalry (as you fought different servers all the time) it had no real meaningful impact on the game.
In WAR (which had great promise but was killed by post launch decisions) and DAoC you had these things. I'm really looking forward to the endgame AvAvA in ESO. I'm looking forward to going into battle with my guild, forging alliances with other guilds, developing rivalries against players and guilds from other factions and fighting over the Ruby Throne.
I understand, not everyone is like me. I understand that this game won't have 5 million subs. But, if they nail the AvAvA experience, they will have a dedicated, loyal subscription base to build off of.
It is RvR not WvWvW whatever that is.... RvR has been around since DAoC and ESO is based off of that not GW2. Just saying.
Semantics
Not to people who enjoy meaningful open world PvP. GW2 WvWvW seemed shoe horned into the game world. I was fighting myself. Over and over again. There was no sense of commaraderie, there was no sense of rivalry (as you fought different servers all the time) it had no real meaningful impact on the game.
In WAR (which had great promise but was killed by post launch decisions) and DAoC you had these things. I'm really looking forward to the endgame AvAvA in ESO. I'm looking forward to going into battle with my guild, forging alliances with other guilds, developing rivalries against players and guilds from other factions and fighting over the Ruby Throne.
I understand, not everyone is like me. I understand that this game won't have 5 million subs. But, if they nail the AvAvA experience, they will have a dedicated, loyal subscription base to build off of.
ESo wont be open world, it will be 'frontiers' for a good description. A middle ground where all factions can go. Open world means you can take your character anywhere. ESO will not have that. There wont even be voluntary flagging. Yu enter the PvP zone youre flagged. Might it work? Maybe it is a good compromise for people because it is voluntary. But most PvP is that way now.
As far as what I described and EQ Next, i am well aware. If they can deliver what they have talked about it will be the next generation in MMOs, irony..its free. Which for many is a negative. Have to wait and see but SoE isnt known to be scared of a "pay to win" definition.
Originally posted by doodphace I have not looked into ESO at all, but one thing is for certain and has been proven time and time again, no subscription based game can survive post WoW unless it has deep and highly polished PvE endgame content that takes large organized groups months to conquer.
I don't know that this has been "proven time and time again". I don't completely disagree with you but there is also the issue that most games these days have leveling that is WAY too fast which means way too many people end up at max level in weeks or days which means whatever end game content there is will be burned through by a large number of people. Neverwinter was a perfect example of this poor design. The leveling was retarded fast (someone in my guild leveled at launch in like 28 hours or something silly)..so fast that it forced you to skip tons of content while leveling (level limited dungeons, skirmishes and bracket pvp) and then there was nothing to do at max level (including no hard mode versions of the lower level dungeons/skirmishes you missed). Worst design ever.
Maybe a game that forces you to experience more leveling content (including PVP) and gives devs more time post-launch to release more content is a better model. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a good amount of end game content at launch but if the leveling is too fast there will never be enough end-game content to keep up with the leveling masses. I know some hate "the grind" but honestly that is part of MMOs to some degree. So long as there is enough interesting leveling content it should be a pretty good experience even if it's slow. That will ensure that by the time the bulk of players level up and consume much of the "end game" content the devs are ready to release additional content and are not behind the eight ball too much.
No themepark leveling process will last forever. What keeps players playing (and paying) long term is polished meaningfull endgame. When I say it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based games would not survive without it, I am referring to AoC, WAR, TSW, SWTOR, LOTRO, DDO, Rift...that isnt even an exausting list....if that doesn't indicate it "time and time again" to you, then I have no idea what will. Literally not a single themepark post wow has survived as a subscription based game, and that is mainly due to lack of quality endgame in each and every one.
There is a reason buttloads of people try out new MMOs, then flock back to WoW. Trust me, its not because of WoW's graphics and setting (lol), its because it has the most veried, polished, and challenging current endgame of any themepark on the market.
So far the only MMO that I think seems to understand this is Wildstar, but lets wait and see.
The point is that none of them have enough. WoW had very little at launch. Even EQ had very little (some of which was literally left in an unfinished state because they didn't expect it to be seen anytime soon..ie a dragon in the form of a human iirc). The difference is how long does it take to get to end game and how long does it take to consume what end game content there is and how soon relative to that they start releasing the next wave of content.
It has nothing to do with sub or F2P. NW was F2P and was the worst end game I have seen ever. It was really more of an afterthought than it was end game. The big difference is that over time the leveling process has morphed from the herculean task it was in EQ to the trivial task in modern games. Not suggesting we should go back to EQ "hell levels" or anything but it shouldn't be so trivial to reach max level..especially when you know people will burn through content and leave. Good alliance PVP should help alleviate that but I think there needs to be substantial PVE content as well.
WoW may have had "very little at launch", but it has literally set the standard for endgame content for many years since 2004. My statement was that it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based game cannot survive post WoW without polished, varied, and challenging endgame. You have yet to make a counter point to that.
I guess I wasn't trying to make a "counter point" so much as to point out that you can't compare a game like WoW with a decade of end game to a game that is just now releasing and if they don't have a slow leveling process they will never have enough end game content (even if it's polished and challenging). I actually agree with you that the success of an MMO is largely determined by how good the end game content is.
Originally posted by doodphace I have not looked into ESO at all, but one thing is for certain and has been proven time and time again, no subscription based game can survive post WoW unless it has deep and highly polished PvE endgame content that takes large organized groups months to conquer.
I don't know that this has been "proven time and time again". I don't completely disagree with you but there is also the issue that most games these days have leveling that is WAY too fast which means way too many people end up at max level in weeks or days which means whatever end game content there is will be burned through by a large number of people. Neverwinter was a perfect example of this poor design. The leveling was retarded fast (someone in my guild leveled at launch in like 28 hours or something silly)..so fast that it forced you to skip tons of content while leveling (level limited dungeons, skirmishes and bracket pvp) and then there was nothing to do at max level (including no hard mode versions of the lower level dungeons/skirmishes you missed). Worst design ever.
Maybe a game that forces you to experience more leveling content (including PVP) and gives devs more time post-launch to release more content is a better model. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a good amount of end game content at launch but if the leveling is too fast there will never be enough end-game content to keep up with the leveling masses. I know some hate "the grind" but honestly that is part of MMOs to some degree. So long as there is enough interesting leveling content it should be a pretty good experience even if it's slow. That will ensure that by the time the bulk of players level up and consume much of the "end game" content the devs are ready to release additional content and are not behind the eight ball too much.
No themepark leveling process will last forever. What keeps players playing (and paying) long term is polished meaningfull endgame. When I say it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based games would not survive without it, I am referring to AoC, WAR, TSW, SWTOR, LOTRO, DDO, Rift...that isnt even an exausting list....if that doesn't indicate it "time and time again" to you, then I have no idea what will. Literally not a single themepark post wow has survived as a subscription based game, and that is mainly due to lack of quality endgame in each and every one.
There is a reason buttloads of people try out new MMOs, then flock back to WoW. Trust me, its not because of WoW's graphics and setting (lol), its because it has the most veried, polished, and challenging current endgame of any themepark on the market.
So far the only MMO that I think seems to understand this is Wildstar, but lets wait and see.
The point is that none of them have enough. WoW had very little at launch. Even EQ had very little (some of which was literally left in an unfinished state because they didn't expect it to be seen anytime soon..ie a dragon in the form of a human iirc). The difference is how long does it take to get to end game and how long does it take to consume what end game content there is and how soon relative to that they start releasing the next wave of content.
It has nothing to do with sub or F2P. NW was F2P and was the worst end game I have seen ever. It was really more of an afterthought than it was end game. The big difference is that over time the leveling process has morphed from the herculean task it was in EQ to the trivial task in modern games. Not suggesting we should go back to EQ "hell levels" or anything but it shouldn't be so trivial to reach max level..especially when you know people will burn through content and leave. Good alliance PVP should help alleviate that but I think there needs to be substantial PVE content as well.
WoW may have had "very little at launch", but it has literally set the standard for endgame content for many years since 2004. My statement was that it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based game cannot survive post WoW without polished, varied, and challenging endgame. You have yet to make a counter point to that.
I guess I wasn't trying to make a "counter point" so much as to point out that you can't compare a game like WoW with a decade of end game to a game that is just now releasing and if they don't have a slow leveling process they will never have enough end game content (even if it's polished and challenging). I actually agree with you that the success of an MMO is largely determined by how good the end game content is.
You will notice when I initially mentioned WoW's endgame, I called it "current endgame", meaning level 90 stuff only.
The reason I did that, is because like you, people always try to invalidate WoWs massive amount of endgame by claming its because its a 10 year old game, implying its all accumulated stuff over the years. Every single thing to do at level 90 was deleveloped for level 90. All the raids, heroic dungeons, pet battles, challenge modes etc. Its all new and developed for MoP.
MoP alone has 47 raid bosses atm. Those arnt 47 push over place holder raid bosses, these are highly polished raid bosses with unique mechanics and multiple difficulty levels where it takes world first guilds months of 18 hour raid days to beat. Now, granted that 47 is including the wealth of content updates MoP has had since its release in Oct 2012. Lets compare it to a newly released MoP then, when it had 19 of said raid bosses at MoP's launch. Name me a sub based game to launch post wow, that launched with that many raid bosses, let alone have them be as polished and challenging. I am not even taking all of the other new MoP endgame into account here.
Unless a subscription based game releases with endgame rivaling that at the very least, it will fail as a sub based game like all others that came post WoW.
Originally posted by doodphace I have not looked into ESO at all, but one thing is for certain and has been proven time and time again, no subscription based game can survive post WoW unless it has deep and highly polished PvE endgame content that takes large organized groups months to conquer.
I don't know that this has been "proven time and time again". I don't completely disagree with you but there is also the issue that most games these days have leveling that is WAY too fast which means way too many people end up at max level in weeks or days which means whatever end game content there is will be burned through by a large number of people. Neverwinter was a perfect example of this poor design. The leveling was retarded fast (someone in my guild leveled at launch in like 28 hours or something silly)..so fast that it forced you to skip tons of content while leveling (level limited dungeons, skirmishes and bracket pvp) and then there was nothing to do at max level (including no hard mode versions of the lower level dungeons/skirmishes you missed). Worst design ever.
Maybe a game that forces you to experience more leveling content (including PVP) and gives devs more time post-launch to release more content is a better model. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a good amount of end game content at launch but if the leveling is too fast there will never be enough end-game content to keep up with the leveling masses. I know some hate "the grind" but honestly that is part of MMOs to some degree. So long as there is enough interesting leveling content it should be a pretty good experience even if it's slow. That will ensure that by the time the bulk of players level up and consume much of the "end game" content the devs are ready to release additional content and are not behind the eight ball too much.
No themepark leveling process will last forever. What keeps players playing (and paying) long term is polished meaningfull endgame. When I say it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based games would not survive without it, I am referring to AoC, WAR, TSW, SWTOR, LOTRO, DDO, Rift...that isnt even an exausting list....if that doesn't indicate it "time and time again" to you, then I have no idea what will. Literally not a single themepark post wow has survived as a subscription based game, and that is mainly due to lack of quality endgame in each and every one.
There is a reason buttloads of people try out new MMOs, then flock back to WoW. Trust me, its not because of WoW's graphics and setting (lol), its because it has the most veried, polished, and challenging current endgame of any themepark on the market.
So far the only MMO that I think seems to understand this is Wildstar, but lets wait and see.
The point is that none of them have enough. WoW had very little at launch. Even EQ had very little (some of which was literally left in an unfinished state because they didn't expect it to be seen anytime soon..ie a dragon in the form of a human iirc). The difference is how long does it take to get to end game and how long does it take to consume what end game content there is and how soon relative to that they start releasing the next wave of content.
It has nothing to do with sub or F2P. NW was F2P and was the worst end game I have seen ever. It was really more of an afterthought than it was end game. The big difference is that over time the leveling process has morphed from the herculean task it was in EQ to the trivial task in modern games. Not suggesting we should go back to EQ "hell levels" or anything but it shouldn't be so trivial to reach max level..especially when you know people will burn through content and leave. Good alliance PVP should help alleviate that but I think there needs to be substantial PVE content as well.
WoW may have had "very little at launch", but it has literally set the standard for endgame content for many years since 2004. My statement was that it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based game cannot survive post WoW without polished, varied, and challenging endgame. You have yet to make a counter point to that.
I guess I wasn't trying to make a "counter point" so much as to point out that you can't compare a game like WoW with a decade of end game to a game that is just now releasing and if they don't have a slow leveling process they will never have enough end game content (even if it's polished and challenging). I actually agree with you that the success of an MMO is largely determined by how good the end game content is.
You will notice when I initially mentioned WoW's endgame, I called it "current endgame", meaning level 90 stuff only.
The reason I did that, is because like you, people always try to invalidate WoWs massive amount of endgame by claming its because its a 10 year old game, implying its all accumulated stuff over the years. Every single thing to do at level 90 was deleveloped for level 90. All the raids, heroic dungeons, pet battles, challenge modes etc. Its all new and developed for MoP.
MoP alone has 47 raid bosses atm. Those arnt 47 push over place holder raid bosses, these are highly polished raid bosses with unique mechanics and multiple difficulty levels where it takes world first guilds months of 18 hour raid days to beat. Now, granted that 47 is including the wealth of content updates MoP has had since its release in Oct 2012. Lets compare it to a newly released MoP then, when it had 19 of said raid bosses at MoP's launch. Name me a sub based game to launch post wow, that launched with that many raid bosses, let alone have them be as polished and challenging. I am not even taking all of the other new MoP endgame into account here.
Unless a subscription based game releases with endgame rivaling that at the very least, it will fail as a sub based game like all others that came post WoW.
The point is well taken but I still think it's an unfair comparison. WoW is a well established game with an established player base (most of whom are at max level). The focus on that game is mostly raiding/heroic dungeons (for end game) so they know who they are catering to. The have a well established class structure with balance mostly in place. They know their customers and what they want with regard to raids, pvp, dungeons etc..
A new game has a much broader focus and has to nail down multiple things simultaneously. ESO has to have a solid leveling experience, work through class balance issues/bugs, pvp and end game content all at once. A game like ESO also has to establish what sort of game it will be (primarily pvp or substantial pve etc..) and that might take some trial and error once people are leveled up.
I'm not saying you are wrong exactly. No game has come close to approaching WoW's success and that is largely due to their successful end game content. I just think many games shoot themselves in the foot from the start by letting people level too fast only to be disappointed with little or bad (or both) end game content. The leveling process should take longer which gives more of a sense of accomplishment for the player and buys the devs more time to fine tune and release more/better end game content.
I'm not saying you are wrong exactly. No game has come close to approaching WoW's success and that is largely due to their successful end game content. I just think many games shoot themselves in the foot from the start by letting people level too fast only to be disappointed with little or bad (or both) end game content. The leveling process should take longer which gives more of a sense of accomplishment for the player and buys the devs more time to fine tune and release more/better end game content.
That was essentially the point I was initially making.
At the moment the only endgame they have talked about is there version of GW2 wvwvw in the form of cyrodil as one big 3 faction pvp zone.
It is RvR not WvWvW whatever that is.... RvR has been around since DAoC and ESO is based off of that not GW2. Just saying.
The term RvR however won't be used as Mythic - now owned by EA - copyrighted the term. There will also be many people for whom the term RvR has no meaning.
Comments
You all do realize that Mark Jacobs has nothing to do with ESO?
Its Matt Firor, the guy that was Exec Producer of DAOC: ToA, that in charge in ESO.
Bringer of Eternal Darkness and Despair, but also a Nutritious way to start your Morning.
Games Played: Too Many
Yes, I'm aware of this. What's your point?
Yep strong argument that new PvE content took DAoC away what many regarded as a successful format. I just see it as EQification though rather than WoWification!
And yep Mark Jacobs has no input on TESO. He was point for DAoC though which Matt Frior was involved in - and there "are/will be" people who are looking for a "DAoC style" end game. They may not even case about the ES mythos. Potentially it can be there from day 1 as well and the fundaments need never change. (New maps periodically but in essence complete.)
Must remember that to some end game is all about new raids, dungeons, new content drops whilst others may be looking for something totally different - and maybe the content drops as well!
The PVE expansions in DAoC did not kill RvR, the RvR changes did. In an RvR system, PvE and PvP can be kept quite separate with minimal overlap. Besides, most of the exodus from DAoC had to do more with the releases of SWG and WOW than with any internal decisions.
ESO is indeed geared toward an AvA endgame and does not include the traditional EQ/WOW endgame raid and gear progresions, And frankly, I don't see why they should. There are enough MMOs out there that have stuck to that formula to keep players ocupied between expansions, and many are bored of doing that. This is not one of those games. Sure, there are end-game PvE things to do here, especially if you enjoy exploring. But that's clearly not the focus; AvA is.
This game will sink or swim depending on how much fun the AvA is or isn't. And "sink" and "swim" are subjective and relative terms, not the absolute sell and retain 1 million + forever that seems to be the criteria in these forums. I'm sure the devs are perfectly aware that some MMOers who live for raiding won't stick around if they try it at all, and that many will be in for 1 to 3 months and out... whch is actually the norm these days.
People here get bogged down in amteurish economic assesments and evaluate MMOs in terms of finacial viability and profitability... and then equate their conclusions to "quality." Maybe it's just the consumer phenomenom of wanting their purchase decision validated; and thinking that it's more valid if they purchased only the best of the best as evidenced by how profitable the product is... then you can feel like a good and smart consumer ... weird thinking, IMHO.
This MMO is not for everyone...none of them are really. If you enjoy it for a while be happy for as long as you do... and then go do something else you enjoy. If you enjoy it so much that you want to stick around forever, lucky you...just remember that you're the oddity, not the ones who move on.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
@PigglesworthTWR on Twitter
Pigglesworth @ EQNForum.com, MMORPG.com, EQNextfans.com, ProjectNorrath.com, & EQNFanSite.com
Malcontent @ EQNexus.com & EQHammer.com
^^^This. Amen Sir. Very well said.
I still have hopes that there is content for pve (whatever that might be) at endgame as I have listened to some recent interviews that suggest the game is meant to be played in many ways (depending on your preference). I guess soon enough we will see how it pans out.
Ps:A bit off topic, here is a poll from Tamriel Foundry regarding people's interest in ESO: http://tamrielfoundry.com/2013/05/eso-by-the-numbers-part-1/
many people (at least in tamriel foundry) seem interested in pve, more than pvp even.
I don't know that this has been "proven time and time again". I don't completely disagree with you but there is also the issue that most games these days have leveling that is WAY too fast which means way too many people end up at max level in weeks or days which means whatever end game content there is will be burned through by a large number of people. Neverwinter was a perfect example of this poor design. The leveling was retarded fast (someone in my guild leveled at launch in like 28 hours or something silly)..so fast that it forced you to skip tons of content while leveling (level limited dungeons, skirmishes and bracket pvp) and then there was nothing to do at max level (including no hard mode versions of the lower level dungeons/skirmishes you missed). Worst design ever.
Maybe a game that forces you to experience more leveling content (including PVP) and gives devs more time post-launch to release more content is a better model. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a good amount of end game content at launch but if the leveling is too fast there will never be enough end-game content to keep up with the leveling masses. I know some hate "the grind" but honestly that is part of MMOs to some degree. So long as there is enough interesting leveling content it should be a pretty good experience even if it's slow. That will ensure that by the time the bulk of players level up and consume much of the "end game" content the devs are ready to release additional content and are not behind the eight ball too much.
No themepark leveling process will last forever. What keeps players playing (and paying) long term is polished meaningfull endgame. When I say it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based games would not survive without it, I am referring to AoC, WAR, TSW, SWTOR, LOTRO, DDO, Rift...that isnt even an exausting list....if that doesn't indicate it "time and time again" to you, then I have no idea what will. Literally not a single themepark post wow has survived as a subscription based game, and that is mainly due to lack of quality endgame in each and every one.
There is a reason buttloads of people try out new MMOs, then flock back to WoW. Trust me, its not because of WoW's graphics and setting (lol), its because it has the most veried, polished, and challenging current endgame of any themepark on the market.
So far the only MMO that I think seems to understand this is Wildstar, but lets wait and see.
The point is that none of them have enough. WoW had very little at launch. Even EQ had very little (some of which was literally left in an unfinished state because they didn't expect it to be seen anytime soon..ie a dragon in the form of a human iirc). The difference is how long does it take to get to end game and how long does it take to consume what end game content there is and how soon relative to that they start releasing the next wave of content.
It has nothing to do with sub or F2P. NW was F2P and was the worst end game I have seen ever. It was really more of an afterthought than it was end game. The big difference is that over time the leveling process has morphed from the herculean task it was in EQ to the trivial task in modern games. Not suggesting we should go back to EQ "hell levels" or anything but it shouldn't be so trivial to reach max level..especially when you know people will burn through content and leave. Good alliance PVP should help alleviate that but I think there needs to be substantial PVE content as well.
Maybe the game should be kinda endgame from the beginning - make it hard to lvl so the feeling of achieving something is always present even at the "low levels" So you actually spend time in all areas and you can enjoy the art work some developpers actually have spend time create "for us".
Some games had hell lvls, so games had losing experience, you could even lose lvl progress. That actually made you think of what you where doing, and it took loooong loooong time to get new abilities, lvls etc. You actually made "friends" more easy people you could have a talk with if you wanted.
Yes endgame should be coming all the time with or with out expansions. But i think if its slow progress and content is fun all the way people would stick longer IMHO.
If its like going to walmart or Ikea or whatever cheap big shopping mall, people will just vanish when content is done and "friends in the game never turned into some you actually "cared" about. then its like jumping around like headless bunny. you dont know why you jump.
I look forward to play ESO
Wish you all a happy holiday if you celebrate if you dont i wish you a joyful time until game is launched
Be the change you want to see in the world.
- Mahatma Gandhi
WoW may have had "very little at launch", but it has literally set the standard for endgame content for many years since 2004. My statement was that it has been proven time and time again that a subscription based game cannot survive post WoW without polished, varied, and challenging endgame. You have yet to make a counter point to that.
While it is inevitable you cant really compare or contrast games and use that as a benchmrk of whether they will be good or not.
Seriously these latter games have ALL the benefits. They simply need to take everything that was 'good' about games in the past that have failed to hold an audience and put that system in their game with some tweaks if they dont want to be seen as blatantly 'staling' it.
So they just need to look at the 'most susccessful' aspects of past MMOs to build their systems around.
Crafting they have EVE, SWG, Pirates of the Burning Sea and Vanguard.
Economy they have EVE.
Housing they have EQ2 and Rift
Player based music Lotro
Cosmetic outfits and Mounts Rift and Lotro
PvP, despite what people contend here it has never been done 'perfectly' by any company. But EvE and vanilla WoW got it
mostly' right. Open world stuff not special places basically. And they have/had collision detection.
The ES IP has the best 'little things' aspect like exploring, interacting with objects, collecting butterflies, plants, ore etc. They just need to add a tracking system.
Reputation systems, a few out there but there should be an up and down so if you increase with a faction you decrease with their enemy and associates. Fallen Earth at release is the best example. But they didnt have many (any) NPC reputations which I think there should be.
Open world Dungeons/caves Vanguard and Elder Scrolls IP
"Raids"/instances no game has ever gotten those right either. But should be tied to changing and dynamic progression. Sure it splits the player base at some point but it also saves on doing the same thing over and over again a million times.
Open world events/co ops. Rift, GW2, and Warhammer. Good model but they also need to be less predictable and have more options, and more possible outcomes.
That is a decent place to start. Those things are a must have for a game to be released now and expect people to pay a sub.
Those things also are the beginning point and they also can add to so called 'end game' content and experience. Player housing, crafting, dynamic ever changing open world events, random spawn points of mobs and creation of random NPC outposts can make PvE 'end game' infinite. exploration conjoined with these things also does. So once you go someplace you might find some random crating node, a chest to pick, a chest to simply open, or a camp of bandits or colony of spiders. That, depending on how long they have gone unmolested may take you or 20 other people to dispatch. If people need rewards for these make up a system of tracking this. Not instant gratification but an ongoing system where the more you explore and fight and find random encounters like this you get credit which you trade in eventually. It used to be DOING the content was enough but now everyone needs something from it. So that would further 'entice' people to explore and ride around the map more than once.
That stuff comes right from the ES games and most notably Skyrim. Dungeons, mines, landscape all respawn as time goes by. I spent a few days just compressing time and seeing what happened and how long it took for things to be replaced. With an ever present MMO world that isnt necessary and the world is moving on even when you arent there.
Seriously to me thats a no brainer. It can also lead to 'raids' or attacks on outposts and towns, akin to GW2 and Rift (at release). But even more than what they did. The idea of losing quest givers sucks and taking back a spot might seem cool, but it still isnt enough, especially if they stop there. The more footholds and 'stuff' they take the stronger and bolder they should become. Now should they ever be able to take Daggerfall? Maybe not, But they should be able to maybe get into parts of it.
These so called 'dynamic' events were the next thing in MMOs, but they have not been done 'correctly' yet so they have sort of fallen to the wayside lately. But if done in an 'extreme; way it builds a game that is unpredictable and 'forces' you to play the frigging game or at least protect stuff you want to keep.
PvP is PvP and its the cheapest and easiest time consumption part of a game, but if 'dynamic' events and NPC AI could be done 'correctly it is a firs stage PvP encounter. But there arent too many games with proactive NPCs. Sure they re aggressive if you walk up to them but not many games have NPCs aggressively out looking for people and places to attack. If a game can do that they have something.
THAT is different, at least if it is done 'correctly.
It is RvR not WvWvW whatever that is.... RvR has been around since DAoC and ESO is based off of that not GW2. Just saying.
Semantics
@PigglesworthTWR on Twitter
Pigglesworth @ EQNForum.com, MMORPG.com, EQNextfans.com, ProjectNorrath.com, & EQNFanSite.com
Malcontent @ EQNexus.com & EQHammer.com
Yeah. Dave Mark and Storybricks (http://intrinsicalgorithm.com/IANews/2013/08/working-with-storybricks-on-the-ai-for-everquest-next/) are doing some really interesting stuff for EQN with respect to NPC/mob behavior. Can't wait to try that part of EQN out.
Other parts of EQN (art style, player-created penis towers, the actual game-play and character development...whatever that turns out to be) not so sure about.
There isn't one single current or upcoming MMO that does everything right according to my own list of "right." ESO and EQN are just two of several on my radar that I'm sure I'll play at some point.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Not to people who enjoy meaningful open world PvP. GW2 WvWvW seemed shoe horned into the game world. I was fighting myself. Over and over again. There was no sense of commaraderie, there was no sense of rivalry (as you fought different servers all the time) it had no real meaningful impact on the game.
In WAR (which had great promise but was killed by post launch decisions) and DAoC you had these things. I'm really looking forward to the endgame AvAvA in ESO. I'm looking forward to going into battle with my guild, forging alliances with other guilds, developing rivalries against players and guilds from other factions and fighting over the Ruby Throne.
I understand, not everyone is like me. I understand that this game won't have 5 million subs. But, if they nail the AvAvA experience, they will have a dedicated, loyal subscription base to build off of.
ESo wont be open world, it will be 'frontiers' for a good description. A middle ground where all factions can go. Open world means you can take your character anywhere. ESO will not have that. There wont even be voluntary flagging. Yu enter the PvP zone youre flagged. Might it work? Maybe it is a good compromise for people because it is voluntary. But most PvP is that way now.
As far as what I described and EQ Next, i am well aware. If they can deliver what they have talked about it will be the next generation in MMOs, irony..its free. Which for many is a negative. Have to wait and see but SoE isnt known to be scared of a "pay to win" definition.
I guess I wasn't trying to make a "counter point" so much as to point out that you can't compare a game like WoW with a decade of end game to a game that is just now releasing and if they don't have a slow leveling process they will never have enough end game content (even if it's polished and challenging). I actually agree with you that the success of an MMO is largely determined by how good the end game content is.
You will notice when I initially mentioned WoW's endgame, I called it "current endgame", meaning level 90 stuff only.
The reason I did that, is because like you, people always try to invalidate WoWs massive amount of endgame by claming its because its a 10 year old game, implying its all accumulated stuff over the years. Every single thing to do at level 90 was deleveloped for level 90. All the raids, heroic dungeons, pet battles, challenge modes etc. Its all new and developed for MoP.
MoP alone has 47 raid bosses atm. Those arnt 47 push over place holder raid bosses, these are highly polished raid bosses with unique mechanics and multiple difficulty levels where it takes world first guilds months of 18 hour raid days to beat. Now, granted that 47 is including the wealth of content updates MoP has had since its release in Oct 2012. Lets compare it to a newly released MoP then, when it had 19 of said raid bosses at MoP's launch. Name me a sub based game to launch post wow, that launched with that many raid bosses, let alone have them be as polished and challenging. I am not even taking all of the other new MoP endgame into account here.
Unless a subscription based game releases with endgame rivaling that at the very least, it will fail as a sub based game like all others that came post WoW.
The point is well taken but I still think it's an unfair comparison. WoW is a well established game with an established player base (most of whom are at max level). The focus on that game is mostly raiding/heroic dungeons (for end game) so they know who they are catering to. The have a well established class structure with balance mostly in place. They know their customers and what they want with regard to raids, pvp, dungeons etc..
A new game has a much broader focus and has to nail down multiple things simultaneously. ESO has to have a solid leveling experience, work through class balance issues/bugs, pvp and end game content all at once. A game like ESO also has to establish what sort of game it will be (primarily pvp or substantial pve etc..) and that might take some trial and error once people are leveled up.
I'm not saying you are wrong exactly. No game has come close to approaching WoW's success and that is largely due to their successful end game content. I just think many games shoot themselves in the foot from the start by letting people level too fast only to be disappointed with little or bad (or both) end game content. The leveling process should take longer which gives more of a sense of accomplishment for the player and buys the devs more time to fine tune and release more/better end game content.
That was essentially the point I was initially making.
The term RvR however won't be used as Mythic - now owned by EA - copyrighted the term. There will also be many people for whom the term RvR has no meaning.