Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

ESO devs: If you want to get open world PvP "right" read this...

1235

Comments

  • Eol-Eol- houston, TXPosts: 274Member
    Originally posted by DavisFlight
    Originally posted by Eol-
    Originally posted by boxsnd

    I started 6 months after release and don't remember cc without immunities tbh. I agree with you that without immunities and some skills to get out of cc it surely wouldn't be fun.

    I strongly disagree that it was losing subscribers before ToA. Actually it was thriving and they were constantly adding new servers. The downfall started with ToA.

    That is what a lot of people think, especially the ones who didnt like ToA. But there was already an exodus of casual players before that.

    There were fewer casual players, maily because of /level 20. There were no longer any vets around to show newbies the ropes, so population became stagnant. It didn't decline until about 6 months after ToA came out though. 

    Agree to disagree, it declined long before that. The starter areas were pretty empty even before /level 20, and when you did go to the levelling areas, it was almost all alts. There were very few new players by then. I remember because I levelled an alt at the same time that a new player (friend of a guildie) started. We were usually alone. I also levelled another character on a bigger server (Nimue had a lower population) and I saw the same thing on the other server. This was less than a year after release. No comparison to the first 6 months or so when the game was booming with new players.

    Also there was the issue that the more casual players who took a year or more to reach level 50, well they eventually got there, tried lvl 50 RvR, got rolled, and then realized they either needed to grind realm rank, or be cannon fodder in RvR. We lost a big chunk of my guild's alliance because of people quitting because of that. They thought level 50 would enter them into the endgame but really it just entered them into another type of grinding. RvR became more and more hardcore, and the player base declined. Subs took a while to reflect that (in part because of the proliferation of buffbots) but it was real obvious that the player base was declining and there were few new players entering the game.

    Elladan - ESO (AD)
    Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
    Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
    Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
    Kili - WoW
    Eol - Lineage 2
    Camring - SWG
    Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC

  • Angier2758Angier2758 Mt. Prospect, ILPosts: 1,011Member

    I'm disappointed that the level of thought here is:

     

    "Make it like DAoC pre ToA"

     

    Really???  I mean the whole OP can be summed up with that statement...  you all applaud, but that's basically it.  I don't think copying DAoC's approach will work at this point in time due to competition.

     

    Also most of you have 0 clue why 8 players worked in DAoC..... look at the classes and what was "needed" in a group.

    Needed heavy CC

    Need healer

    Need 2nd healer (in case first went down)

    Needed 5X speed

    Needed End regen

    Needed Bubble

     

    And this was a basic pro 8 man set up... depending on the side you had room for 3-4 DPS.  The abilities were spread out amongst classes so that's why you needed bigger groups in DAoC.... it wasn't some magical "that's the ideal number"... stop saying it.... 

     

     

     

     

     

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    I agree that daoc is/was one of the two best mmos ever along with eve
  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Daoc best themepark mmo ever
    Eve best sandbox mmo ever
  • EoDzeroEoDzero San Antonio, TXPosts: 45Member

    Its very simple. If you want open world pvp dont add instanced pvp like battlefields or arena stuff. Eve Online is a perfect example of open world pvp being focused by its playerbase. I would be willing to bet if they had arenas and instances for fighting you would see a drastic drop in people flying around lowsec/nullsec areas looking for random encounters etc.

    Minus the big zerg that just runs you over its possible for a group to be outnumbered by 2x-3x its size and still win the fight by being coordinated and skilled. That element needs to be brough into the game as well. 

    This game has 3 factions which is better than 2 but would be nicer if all individual guilds where enemies unless they changed their relations to each other to an effect like the eve relation system(would make more sense this way for the player alliance system).

    A war is more interesting the more sides you have fighting each other. 

  • vmopedvmoped Athens, GAPosts: 1,708Member

    I agree with most of the points the OP stated, but to me the best open world pvp MMO I have played was shadowbane.  Beyone the bugs and exploits it handled permanancy and CC better than any of the "pvp" mmo's I have played since.  For CC balance each CC you placed on someone also applied a longer duration immunity buff to the cc to prevent/reduce stunlocking/rootlocking/etc...  Allowing players to own/build/destroy cities was amazing.  Group formations that allowed the group leader to move for you added a structured element that mimiced battles of the past (iron age to US civil war tactics).

    It blows my mind how many developers and players seem to have forgotten or ignored the innovations in open world pvp that Shadowbane employed over its lifespan.  Just my two cents here.

    Cheers!

    MMO Vet since AOL Neverwinter Nights circa 1992. My MMO beat up your MMO. =S

  • Eol-Eol- houston, TXPosts: 274Member
    Originally posted by Angier2758

    I'm disappointed that the level of thought here is:

     

    "Make it like DAoC pre ToA"

     

    Really???  I mean the whole OP can be summed up with that statement...  you all applaud, but that's basically it.  I don't think copying DAoC's approach will work at this point in time due to competition.

     

    Also most of you have 0 clue why 8 players worked in DAoC..... look at the classes and what was "needed" in a group.

    Needed heavy CC

    Need healer

    Need 2nd healer (in case first went down)

    Needed 5X speed

    Needed End regen

    Needed Bubble

     

    And this was a basic pro 8 man set up... depending on the side you had room for 3-4 DPS.  The abilities were spread out amongst classes so that's why you needed bigger groups in DAoC.... it wasn't some magical "that's the ideal number"... stop saying it....  

    Exactly right. Its also a reason that Albion groups often struggled in 8v8, because Albion had more classes so those key skills were spread across more classes. It was much harder to have a 'perfect group' in Albion that it was in Hib or especially Mid which iirc had the fewest classes. In Midgard for example, Healer was both CC and healing, Skalds were numerous so most groups had speed, etc. I played in all three realms and in Albion it was a headache getting all those skills into a group, and if you were in realm battles, some groups wouldnt have the key skills (eg Minstrel speed), there werent enough to go around. And good luck finding enough Sorcerors... When I played in Mid, realmmates would be patting themselves on the back for being 'better', and really, a lot if it was just that their groups had the key skills and the Alb groups often didnt.

    Now, you could have a great Alb 8v8 group, that could go head-to-head with any Mid or Hib group. It was just MUCH harder to build, especially in ad hoc groups.

    Elladan - ESO (AD)
    Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
    Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
    Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
    Kili - WoW
    Eol - Lineage 2
    Camring - SWG
    Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC

  • Eol-Eol- houston, TXPosts: 274Member

    I think ESO will handle the server imbalance (zerg) issue by the way they are deciding who gets put where when they log on. One of the biggest problems in RvR is imbalance of number of players - once one side is known as the 'winning' side, players on the other side are less likely to come out to play RvR, and more new players/rerolls gravitate to the 'winning' side, which makes the imbalance even worse. Having 3 realms helps a lot, but even with 3 realms there were a lot of imbalance issues in DAoC. 

    It sounds like ESO will get a handle on this by controlling who gets put where. They can keep guilds and friends together, while at the same time feeding in new players to a realm, or taking players away, to help maintain balance. That makes good sense if the technology allows it and yet to the players it still gives a sense of being perpetual and allowing them to build groups of friends and pride in their realm/campaign.

    Elladan - ESO (AD)
    Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
    Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
    Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
    Kili - WoW
    Eol - Lineage 2
    Camring - SWG
    Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC

  • dontadowdontadow Detroit, MIPosts: 1,044Member Common

    Killing enemies should never be an objective of real war games, it forces one playstyle as well. 

    The best solution is to add a reward system that is neither killing nor taking territory but obtaining resources..  Having a resource based pvp system allows the designer to have large or small battle zones and have them scale and become as random as they can. You can have resource areas appear and grow as they are ignored

  • aesperusaesperus Hamshire, NVPosts: 5,128Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Angier2758

    I'm disappointed that the level of thought here is:

    "Make it like DAoC pre ToA"

    Really???  I mean the whole OP can be summed up with that statement...  you all applaud, but that's basically it.  I don't think copying DAoC's approach will work at this point in time due to competition.

    Also most of you have 0 clue why 8 players worked in DAoC..... look at the classes and what was "needed" in a group.

    Needed heavy CC

    Need healer

    Need 2nd healer (in case first went down)

    Needed 5X speed

    Needed End regen

    Needed Bubble

     

    And this was a basic pro 8 man set up... depending on the side you had room for 3-4 DPS.  The abilities were spread out amongst classes so that's why you needed bigger groups in DAoC.... it wasn't some magical "that's the ideal number"... stop saying it.... 

    I've got to agree with this ^

    As much as I enjoyed DAoC, I think some people here are honestly living in a fantasy land. This site already has examples of people hating on copies of their favorite game systems. Heck, DAoC's systems are repeatedly getting copied to this day, and expanded upon. That's a good thing.

    Fairly standard issues like performance, rendering (culling), and hacking will most definitely be a problem. But they always are. Why didn't DAoC have these issues as much? Because it's a really old game. MMOs weren't as popular then, hacking wasn't as prevalent or blatant, and servers didn't have to handle nearly as much load as they do now.

     

  • LongLivePvPLongLivePvP LA, CAPosts: 102Member

    From What I have read on http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1433744-world-pvp/

    The only world pvp that goes on is in Cyrodiil...

    Playing: Darkfall Unholy Wars & ArcheAge(Alpha)
    Backed: Shards Online, Camelot Unchained
    Loved: Vanilla WoW,UO,Shadowbane,EQ,DAoC,Asheron's Call(Darktide)

  • GoldenArrowGoldenArrow TurkuPosts: 1,187Member Uncommon

    It all boils down to having an excellent progression system for Open World PvP.

    A) Long "PvP Experience" grind unlocking new "PvP Ranks" opening up fearsome abilities both actives and passives.

    B) Long "PvP Equipment" grind where the loot/tokens drop from players themselves and winning PvP objectives (NOT PVE INSIDE PVP)

    C) Meaningful goal of the RvR. Winning RVR allows you to get even more riches and POWER.

    D) Eliminate trading, completely. Trading is most utterly annoying thing and players always abuse it to progress faster.

     

    Open World PvP doesn't differ _that much_ from PvE. Developers need to understand that some of the values that people appriciate in PvE function in PvP aswell. You don't have to make PvP a completely different world.

    If you can reach "OH SHIT IT'S xSlayerxx who's RANK xxx wielding the ultimate-badass-sword from cyrodiil" you are doing it right.  Players who put effort in RvR should become raidbosses at some stage.

  • PyrateLVPyrateLV Las Vegas, NVPosts: 1,096Member Common
    Originally posted by PvP4Life

    From What I have read on http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1433744-world-pvp/

    The only world pvp that goes on is in Cyrodiil...

    Exactly

    I dont get why people keep calling TESOs PvP "open world" when PvP will only take place in ONE ZONE. Cyrodiil

    And a Mirrored zone at that. Different PvP playstyles will be in a different mirrors of Cyrodiil. RP-PvP players can play on a different Cyrodiil mirror that more Hardcore PvP types.

    Its anything but "open world" PvP

    Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR
    Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT
    Playing: Skyrim
    Following: The Repopulation
    I want a Virtual World, not just a Game.
    ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)

  • Crunchy222Crunchy222 new york, ILPosts: 386Member

    I grow so tired of these "letter to a dev" posts.  Especially on a 3rd party sight.

     

    Every gamer is now some archair developer, knows exactly how to make the greatest game ever.

     

    Truth is the more developers listen to their gaming community, the games keep getting easier, faster, and more shallow.

     

    I prefer when a developer has a vision and stick to it, ignoring the cries from those armchair developers.  I think those games have a soul to them.  These know it alls only seem to know how to do what has already been done "right" and listening to them is how we keep getting the same mechanics with a new skin and name tossed at us.

     

    Specifically with a development studio known for making good RPG's....let them make their game as they see fit.  Your ideas (to all here) if they were really groundbreaking or the key to success...you probably wouldnt be on a forum posting about them, you would be making the game or directing the team.  Too many chiefs not enough tribesmen.

     

    I tend to enjoy games more when i sit back, let someone else develop it, and enjoy the game for what it is.  Sitting around theorycrafting about how it should be just make me dislike a game i would otherwise have enjoyed.

     

    Also, not sure what people are smoking to think some developer is reading these posts and then will impliment their idea...could be your run of the mill narcissism...chances are the time for changing major systems is over.

     

    Basically i prefer my games to be well thought out including the big picture and the little details, as the process for development...not going on some 3rd party forum to get their ideas.

     

    We dont need yet another DAOC attempt...that style of pvp is shallow and boring anyway...and its not like we havent been regurgitating the same tired system for ages now it seems...i dont care what minute factor other attempts got wrong in your eyes...its all the same mechanics no matter how you reskin and tweak it.  This is what im talking about...listen to the gaming community and get the same old shit regurgitated.

     

    Bring us unique..shit i wouldnt even have thought of...thats how a classic is made...thats how you win an audience long term.  else you just get a WAR/AOC/GW2 been there done that overhype the start and watch it die type of game...which this will probably be...unless they actually do something unique and risky....which they wont...because money is at stake and its safe to regurgitate because lemmings will bit the hype and buy it. Or i guess they could just make it buy to play, and it will forever be a success no matter how many actually play..sometimes i think people care more about how free it is than how good it is.

  • AutemOxAutemOx Fullerton, CAPosts: 1,704Member
    I agree with OP about a lot of that, definently.  I would also add that the best place for RvR would be the game world itself.  I was playing GW2 and it is sorta like...  Why are we fighting over these boring keeps?  This same fight could be happening to vy for control over the actual game world.  That would be much more interesting.

    Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.

  • SirFubarSirFubar SeoulPosts: 397Member
    Originally posted by boxsnd

    WAR's mistakes: 

    - 2 factions instead of 3 (no danger here)

    That's the biggest mistake to make if you want open world PvP balanced. Either you let the player form their own faction/realm/guilds etc or you make 3 factions. 2 factions make a lot of population imbalances.

    - low duration WoW-like crowd control system: Why is this important? High duration aoe CC allows a full group of skilled players to take on zergs of lesser skilled enemies. With low duration CC the number of players is much more important than skill (the skill cap is much lower)

    That's just plain wrong. In WAR, you could easily take out a big zerg of lesser skilled players with a group of 6 skilled players. Giving high duration AoE CC to any games would be just dumb, even more if they don't break on damage.When WAR changed changed their CC system where CC could break on damage, it was wonderful. Its false to say that with low duration CC, the number of players is more important than skill, I've seen a couple of MMO where CC have low duration and you could still beat a zerg with a normal group. Its doesn't lower the skill gap at all, its the complete opposite. Giving high duration AoE CC will lower the skill gap.

    - Renown Rank progression was way too fast. In (pre-ToA) DAoC it took YEARS to reach max RR, yet in WAR they did it very quickly. Renown ranks(war) didn't have the same weight as realm ranks(daoc), they didn't feel important.

    Sure the RR progression was kinda fast, but to say that it didn't feel important? Complete opposite here again. Being high RR allowed you to be more powerful and having easier fight against people that weren't near the RR level you were.

    - 6man groups instead of 8, which made it even harder to be effective as a single group against zergs.

    Not true at all. It was maybe better for DAoC (didnt play DAoC so I don't really know) because there was a lot more differents classes so you had a lot more choices on your setup than a game like WAR. You could still easily beat a zerg with 6 people if you knew what you were doing.

    GW2 WvW's mistakes:

    - No progression (they promised to add it recently)

    Progression in PvP is meaningless for me. I don't want to "Farm" in PvP for the sake of having a higher PvP rank than others. I especially don't want to "Farm" PvP to get special skills or stuff like that. Sure it can be fun for some people but it can also lead to some bad stuff if not done right. Like people skipping stuff, not defending, only attacking just to be able to gain ranks as fast as possible like WAR.

    - Main objective is taking keeps, not killing enemies. This led to one and only one playstyle: Zerging. Also this led to the losing servers getting discouraged / giving up easily.

    Well atm yeah main objective is taking keeps, but when relics will be back things might change, at least I hope so. Sure this lead to zerging a lot more, but that's a problem coming from players mostly. Nothing is stopping player to fight in open field. IMO, its a lot better to spread your forces in small group than run in a big zerg. Its more fun 1st of all and its also better to get points faster. I'm pretty sure if people who played games like WoW, WAR and Gw2 played DAoC pre-TOA right now, most people would do the same thing, zerging all over the place. Its a player mentality problem mostly.

    - low duration CC system favoring larger groups

    Again, that's just not true. I have to say that CC duration in GW2 is lower than most MMO tho.

    - No trinity means no healers which is favoring larger groups

    No trinity means no dedicated healers. There's still some healing in the game its just not as dumb as other MMO where 1 guy can keep people full HP for a long long time. It doesn't favor larger groups at all since you can still beat a zerg with a good group. Its just that most people don't run small groups and most people are usually just bad at PvP.

    - 5 man groups (way too small for open world pvp)

    Group size shouldn't matter at all because its the same for everyone. Every game should just allow us to play with the group size that we want. No limit.

    - The downed mechanic favoring larger groups

    That's completely true, but you can deal with it pretty easily. It's a mechanic that I don't like at all in PvP.

    - siege way too effective against players

    Why should it be otherwise? I mean its some siege weapons, it should beat a lot of players easily.

    - siege can be bought with RL money

    Like everything else in the game. It's not an issue at all. I doubt a lot of people really spend real cash to buy some cheap(ingame gold) siege weapons. You need some supply to build them and its not always an easy task. You could have 10 prints for siege but you won't ever have enough supply to build them all at once. Supplies are the key here.

    - names of enemies not visible, enemies changing every 2 weeks = impossible to build rivalries (one of the things that made DAoC so awesome)

    I do agree that's kinda lame, but its not impossible to build rivalries. I mean, rivalries are usually between guilds, not between certain players.

    - easy to transfer to the winning server

    True, but it won't stay that way forever. It's a real flaw that they didn't fix this in the beginning.

    - all 3 enemy realms are essentially the same realm (same classes/races)

    I don't think that's a mistake. It's a mistake in some players mind because you don't get the "Realm Pride" that you had in DAoC (as some people mentionned). But just like I've said, let 2day MMO players play a game like DAoC and most people won't care about the realm pride just like they don't care about the "server pride" in GW2. It's a problem in some players mentality. I also bet that most people would just join the OP realm and thats it.

    So what is the key of creating a great open world PvP?

    1) permanent progression which is only achieved through open world PvP kills (primary objective) and taking keeps (secondary objective, much slower than kills). Progression should be endless or extremely hard to reach the max rank. It should be interesting: not +1 str per rank etc, give us PvP-only skills that can't be unlocked with PvE.

    That could be a really great form of progression but I don't like the idea of givin PvP-only skills. Well, it could be good if those skills don't give a good power boost to the players. Else, some problems will arise like people won't try to capture keeps since it will only slow their progression to get their next PvP-only skill.

    2) A dungeon like Darkness Falls to fight over

    I think that can be a good idea too but I also think most people won't really like it. Fighting over a dungeon for the most part can only do bad for a MMO nowadays. Some guilds will just find it fun to camp that dungeon so other can't do it. Most people will just cry about it. Especially if that dungeon gives some needed gear.

    4) Large duration crowd control system, large groups (8 players is optimal), no "downed mechanic", yes to the  trinity(healers,tanks,dps) to allow for many different playstyles (zerging, competitive group vs group, soloing, small group, stealthing etc)

    Large duration CC system just lower the skill gap. Imagine a zerg being able to CC your small group endlessly. Else refer to my point about the same thing in the WAR section. Group size doesn't change anything in being optimal. 10 is more optimal than 8, like 20 is more optimal than 10. There shouldn't be a group size limit. Trinity if done right could also be good, but no game was able to have it right. I prefer a no trinity system than a bad one like every single MMO in the past years. Balancing the trinity is really hard to do. A healer shouldn't be able to spam heals and keep people alive for a big amount of time. I have nothing against Tank and DPS, the problem is how healing is done badly.

    6) Names of enemies visible, same enemies all the time (to build rivalries and realm pride, and to make the whole war feel important)

    Sure seeing enemies names is better than not being able to. I do agree that having the same enemies all the time is alot better than changing every 2 weeks like GW2. But to say that you need those stuff to build rivalries is just not right. Its a player mentality problem, not a design one.

    7) Make defending keeps much more rewarding than trading them with your enemies.

    Yeah that another great idea but hard to pull off. Especially if you give players kills the most points toward progression. It would be hard to balance points given by taking and defending keeps. If there's too much difference between defending and capturing, 1 might be completely ignored, like WAR where it was only some keep trading (no defense most of the time) all the time and people would run next to each other without even attacking. If capturing gives more points, it will become a keep trading. If defending gives more, most people will completely drop what they are doing just to go defend the one that's being attack even if there's some people already there to do it. With an alliance/guilds, that wouldn't as big of a problem tho.

    8) DON'T force us to PvE (much) to be able to compete in PvP.

    That a big must for a good competitive OWPvP game.

    9) The skill system should allow skilled players to overpower zergs of lesser skilled players. If twitch.tv existed back in 2002, DAoC would be the most watched game by far. It was insanely competitive. But if the skill cap is as low as WoW's/GW2's it will never happen.

    Nearly every single MMO that have PvP allows this. You gotta understand that most people are just really bad at PvP, a couple are decent and the minority are pretty good. Sure DAoC pre-TOA is the best PvP game ever (can't say, never played it but it surely look really really good) but it wasn't the only game that allowed you to overcome a big zerg with a small group. You can do this in WoW, GW2, WAR and pretty sure a couple of other MMO too. I've seen it many many many times and I've played/play those 3 games.

    Pretty good post overall OP. Had a great read :) What I've didn't answer was because I haven't play DAoC so I can't comment or it was because I totally agreed with the OP.

  • Eol-Eol- houston, TXPosts: 274Member
    Originally posted by PyrateLV
    Originally posted by PvP4Life

    From What I have read on http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1433744-world-pvp/

    The only world pvp that goes on is in Cyrodiil...

    Exactly

    I dont get why people keep calling TESOs PvP "open world" when PvP will only take place in ONE ZONE. Cyrodiil

    And a Mirrored zone at that. Different PvP playstyles will be in a different mirrors of Cyrodiil. RP-PvP players can play on a different Cyrodiil mirror that more Hardcore PvP types.

    Its anything but "open world" PvP

    It has just as much open-world PvP as DAoC did. And really, whether people choose servers are or put into different campaigns based on friends/playstyle, its just different ways of dividing players into manageable groups. If having one world with everyone in it and all areas open to PvP is your standard of open-world PvP, well then no mainstream game with a large player base will ever qualify

    Elladan - ESO (AD)
    Camring - SWTOR (Ebon Hawk)
    Eol & Justinian - Rift (Faeblight)
    Ceol and Duri - LotRO (Landroval)
    Kili - WoW
    Eol - Lineage 2
    Camring - SWG
    Justinian (Nimue), Camring - DAoC

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Well it doesn't as daoc also had Ffa servers.
  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Crunchy
    No the wow style of pvp is dull and boring

    The daoc style done right e.g planetside 1 is lots of fun.
    The daoc style done semi right e.g war, gw2, planetside 2 is also a damn site more fun than arena e"sport" bollox.

    I don't consider likes if lwg in wow, fusang in tsw or ilum in swtor to be daoc style. They are half arsed tacked on pvp for a momentary distraction while you're not doing raiding.
  • zomard100zomard100 karlovacPosts: 228Member

    1-Where is Blizzard mistake?

    2- DAoC is considered as best pvp game !!!!?? According to numbers of players i would say maybe mediocre game

    3-Most people=Minority  or rest outside of wow, right?

     

  • SatchoSatcho MontevideoPosts: 33Member Common
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Originally posted by DiSpLiFF

    The key to good open world pvp is simple. Don't put in battlegrounds or any sort of instanced pvp. Once you do that why would anyone choose open world pvp when rewards are much easier to get in battlegrounds. 

    I think it is fine ot have pvp and pve gear, just make the distinction. This was something that WoW did very well after introducing pvp gear. 

    Exactly.  Battlegrounds, Arenas, Structured PvP or what ever you want to call it always detracts from the open world PvP.

    Restricted zone pvp isn't open world.  It's not really different than battle grounds and such or GW2s WvW except the zone is public instead of private.  That's really the only thing that separates a zone from an instance.

    What detracts from open world pvp is when pve is separated.  To have any meaningful effect and integration into the game ow pvp needs to have competition for pve resources while in a pvp environment.  This is why Lineage, not DAoC is probably the most popular pvp mmo ever.  How many people play daoc now?  How many play Lineage? Lineage still has an estimated million players and it's a 2.5d isometric mmo that's around 14 years old.

    Then again Lineage was too hardcore for the west and a more on rails daoc experience will likely suit the west better.  But please stop trying to crown it as some pinnacle pvp experience.  It's not much better, if at all, than most other themepark pvp.

    Absolutely -- no clue why they keep saying TESO has OWPvP, when it is restricted to a closed-off area. Hopefully ArcheAge will cater to those of us looking for actual OWPvP, unless Trion goes overboard with their westernization...

  • OmnifishOmnifish LondonPosts: 616Member
    Originally posted by eric_w66

    "First of we all know that this type of PvP started with DAoC, and (pre-ToA) DAoC is considered by most people as the best PvP game of all time."

    Problem with this is it is a false premise. "Most" people don't consider DAOC to have been successful in PvP. One realm dominated the other two on most servers, they had to encourage people to move to lower pop sides servers with pre-leveled chars with gear, etc. That's not success.  That's patching failure.  The people who do consider DAOC to be the best PvP game of all time, look back on it with rose-tinted glasses and forget all the frustration the game gave them.

    Best PvP game I've ever played was Tribes 1.0, prior to the rampant cheating/hacks.  Then, after that, Pong.

    Yep we have the same thing with SWG on these forums. DAOC's pvp was a good idea but the posts in favor clearly ignore the FOTM classes and the impact that had on RvR.

    As to the OP what an increbiably arrogant post to make. So you know better because you can point out faults in other games and think the developers should cherry pick bits and bobs of things you do like in oihers? 

    Here's the thing even with all those elements you like the actually synergy between systems could make the entire thing fall apart, ( a large open world with 8 man group structure with roles would have enormous amounts of balance issues, amomgst other things).

    I hope they don't listen to me nor you.  I hope they don't try to cater to people who are living in the past.  I hope they have some new ideas that work within whatever systems they decide to put in place.  I hope to be plesantly surprised by them.

    It'd be much better longterm then listening to those who can't seem to get over their first love..

    This looks like a job for....The Riviera Kid!

  • rwyanrwyan raleigh, NCPosts: 461Member

    While DAoC is considered by many, as having one of the best pvp systems for a MMO, I think a large degree of it's success was that it's RvR system hadn't been attempted before.

     

    Essentially, you had 3 isolated PvE experiences with joint PvP experiences.  When it first came out, it was fresh and new.  The PvE was actually very lackluster.  Considering it was based on various mythologies, it was actually fairly boring when it came to PvE - it lacked that mystery or that "hook" that made games like AC and EQ so memorable.

     

    However, where it shined was its RvR warfare.  Because it really hadn't been done before, players and their communities relied on one another.  However, it once players started to get a grasp of the various intertwined mechanics that made the system - all sense of community and realm pride quickly went down hill (as players were now gaming the system as opposed to playing the game).

     

    If you take each expansion for what it was, most of them were actually really nice.  Shrouded Isles drastically improved the PvE experience.  The new dungeons were actually "fun".  The new encounters were actually "fun".  The misstep here was neglecting the RvR experience and letting it stagnate.

     

    With ToA, we actually got an entertaining expansion.  However, while very interesting, it introduced a PvE grind in order to compete with the big raiding MMO EQ.  As many pointed out, any competitive RvR player was now "required" to go through these grinds in order to remain competitive.  Outside of this grind; however, RvR stagnated.

     

    I actually liked Catacombs and Darkness Rising.  By the time these expansions were released, the RvR experience was really just a shadow of what it was the first 2ish years the game was out.  The experiences introduced here were fun, engaging and interesting.  However, they really didn't add to the RvR experience.  But these expansions *did* keep me in a game I once loved dearly.

     

    My personal opinion is that Mythic really didn't truly understand its own MMO.  Like a lot of older MMOs, it developed some feature bloat (there are what, 3-4 alternate advancement systems now?!)  Some of the older content is far surpassed by its newer content.

     

    At large, MMOs are mostly "gamed".  Players "game" the systems.  As long as MMOs utilize familiar systems, they're going to be figured out and "gamed" heavily.  It's that simple.  

     

    I imagine with ESO, while the 3 faction warfare will "improve" upon experiences we've seen in the past, unless they add some fresh, subtle elements - I imagine it will lose its luster within a couple years.

     

     

  • sakkdaddysakkdaddy SandnesPosts: 45Member

    I agree with you on most points, but long duration CC is just bad game design.  Also "most people" don't know what DAoC is anymore, so I'm sure they wouldn't call it the best pvp game of all time.

     

    More importantly than the issues you described though is a risk vs reward system. I am not sure if ESO will allow same-faction murdering, or teaming up with opposing factions even, but if they do then that would be great. It will need to be go along with fairly harsh penalties for dying though if you are flagged as a murderer.

  • AzrileAzrile Houston, MDPosts: 2,582Member
    Originally posted by boxsnd
    Originally posted by renatodias

    Disagree with you point in CC like "- low duration WoW-like crowd control system:"

     

    WoW CC's are exagerated and not fun. I believe the first thing dev. have in mind is making the game fun.

    But yeah , world pvp on recent mmo's are just bad or non-existence.

    WoW CC isn't fun because they have diminishing returns instead of full on immunity. Getting chain stunned to death isn't fun for anyone. 

     

    I realize that long duration CC might sound scary but there should be ways to get out of it (active skill like purge with a long cooldown, passive cc duration reduce, perhaps a healer demezz/cure with a cooldown) and it should give you full immunity for a short time. If it's implemented correctly it's way more fun/less annoying than short duration cc with diminishing returns, and it promotes skill instead of zerging.

    One thing you didn´t mention in your original post and is kinda related to CC is  ´what happens when you die´.

    I think this ties into CC because for me, I hate long (30 plus second) CCs.  I think WOW maybe has them a little short, but that is because WOW made another mistake, and that was letting CCs have too short of a cast-time (sometimes instant).  The reason WOW has evolved to such short duration ccs is because they are impossible to block or interrupt.  I think those two things go hand-in-hand.  If you want a 30sec CC, then it better come at the end of a 4 second cast that screams ´interrupt me´.

    Back to the issue of death.  This is another ´killer´ in world pvp.  Simply put, death needs to be meaningful and take you out of the fight for a signficant amount of time.  I´ve played games where you actually wanted to die if it forced your opponent to use a long CD ability.  The amount of time death keeps you out of the fight needs to far surpass even the longest of CCs. I think recently, devs have just been afraid of forcing players to stare at a grey screen.

Sign In or Register to comment.