Awesome!!! I hope they are going to use a style of combat similar to the action combat of Elder Scrolls. Warhammer felt a little too linear to me, but Daoc felt more wide open.
While I absolutely LOVE the idea of someone finally taking a stab at DAoC 2 (even if it is unofficial), I seriously wonder if a small developer will be able to do it justice. Regardless, I will be keeping an eye on this and trying it out when it arrives.
Currently playing: Rift Played: SWToR, Aion,EQ, Dark Age of Camelot World of Warcraft, AoC
THis really is a dream come true, DAoC was THE best game ever. Please just make DAoC with updated graphics and you have made me the happiest nerd in existence.
Sylvaana--Hibernia--Eldritch-Tristan Server <Vestige>
I enjoyed the PvE in DAOC a lot, and think it was probably even critical to the success of RvR, not to mention crafting. I think it worked as well as it did, because it was all tied together so well, these different elements that were all integral to one another. None of this modern game design where you keep it all seperate and irrelevant, because some people might like one aspect of the game, but not another.
In the early days, the frontiers were deserted for quite a while, and there weren't even battlegrounds, yet. It was ALL PvE that got the ball rolling, and even two years later, I remember how many people spent way more time leveling alts to 50, than RvRing with them, even though they did so for RvR. It gave the PvE a greater sense of purpose.
People remember DAOC for the RvR, but without the massive foundation of PvE, I don't think DAOC would be remembered for much of anything.
I think you MAY have missunderstood my post. I enjoyed the PvE when DAoC started without a doubt, but it was very evident that there was very little effort by Mythic put into the PvE side of DAoC in terms of trying to keep any players focused on it. The focus for Mythic (clearler stated by them when the game launched) was RvR. And that was clear when you played (if you played back then)
As far as the Frountier being empty, thats an insane claim (I'm not talking about the first month before there were very many lvl 50's yet).
However, I did enjoy PvE in DAoC, And the release of Darkness falls (making the RvR fight directly over a PvE was awesome In my opinion)
Leveling was a lot slower in those days, so yeah, I meant before most people got to 50. That was at least a few months, where people were happily PvEing though. These days, MMOs can die in less than the time it took for DAOC to even get its RvR up to speed. Before most of the playerbase even knew RvR was going to be this huge thing they should be aiming for, they were just playing it like it was a new alternative to EQ, and that aspect of the game was done well enough that it had a lot to do with its initial popularity.
I don't know if we're disagreeing exactly, but I'm just saying that I think that whole PvE experience was important to the game overall, so I'm not so sure about this talk of Camelot Unchained being much more PvP focused.
I think most of the DAOC playerbase came for the PvE, but stayed for the RvR. Both were vital, really.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
What made daoc great was its one of the few mmos where pvp and pve were both good.
Now I can enjoy a game that's all pvp like planetside. And once over I could enjoy a game that's 90% pve (most mmos), although I'm burned out on that its gotten stale. I long for a game where I can spend equal time in pvp and pve and work on crafting and all 3 are important to each other, its a more well rounded experience. The only current game that comes close is eve.
I think overall it is a mistake to go p2p in today's market, even if they just want to be niche. The fact of the matter is that people play and leave games regardless whether it is a p2p or f2p, but a f2p is far more enticing for the new players you need to replace the old players.
It's fine if they want to target a 45,000 niche player base, but if that is the only people who start playing their game and they have no growth, they will end up with 4,500 players instead of the 45,000 they want. The hardcore base of a game is always a small percentage of the initial playerbase. The issue with MMOs is that players will leave if their server starts getting low populated, even if they really like the game. So then there is a domino effect of people exiting a game. What f2p provides is a higher player base so paying players have more reason to stick around.
I think overall it is a mistake to go p2p in today's market, even if they just want to be niche. The fact of the matter is that people play and leave games regardless whether it is a p2p or f2p, but a f2p is far more enticing for the new players you need to replace the old players.
It's fine if they want to target a 45,000 niche player base, but if that is the only people who start playing their game and they have no growth, they will end up with 4,500 players instead of the 45,000 they want. The hardcore base of a game is always a small percentage of the initial playerbase. The issue with MMOs is that players will leave if their server starts getting low populated, even if they really like the game. So then there is a domino effect of people exiting a game. What f2p provides is a higher player base so paying players have more reason to stick around.
I have to disagree. Personally, f2p just screams cheap in my mind. Going f2p initially just announces to the world you can't compete. Nothing wrong with free trials though. P2p is still the best way to go. You put out a decent product that has content that is reusable like DAoC had you will keep people. The pvp games out there right now are pathetic, most are sandboxes with a horrible pvp ruleset. Hopefully Mr Jacobs has watched and learned.
JUST IN: EA buys City State Entertainment and renames Camelot Unchained to Dark Age of Camelot 2. Here's the official statement by John Riccitiello:
"With the purchase of City State Entertainment and the newly named Dark Age of Camelot 2, we see plenty of innovative opportunities to bring to the DAoC fans. We'll create the 6th pillar of MMORPG's, which is three factions. The 7th pillar of MMORPG's and the future of MMORPG's is the new and highly innovative business model we like to call B2PP2PF2P hybrid."
When pressed further about the B2PP2PF2P business model Mr. Riccitiello had this to say:
"We plan to target as many people with the launch of DAoC 2 as possible. This will be our biggest project ever with even more voice overs than ever before and we plan to introduce actual rollercoaster tracks to each level to make it easier for players to explore the rich world. Players will also be able to purchase extra value by unlocking quest markers over NPC's heads, which compliments the rollercoaster tracks leading right up to that NPC. In addition to this, players will be able to unlock NPC's by purchasing the NPC booster pack which adds even more value to their experience!"
Comments
Pathfinder expected beta is in 2014, the kickstarter funds shaved off over a year of dev time, 2015 release expected as they said in a podcast.
Awesome!!! I hope they are going to use a style of combat similar to the action combat of Elder Scrolls. Warhammer felt a little too linear to me, but Daoc felt more wide open.
Open it up, Mark!!! You the man!!!
A 3 faction RvR-only game made by the man who gave us DAOC? Shut up and take my money!!!
Currently playing:
Rift
Played:
SWToR, Aion,EQ, Dark Age of Camelot
World of Warcraft, AoC
EQ2 fan sites
/throws money at screen!
THis really is a dream come true, DAoC was THE best game ever. Please just make DAoC with updated graphics and you have made me the happiest nerd in existence.
Sylvaana--Hibernia--Eldritch-Tristan Server <Vestige>
~Leif
Leveling was a lot slower in those days, so yeah, I meant before most people got to 50. That was at least a few months, where people were happily PvEing though. These days, MMOs can die in less than the time it took for DAOC to even get its RvR up to speed. Before most of the playerbase even knew RvR was going to be this huge thing they should be aiming for, they were just playing it like it was a new alternative to EQ, and that aspect of the game was done well enough that it had a lot to do with its initial popularity.
I don't know if we're disagreeing exactly, but I'm just saying that I think that whole PvE experience was important to the game overall, so I'm not so sure about this talk of Camelot Unchained being much more PvP focused.
I think most of the DAOC playerbase came for the PvE, but stayed for the RvR. Both were vital, really.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
What made daoc great was its one of the few mmos where pvp and pve were both good.
Now I can enjoy a game that's all pvp like planetside. And once over I could enjoy a game that's 90% pve (most mmos), although I'm burned out on that its gotten stale. I long for a game where I can spend equal time in pvp and pve and work on crafting and all 3 are important to each other, its a more well rounded experience. The only current game that comes close is eve.
I think overall it is a mistake to go p2p in today's market, even if they just want to be niche. The fact of the matter is that people play and leave games regardless whether it is a p2p or f2p, but a f2p is far more enticing for the new players you need to replace the old players.
It's fine if they want to target a 45,000 niche player base, but if that is the only people who start playing their game and they have no growth, they will end up with 4,500 players instead of the 45,000 they want. The hardcore base of a game is always a small percentage of the initial playerbase. The issue with MMOs is that players will leave if their server starts getting low populated, even if they really like the game. So then there is a domino effect of people exiting a game. What f2p provides is a higher player base so paying players have more reason to stick around.
I have to disagree. Personally, f2p just screams cheap in my mind. Going f2p initially just announces to the world you can't compete. Nothing wrong with free trials though. P2p is still the best way to go. You put out a decent product that has content that is reusable like DAoC had you will keep people. The pvp games out there right now are pathetic, most are sandboxes with a horrible pvp ruleset. Hopefully Mr Jacobs has watched and learned.
I have waited for years for this !!!
The Origional WarWitch
Currently playing:
Rift
Played:
SWToR, Aion,EQ, Dark Age of Camelot
World of Warcraft, AoC
Kickstarter launching in march 2013 not the game
So True. DAoC had a good balance, that made the PvE and RvR co-dependent. It's what most mordern games are missing.
JUST IN: EA buys City State Entertainment and renames Camelot Unchained to Dark Age of Camelot 2. Here's the official statement by John Riccitiello:
"With the purchase of City State Entertainment and the newly named Dark Age of Camelot 2, we see plenty of innovative opportunities to bring to the DAoC fans. We'll create the 6th pillar of MMORPG's, which is three factions. The 7th pillar of MMORPG's and the future of MMORPG's is the new and highly innovative business model we like to call B2PP2PF2P hybrid."
When pressed further about the B2PP2PF2P business model Mr. Riccitiello had this to say:
"We plan to target as many people with the launch of DAoC 2 as possible. This will be our biggest project ever with even more voice overs than ever before and we plan to introduce actual rollercoaster tracks to each level to make it easier for players to explore the rich world. Players will also be able to purchase extra value by unlocking quest markers over NPC's heads, which compliments the rollercoaster tracks leading right up to that NPC. In addition to this, players will be able to unlock NPC's by purchasing the NPC booster pack which adds even more value to their experience!"
So kickstarter campaign going to suck then I guess!