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!

Camelot Unchained: New Dev Blogs Discusses RvR Based Leveling

MikeBMikeB MMORPG.com Community ManagerQueens, NYPosts: 5,717Administrator Uncommon

City State Entertainment's Mark Jacobs has put together a new blog update discussing the RvR based leveling of Camelot Unchained. According to Jacobs, PvE leveling in his RvR focused game would be unnecessary, so players will gain all their important stat increases, abilities, and the like through RvR:

What is important for players to understand is that as an old school RPGer, that I truly understand the importance of having systems that reward players as they engage in activities that benefit their realm over the lifetime of their character(s). The other thing to keep in mind is that as an RvR-focused game, there is no PvE leveling so increasing your stats, gaining new skills and abilities have to come from RvR. Thus, having a complimentary leveling system on top of a standard PvE-based leveling system is not necessary since there is no standard PvE-based leveling system in the game.

Get the full details over at the City State Entertainment blog.

 

image

Michael "MikeB" Bitton
Community Manager
Twitter: @eMikeB

«1

Comments

  • IncomparableIncomparable KuwaitPosts: 872Member

    I guess I'm going to have to read the rest of the blog. No pve* leveling sounds strange. What about NPC's and A.I.? Even if its rvr it's needs to look real with NPC's and quests relating to the area to give some context to the area. Well... BrB

     

    edit: doesn't answer about existence of NPC's or lack of. I know there is a king and he takes note of people's contribution to the realm. That sound good, but its sounds too open to understand the impact and rewards in this Mmo. Still need more info.

    “Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble”

  • hadatihadati Seattle, WAPosts: 27Member
    Because by steering the conversation at this point you can have a far greater impact on the eventual game.

    Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.

  • xer0skillxer0skill San Jose, CAPosts: 4Member
    He's creating a game for the players, and by posting his ideas for the game he can gauge whether his audience likes it or not.

    image

  • george99george99 Fargo, NDPosts: 77Member Uncommon
    This game wont take until 2017 to come out. Most likely without having to make a large number of quests (if any quests at all), no dungeons to really make, limited amounts of actual zones (too many and you would have a hard time finding that rvr action...), not a lot of npc models to make or much NPC related anything needed, and all the other stuff they basically can cut out. This game will probably have a short turnaround time to be released. They need an engine, classes (with skills/spells/abilities), and a small world. I believe it was said that DAoC only had an 18 month turnaround and this game should take so much less than that did. We will see if they get the funding and that is the point of all this news coming out now...
  • JetrpgJetrpg Whitehouse, OHPosts: 2,376Member

    One they need to met their kickstart first at least according to Mark.

    Two "Top Ten Questions: No realm ranks, abilities? What?" Should just be renamed "Top Ten Facts: Why this game will fail x 10. What?"

    Because it will fail with such a model, this is exactly what so many dev.s have attempted to do. Almost NO ONE PLAYED DAOC 24/7 IN PVP. Yet Mark somehow had the great idea, that if he subtracted what people did with MOST OF THEIR TIME in daoc somehow people will love it? Mark is not connected to the daoc, the mmmorpg, or even rpg fanbase. It sounds like the only fanbase he even attempting to appeal to (other than the super easy to hype crowed, but i do not count them) is the fps one which typically like only pvp game/match games (which are probably not going to leave their games because they already have what they want in them- easy advancement, just pvp, lack of very impactful character progression, etc.) So Mark Jacobs wants to take the world, the massive setting of Camelot, out of the game (this is built by pve not pvp , pvp is were you see the clash between these worlds, but not were their are built; pve is what makes realm pride possible for most players, pve is what develops a sense of realm), he wants to take out what most people spend most of their time doing (pve and meaningful progression.. mind you this game is gonna use planetside progression [something like that], so yeah its ok but its not = to wow (old wow) or daoc style progression, its rpg lite or zero) ... im sure there is more but this paragraph is already too long.

    I will state as a matter of fact Mark if you want a successful game stop trying to improve system NO ONE WANTS YOU TO IMPROVE. Daocs rvr was perfect with NF castles (no ramps that stuff is awful; with ladders, they take skill, skill is good and are far more effective for their purpose); NF was just slightly too large and it lost much of each realms world SETTING or FEELING, which detracted from them (Warping is a bad idea also, so are buff bots tho they made you money...).

    Mark if you want a successful game take daoc remap it , reclass it (using the same basic design, realm inequialities are GOOD, Difference is GOOD, etc., counter skills on each side some differnces, some uniqueness, some improvements [more active buffing system?]), regraphic it, redungeon it (using the same principles but harder in general [maybe a larger risk vs reward system in dungeons offer greater rewards from mobs and areas of it that are more challenging], fix the TOA concept [x-packs should offer improved items but slowly or incrementally, so like one or two slots a pack, .. maybe three, with maybe ~5% increased power from each slot [or less they just cannot be required to be effective, don't worry about x-pack sales, worry about quality games, or add other features... such as new classes. Don't offer easy dumb leveling routes.. catacombs and IDs, you want to build community] no one should become ineffective because of a patch [unless its a rare one in that case the same requirements to become effective should be the same as before not piled on / added. In this way you avoid people getting too far behind. Rift just did this well, they increased max level (which is generally a bad idea, but if your going to do it, start over like the game is fresh make equipment mostly low-hanging) ], Make a grouping or lfg system, no insta warp , auto queue, etc. Something like a lfg channel or lfg board/window where people can see players and groups lfg/m This keeps the group and communal aspect while facilitating the act of grouping.

    Ther ios more for sure, but your making a game that i do not feel many people even want. Well we have it already in the form of many games.

    Please do not take this negitively i wish you and anyone that wants to enjoy this game the best, but i had hoped you would examine yourself and your games and sause-out what worked and what didn't and plan a game from that.

    "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine

  • ThedrizzleThedrizzle Palm Coast, FLPosts: 322Member
    Im oretty sure he said earlier that its a niche game and they aren't looking for 1 million subs. People play FPSs, the game mount and blade was a huge hit, why wouldn't people want a game based around PvP. Sh*t, i have to sit through boring PvE games to level just cause I want to PvP at end game. Im sure there are many others like me.
  • Got_Game_TVGot_Game_TV Mayfield Heights, OHPosts: 262Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Thedrizzle
    Im oretty sure he said earlier that its a niche game and they aren't looking for 1 million subs. People play FPSs, the game mount and blade was a huge hit, why wouldn't people want a game based around PvP. Sh*t, i have to sit through boring PvE games to level just cause I want to PvP at end game. Im sure there are many others like me.

    This.

  • meddyckmeddyck Athens, GAPosts: 1,140Member Uncommon
    Yeah count me down as somebody who loves the idea of a game that is just RvR. I wish GW 2 had been that game but it's version of RvR largely sucks. And the target release date for the game is 2015 with beta in 2014 not 2017. Besides when did a release date years in the future stop this site from covering games?

    Camelot Unchained Backer
    DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  • uggeh12uggeh12 Valencia, CAPosts: 44Member
    Originally posted by Jetrpg

    One they need to met their kickstart first at least according to Mark.

    Two "Top Ten Questions: No realm ranks, abilities? What?" Should just be renamed "Top Ten Facts: Why this game will fail x 10. What?"

    Because it will fail with such a model, this is exactly what so many dev.s have attempted to do. Almost NO ONE PLAYED DAOC 24/7 IN PVP. Yet Mark somehow had the great idea, that if he subtracted what people did with MOST OF THEIR TIME in daoc somehow people will love it?

    Most people did PvE in DAoC for one reason: to support the RvR habit. There were very few people who actually enjoyed PvEing in DAoC but, it was a necessary evil. Want that awesome chestpiece for your template? Gotta PvE. Need more money to buy potions or crafted gear for RvR? Gotta PvE.

    Camelot Unchained has already been announced that it will be a niche game for people who want RvR without having to grind through PvE first. If you want to clear PvE content there are plenty of other games out there that provide just that and give you mediocre PvP as well(read: WoW).

  • General_Dru-ZodGeneral_Dru-Zod Unknown, CAPosts: 136Member
    Originally posted by Jetrpg

    One they need to met their kickstart first at least according to Mark.

    Two "Top Ten Questions: No realm ranks, abilities? What?" Should just be renamed "Top Ten Facts: Why this game will fail x 10. What?"

    Because it will fail with such a model, this is exactly what so many dev.s have attempted to do. Almost NO ONE PLAYED DAOC 24/7 IN PVP. Yet Mark somehow had the great idea, that if he subtracted what people did with MOST OF THEIR TIME in daoc somehow people will love it? Mark is not connected to the daoc, the mmmorpg, or even rpg fanbase. It sounds like the only fanbase he even attempting to appeal to (other than the super easy to hype crowed, but i do not count them) is the fps one which typically like only pvp game/match games (which are probably not going to leave their games because they already have what they want in them- easy advancement, just pvp, lack of very impactful character progression, etc.) So Mark Jacobs wants to take the world, the massive setting of Camelot, out of the game (this is built by pve not pvp , pvp is were you see the clash between these worlds, but not were their are built; pve is what makes realm pride possible for most players, pve is what develops a sense of realm), he wants to take out what most people spend most of their time doing (pve and meaningful progression.. mind you this game is gonna use planetside progression [something like that], so yeah its ok but its not = to wow (old wow) or daoc style progression, its rpg lite or zero) ... im sure there is more but this paragraph is already too long.

    I will state as a matter of fact Mark if you want a successful game stop trying to improve system NO ONE WANTS YOU TO IMPROVE. Daocs rvr was perfect with NF castles (no ramps that stuff is awful; with ladders, they take skill, skill is good and are far more effective for their purpose); NF was just slightly too large and it lost much of each realms world SETTING or FEELING, which detracted from them (Warping is a bad idea also, so are buff bots tho they made you money...).

    Mark if you want a successful game take daoc remap it , reclass it (using the same basic design, realm inequialities are GOOD, Difference is GOOD, etc., counter skills on each side some differnces, some uniqueness, some improvements [more active buffing system?]), regraphic it, redungeon it (using the same principles but harder in general [maybe a larger risk vs reward system in dungeons offer greater rewards from mobs and areas of it that are more challenging], fix the TOA concept [x-packs should offer improved items but slowly or incrementally, so like one or two slots a pack, .. maybe three, with maybe ~5% increased power from each slot [or less they just cannot be required to be effective, don't worry about x-pack sales, worry about quality games, or add other features... such as new classes. Don't offer easy dumb leveling routes.. catacombs and IDs, you want to build community] no one should become ineffective because of a patch [unless its a rare one in that case the same requirements to become effective should be the same as before not piled on / added. In this way you avoid people getting too far behind. Rift just did this well, they increased max level (which is generally a bad idea, but if your going to do it, start over like the game is fresh make equipment mostly low-hanging) ], Make a grouping or lfg system, no insta warp , auto queue, etc. Something like a lfg channel or lfg board/window where people can see players and groups lfg/m This keeps the group and communal aspect while facilitating the act of grouping.

    Ther ios more for sure, but your making a game that i do not feel many people even want. Well we have it already in the form of many games.

    Please do not take this negitively i wish you and anyone that wants to enjoy this game the best, but i had hoped you would examine yourself and your games and sause-out what worked and what didn't and plan a game from that.

    Zod is amused.

    Mark already stated that a "re-skinned" Daoc wouldnt work in todays world. The PvE content was bland and done only to participate in RvR.

    image

  • NibsNibs .Posts: 216Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jetrpg

    One they need to met their kickstart first at least according to Mark.

    Two "Top Ten Questions: No realm ranks, abilities? What?" Should just be renamed "Top Ten Facts: Why this game will fail x 10. What?"

    Because it will fail with such a model, this is exactly what so many dev.s have attempted to do. Almost NO ONE PLAYED DAOC 24/7 IN PVP.

    Stopped reading right there as you are completely wrong.

    Once I had my template sorted out I PvP pretty much every minute I was logged in.

    Until they added more PvE grind. Then you had to do that to remain competative.

    Remove the PvE grind and I went back to, as you put it, 24/7 PvP. As did most of my guild. As did most of our alliance. And, as you got know the enemy, as did many of them.

  • OgreRaperOgreRaper Detroit, MIPosts: 376Member
    2017? LoL, it will be out in 2015 at the latest. Count on it. Since they don't need to waste any resources on PvE content, that's gonna cut dev time in half.... actually probably even more than that.
  • GhavriggGhavrigg Halifax, NSPosts: 775Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jetrpg

    One they need to met their kickstart first at least according to Mark.

    Two "Top Ten Questions: No realm ranks, abilities? What?" Should just be renamed "Top Ten Facts: Why this game will fail x 10. What?"

    Because it will fail with such a model, this is exactly what so many dev.s have attempted to do. Almost NO ONE PLAYED DAOC 24/7 IN PVP. Yet Mark somehow had the great idea, that if he subtracted what people did with MOST OF THEIR TIME in daoc somehow people will love it? Mark is not connected to the daoc, the mmmorpg, or even rpg fanbase. It sounds like the only fanbase he even attempting to appeal to (other than the super easy to hype crowed, but i do not count them) is the fps one which typically like only pvp game/match games (which are probably not going to leave their games because they already have what they want in them- easy advancement, just pvp, lack of very impactful character progression, etc.) So Mark Jacobs wants to take the world, the massive setting of Camelot, out of the game (this is built by pve not pvp , pvp is were you see the clash between these worlds, but not were their are built; pve is what makes realm pride possible for most players, pve is what develops a sense of realm), he wants to take out what most people spend most of their time doing (pve and meaningful progression.. mind you this game is gonna use planetside progression [something like that], so yeah its ok but its not = to wow (old wow) or daoc style progression, its rpg lite or zero) ... im sure there is more but this paragraph is already too long.

    I will state as a matter of fact Mark if you want a successful game stop trying to improve system NO ONE WANTS YOU TO IMPROVE. Daocs rvr was perfect with NF castles (no ramps that stuff is awful; with ladders, they take skill, skill is good and are far more effective for their purpose); NF was just slightly too large and it lost much of each realms world SETTING or FEELING, which detracted from them (Warping is a bad idea also, so are buff bots tho they made you money...).

    Mark if you want a successful game take daoc remap it , reclass it (using the same basic design, realm inequialities are GOOD, Difference is GOOD, etc., counter skills on each side some differnces, some uniqueness, some improvements [more active buffing system?]), regraphic it, redungeon it (using the same principles but harder in general [maybe a larger risk vs reward system in dungeons offer greater rewards from mobs and areas of it that are more challenging], fix the TOA concept [x-packs should offer improved items but slowly or incrementally, so like one or two slots a pack, .. maybe three, with maybe ~5% increased power from each slot [or less they just cannot be required to be effective, don't worry about x-pack sales, worry about quality games, or add other features... such as new classes. Don't offer easy dumb leveling routes.. catacombs and IDs, you want to build community] no one should become ineffective because of a patch [unless its a rare one in that case the same requirements to become effective should be the same as before not piled on / added. In this way you avoid people getting too far behind. Rift just did this well, they increased max level (which is generally a bad idea, but if your going to do it, start over like the game is fresh make equipment mostly low-hanging) ], Make a grouping or lfg system, no insta warp , auto queue, etc. Something like a lfg channel or lfg board/window where people can see players and groups lfg/m This keeps the group and communal aspect while facilitating the act of grouping.

    Ther ios more for sure, but your making a game that i do not feel many people even want. Well we have it already in the form of many games.

    Please do not take this negitively i wish you and anyone that wants to enjoy this game the best, but i had hoped you would examine yourself and your games and sause-out what worked and what didn't and plan a game from that.

    I will say, with 100% certainty, that I NEVER played DAoC's PvE because it was fun. I played it because it was a means to an end, and the RvR was the ultimate goal. I never quite made it to level cap to enjoy the full RvR experience simply because the PvE was so GODDAMN BORING, that I couldn't bring myself to finish leveling.

    In all honesty, it depends how many features they can fit into the RvR to see how it will end up. DAoC might have been awesome, but it may have only been a shell compared to what MJ could end up with by focusing entirely on it.

    That being said, no realm ranks/abilities is a little sad. :P

  • HeartsparkHeartspark Southland, MOPosts: 69Member

    The other thing that people are forgetting is that because it is NOT a pve game, the development is much smaller turn-around.  They don't have to worry about so much art, balancing of pve encounters, etc.  It takes a HUGE burden off the development table.   

    Also, being pvp/rvr game, they can be forgiving in lots of areas to get the game playable early.  Nothing says they can't have a beta up in a year and beta test for a year or whatever.   This is even more excellerated if they use a already proven engine and not develope in house.  (not sure if it was discussed yet).

    Heartspark: Animist rr12, bors, Lone Enforcer, Retired

    Dranzerk: Berzerker (kay) retired
    Dhei: Spiritmaster (Kay) retired
    Goblinking : Hunter (Kay) retired
    Moongoose: Shadowblade (Kay) retired

  • raapnaapraapnaap LeidenPosts: 397Member Uncommon

    A game without forced PvE (questing and dungeons), is a game I'm willing to give a fair shot. I know a LOT of people that prefer PvP and player freedom over the same old PvE content that's being forced down our throaths since the MMO's from the WoW-generation started showing up.

     

    I'm not against PvE, and a lot of people see PvE as a critical driving factor behind PvP. Let me mention a practical example of good PvE.

     

    There is an area with a lot of natural resources, like an iron mine or a spawn (city, village, whatever) of NPC mobs that drop specific crafting materials. Holding a nearby outpost (which would be an RvR objective) would give acces, or easier acces, to that mine or mob spawn. Nothing instanced, other factions should still be able to ruin your day, and no shiny boss mobs with 'tactics' requiring you to jump through 8 burning hoops, followed by stepping on his feet 3 times, before you can start hitting him on the nose until 25% health, finally after which a cinematic will play telling you how awesome you are.

     

    PvE with meaning, which fuels RvR with reasons for doing it. You don't need a progression threadmill to know that owning a lumber camp, which supplies your faction's crafters with wood (which they would have to cut themselves ofcourse), is already a very good economical and strategic benefit, more so than the +1228 exp you would have gained in other games.

     
    That being said, specificly regarding a concept of progression, it could be a cosmetic progression. Something to tell other players "I've been playing this game a while". Sort of like battle ranks in PS2, they come with a title every so often but otherwise they only tell other players "I have been playing for a while".
     
  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,474Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by hadati
    Because by steering the conversation at this point you can have a far greater impact on the eventual game.

     How does it make you feel when you think about how much power you have to change a game?

  • LokyLoky Toronto, ONPosts: 182Member

    Orignal Dark Age, Pre SI was an aweful grind. No "Quests" and maps to show you where to go to level. You needed a guild and needed a group (loved the 8 man) to level. It was raw grinding for hours. With the right group it was fun, but in the end it was for one cause: level 50 RvR.

    Realm pride is exciting, trirealm even better. Im looking forward to this game, If CU eliminates PvE ill take it for sure.

    image
  • TatercakeTatercake Auburn, WAPosts: 279Member

    me im old school and new school gamer for life  and i scene it all   now im tired of this wowish bs  crap that all games have decided to be like ug the system and combat is bla to me why have lvs just lv up wepons  you get xp in armors wepons    and magic the more you use a  magic skill / wepon you get skilled in it how is that hard  i  just liek bla bla bla  with all this other crap i see in these games 

     

  • redcappredcapp brook, NYPosts: 722Member
    As someone who did enjoy PvE in DAoC (prior to ToA) I will say that I'm still interested in the RvR only aspect.  As long as the depth in the world, the lore and whatnot, are still present.  If there is enough complexity within the RvR system, I don't think the PvE backbone is really REQUIRED.  They just have to do it properly.
     
     
    Edit:  I will say this.  If CU does end up amounting to nothing more than DAoC minus the PvE, it probably won't succeed.  Will have to reserve judgement until further details are released.  The sandboxiness of the RvR system does sound promising, though.  (Destroyable RvR housing?  Shieeeet)
  • xSyngexxSyngex streetsboro, OHPosts: 44Member
    Mark should go back to making Ipad apps.
  • xSyngexxSyngex streetsboro, OHPosts: 44Member

    Cwarfting..

  • ThupliThupli Spokane, WAPosts: 583Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by xSyngex
    Mark should go back to making Ipad apps.

    Mark's stalker and naysayer has entered yet another CU thread in order to spew yet again.  Tiring, as usual.  Go away and never come back.

  • xSyngexxSyngex streetsboro, OHPosts: 44Member
    Originally posted by Thupli
    Originally posted by xSyngex
    Mark should go back to making Ipad apps.

    Mark's stalker and naysayer has entered yet another CU thread in order to spew yet again.  Tiring, as usual.  Go away and never come back.

     

    Yes sir! 

  • xSyngexxSyngex streetsboro, OHPosts: 44Member

    Sir I mean "yes Sir" hum..  Humm SIR 

     

  • xSyngexxSyngex streetsboro, OHPosts: 44Member
    "I Will cowmema bawck biwchies"
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.