It has already been stated but integrating crafting into the whole mix. Upgrading door and barricades. Arming you guards with better weapons and armor. Even if there some sort of alchemy, potions could be made and acids could be dropped from keeps. Things like this would add some twists and get the crafters involved, ultimately adding to the economy greatly. I would also like to see some cosmetic changes done to keeps over time to make them look like the style of your Alliance. I want to stress over time or over upgrades. This mechanic could be used to know when the keep was last taken just by looking at it. Also style adds to Alliance pride as well. Knowing that this is your keep in your style.
It has already been stated but integrating crafting into the whole mix. Upgrading door and barricades. Arming you guards with better weapons and armor. Even if there some sort of alchemy, potions could be made and acids could be dropped from keeps. Things like this would add some twists and get the crafters involved, ultimately adding to the economy greatly. I would also like to see some cosmetic changes done to keeps over time to make them look like the style of your Alliance. I want to stress over time or over upgrades. This mechanic could be used to know when the keep was last taken just by looking at it. Also style adds to Alliance pride as well. Knowing that this is your keep in your style.
I really like these ideas! It would be awesome to be able to upgrade keeps and visually tell the difference. This could affect the way attackers go about laying siege to them. I'm excited to see how the crafting is implemented in this game. The idea of not having seperate PvP and PvE armor is a big draw for me.
The secret to a good MMO class system is not Rock/Paper/Scissor but it is close. It's about making classes very niché. Luckily that'll be up to the player this time around if they stay true to their word.
"One persistent problem with systems such as AvA? People tend to find the path of least resistance and go for it."
And thus was born easymode MMO's. An achievement is now a title or badge that pings up when you enter a new zone. The difficulty balance effects the whole of MMO's not just PvP battlefields.
"Elder Scrolls already has a strong sense of making racial choice matter in character development, and that should carry through to AvA." Sorry but BULL ****
TES is about making a char and then picking your path in the game, helping one faction or another, this is fu stupid, i play a nord and my friend an high elf so we cant quest together? fu seriously, im british and if i want i could go become an alqaeda terrorist tommorow even though im white and english, wtf have they done here? forcing you into a pvp faction as a rce so you cant play with friends, sorry but * idiots...
We should make our char and THEN pick the faction, not being forced to play a zone/faction based upon race its just tarded.
"Elder Scrolls already has a strong sense of making racial choice matter in character development, and that should carry through to AvA." Sorry but BULL ****
TES is about making a char and then picking your path in the game, helping one faction or another, this is fu stupid, i play a nord and my friend an high elf so we cant quest together? fu seriously, im british and if i want i could go become an alqaeda terrorist tommorow even though im white and english, wtf have they done here? forcing you into a pvp faction as a rce so you cant play with friends, sorry but * idiots...
We should make our char and THEN pick the faction, not being forced to play a zone/faction based upon race its just tarded.
Er no, not really, pretty sure you have to first be a member of the the moslem "faction" in order to join that side. See, even in real life your factions are pre-chosen for you in many cases.
All kidding aside, this game is first and foremost a more traditional MMORPG, with strong influences from DAOC in terms of PVP/RVR design, and probably third or fourth, inspired by TES.
I know it isn't want fans of the TES single player titles want to see, but it is what it is, and your only real choice is to play it and have some fun, or ignore it and wait for the next single player game in the series.
Consider being a bit more flexible in your racial choices if you wish to play with your friends, they aren't absolutes to having fun you know.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Thanks for the article Bill! I'd like to see what ESO has planned for player movement and communication. In their AvA world, it seems a big factor will be how fast you can move your zerg from A to B to meet the enemy. Significant differences in Alliance populations are sure to happen but it will matter less if that huge juggernaunt can't huff it's way to where it needs to be within x amount of time to counter a smaller force's move.
As far as communication, it should only come from other players or be very zone specific, like within 200m diameter. GW2 has made some wvw changes so that fights involving a group of less than 25 people won't show up on the map. This is a good change, you should only rely on players to know where the enemy is and who controls each piece of real estate
As far as communication, it should only come from other players or be very zone specific, like within 200m diameter.
You know, that would be very interesting. I wonder what the play would be like if they limited all communication in the PvP zone to just /say. Scouts would truly have a purpose now, stealth, speed and intel would carry a premium. Getting information between 2 or 3 gathering camps would be a skill in and of itself. Folks would be more encouraged to group up at the "main base" for instructions and battle planning rather than roaming the map trying for solo kills and then rushing back to the keep for the final blows and xp gain.
Then again, in the age of voice comms, i.e. ventrilo, maybe all of the above is a moot point.
The VAST overwhelming majority of people that want to play this game have no desire to pvp in any way whatsoever and are frankly considering avoiding the game because of the travesty it is becoming under the moronic leadership of a group of hasbeens that want to bring back a game that died from lack of interest.
Putting the same pvp crap in a new pretty package isn't going to solve anything. It's going to ruin another really great IP that needed fully open world exploration and adventure with no limitations on race etc.
THAT is what made TES such a successful IP and THAT has been utterly ignored by these dumbass dev's.
Fanbois of pvp can blather all they want but the 100 or so people who care about pvp in this world wont pay the bills. It's the million or so that don't give a shit about pvp they need to be aiming the game towards.
Again, opinion is not truth, so blow your nose and relax.
I could care less about this world, lore, etc., but they are luring me in with 3 realm pvp. In other words, I wasn't interested in this game - likely another boring explore, quest, kill, level, ride mount, "craft", dungeon crawl, hit max level, The End game - until I heard about that. And you're seriously underestimating the number of people who enjoy 3 faction pvp - especially if it means something to the world/realm.
It sounds like pvp is limited to a central territory. What's the issue with that?
Did you play DAoC back when it was popular, pre-ToA?
I loved DaoC and had high hopes for WAR (both games with a mix of PvE and a hefty portion of RvR), but what most annoyed me was the lack of gameplay requiring something like "longer term strategy". First of all, the game did not require the players to think about meaningful deployment of their troops, you portalled from map to map if there was a hot spot, back and forth, rinse repeat and it gets boring very quickly. I would wish for a system where a realm could deploy their troops in strategic ways, i.e. getting a zerg to a certain spot in the battlefield, moving with their Sieg to an objective, having a bunch of stealthers attacking an important target and if the other realms do not foresee this move and move relevant units against it, then tough luck and good on you for the realm that thinks strategically. So a gamemechanic that prevents players portalling all over the battlefields in a flash and slows down movement of units would be my first request.
Also, what got boring in WAR extremely quickly was when the big price of capturing the enemy capital was made completely trivial by removing the forward Fortresses. Hey it even came to the point that both realms took turns to capture the other city once, twice, even thrice a day..yawn. So my second request would be to have a big price as the target of RvR, such as becoming Emperor, capturing the capital , but that this would only be achieveable after continued excelence in strategic planning on the side of the winning realm over several days or weeks even.
..and yes, geez DF !!
I share that thought about th ekeep taking aspect in WAR. it got really boring to often go capture a keep justy because it was empty and that you would get the rewards easily.
So instead of making insta rewards for keep taking, i'd try to go for a LOSS of something when you lose a keep instead. Trust me, people would run to defend it. As in DAoC relic keeps, where losing that relic meant you lost bonuses both for PvE and PvP.
So instead of going back n forth to capture empty keeps, as a defender you wuld run to not lose thoses bonuses, and as attackers, you d have to use strategies, coordination and such to be able to capture a keep.
Another option would also be to implement a sort of timer on keeps. once you lose a keep, there could be a delay of lets say 6 hours before the keep can be captured again. So when you start losing your keeps that lets say gave you access to DF or something else that mostly everyone value, you would sure go fast to defend the remaining ones in your possession to keep DF access.
Since most of mmmorpg players strive for loots, rare equipments, money and stuffs, dont insta reward people that capture keeps, give consequence to keep loss.
Bowbow (kob hunter) Infecto (kob cave shammy) and Thurka (troll warrior) on Merlin/Midgard DAoC Thurka on WAR
"One persistent problem with systems such as AvA? People tend to find the path of least resistance and go for it. In many case, what winds up happening is that players actually trade the taking of objective points, because it’s easier than defending them or holding them. And that’s where the problem lies. In any and all areas of Cyrodiil where you capture an objective, it should always be more rewarding for the players to defend and hold the place, than to just let it be taken and retake it after."
This point is really the only one that matters.
I think this is a generational problem.
DAOC veterans had realm pride, you'd want to hold a keep so that the other guys didn't get it.
GW2 has kind of proven that doesn't really exist anymore.
Is it because it's more difficult to be proud of your server than it is a faction or alliance? Or has the mindset really changed where the gamer just wants to "get theirs" even if it's at the expense of their team?
There are of course outliers and cases where people do still take a lot of pride in their "realm" but I'm talking in generalities - the "overall" mood or perceived mood.
So how do you fix that?
How do you make people want to take the more difficult / arduous path?
To most MMO gamers race is just a cosmetic choice or a specific buff to min/max their character.
A factional choice is just tied to race or whatever their friends/guilds are doing.
How do you design a game/gameplay system where players actually believe in something?
Is the average modern MMO player even capable of believing in anything?
So if you can't inspire true loyalty and pride in your faction and hatred of yours enemies - especially when at the same time you are trying to get players to play a character from each faction for the story elements (terrible design choice to mix the two conflicting motivations BTW Zenimax)
How do you force players to play the way they are "supposed" to and not break your sytems?
We all know players never play as expected and rarely play as the developer wants them to.
So how do you foolproof the systems?
Lots of unanswered questions in this post - but the answers to those questions is the answer to "How do you make AvA thrive?"
GW2 failed to create any sort of faction or server pride because:
1) Pure mirror match
2) Free server transfers for nearly 6 months allowing people to bandwagon to the winning side
3) Scoring system kills motivation for losing side
4) Constant changing of servers makes it harder to form rivalries
5) Super small maps and fast travel turn the game into a giant zerg fest since huge numbers of people can almost instantly react to any situation making it impossible for smaller groups to accomplish anything
I love the fact that you call it AvA and not PvP. This should be Alliance vs. Alliance rather than Player vs. Player.
It would be awesome to see if we can send NPC's to attack sites or command seige weapons and almost give players an option of a tactical role, rather than just running into the fray. We have been grunts for so many years, it would be great to lead (not just players) once and awhile.
You can tell this article is not being written truthfully but instead by someone being paid to make the game sound better than it is right at the begining...trying to make it sound like 3 faction games are making a comeback based on Warhammer failing with 2 factions, and Guild Wars 2 being a success...with 5, yes FIVE factions.
because somehow, 2 factions is not closer to 3, than 5. Or how about the 3 factions in this game are CLOSED OFF from the other factions which isnt the case in GW2 which is being used as an example of success? Well?
Three faction games are not making a comeback, the people that made THE 3 faction game, DaoC, are making the 3 faction games coming soon...everyone else already learned that it was a piss poor game design and moved on sticking with OPEN faction warfare.
BTW, Warhammer failed because of 2 factions? Then please explain why WoW is a hit with 2 factions...all around bad shill article. Sure am glad the TES fansites are doing their job and posting all over other game sites making sure as many TES fans are aware that this game is not TES, its DaoC...dont want this IP to suffer a hit in the future if they ever make a TES6 by too many people being screwed over by this game.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Originally posted by Horusra Open world pvp is a nitch....making meaningful limited pvp combat is the future.
Thankfully open world PvP and free for all PvP is not the same thing. One can have a game that allows PvP anywhere without having forced PvP everywhere...but then again, you already knew that.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
AvA (Alliance versus Alliance) is the same as WvW (World versus World) in Guild Wars 2, or RvR (Realm versus Realm) in Dark Age of Camelot, you will also see it as FvF (Faction versus Faction).
It has already been stated but integrating crafting into the whole mix. Upgrading door and barricades. Arming you guards with better weapons and armor. Even if there some sort of alchemy, potions could be made and acids could be dropped from keeps. Things like this would add some twists and get the crafters involved, ultimately adding to the economy greatly. I would also like to see some cosmetic changes done to keeps over time to make them look like the style of your Alliance. I want to stress over time or over upgrades. This mechanic could be used to know when the keep was last taken just by looking at it. Also style adds to Alliance pride as well. Knowing that this is your keep in your style.
This would be awesome, and having money one can put into keeps to upgrade them and such would make the whole 'alliance thing' feel more real. I never played DAoC, so I have no opinion on the matter in that regard. Something that really peeks my interest atm, is Chivalry, with its dedication to PVP, First Person combat, and old ES type of swinging the mouse to swing your weapon combat system. I haven't gotten a chance to play it just yet.. but I want to try it out.
But PVP needs to have something that makes it different, and innovative. SWTOR, was boring... WoW, ever since battlegrounds were introduced, made PvP kinda boring (Twinks were another reaon). There wasn't any real PVP in DDO or LOTRO. If ESO is going to succeed, it needs to make it fun and interesting, and possibly expand it someday.
What you need in AvA enviroment is also personal progression. While Wv3 is fun to some extend in GW2, you really do not benefit enough from it. In my mind, that is what DAoC got right.
Originally posted by Garbrac AvA (Alliance versus Alliance) is the same as WvW (World versus World) in Guild Wars 2, or RvR (Realm versus Realm) in Dark Age of Camelot, you will also see it as FvF (Faction versus Faction).
No it is not because GW2 does not limit factions to their own land. Big difference.
One is open world with PvP in closed areas because the factions are NOT AT WAR with each other.
The other game split its lands into 3, didnt let another cross an invisible wall and on top of it limited PvP to neverland while claiming factions were at war with each other. Nothing like factions at war that actually cant attack the other faction except in some special magical place.
Hey lets go to war with people that arent actually attacking our lands and cant!
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
As a recovering WoW veteran with seven years of experience toiling in Blizzard's salt mines, I just wanted to chime in favorably on point #4 and against point #5.
Win trading is the enemy of all that is good and just in the world, and I say that as the hapless bastard who's spent a good part of those seven years encouraging the Alliance to throw AV as soon as it goes against us. Quite simply, you receive more honor per hour from a 10 minute loss in AV than you would from a 20 minute loss (or a 30 minute win through attrition). Once the writing's on the wall, you're better off throwing the match entirely and getting into another round as quickly as possible. After all, the next 10 minute round could be in your favor.
This is clearly something that ESO needs to avoid. Give the min/maxers a reason to fight, or we won't. I can see compelling gameplay and strategy arising from making an orderly withdrawal from one objective to strike at the next, but it will inevitably lead to win-trading and a system where smart players will never bother with a contested objective.
With regard to race- or alliance-based advantages, however, I disagree entirely. Ghostcrawler himself (lead systems designer for WoW and famed vanquisher of alligators) has said that he wishes races in WoW provided no benefits whatsoever and were purely a cosmetic choice. I can only assume that the reason he hasn't made the change is that players would screech and gnash their teeth and beat their breasts, but they simply don't know what's good for them.
65% of the top 100 guilds in WoW's T14 were Horde guilds, and so it has been since time immemorial. The players judge that Horde has the better racials, and so the best players flock to their side. It's only rational. And it's inevitable, despite the best efforts of anybody to balance A to be just as good as B. The only thing that's just as good as A is A, and I truly hope that races and alliances will be an apples to apples comparison.
That doesn't mean that there can't be a tremendous amount of flavor and character for each. In fact, I'd love to see the return of the starting skill bumps that we're used to from the series, since they define the strengths of each race without lasting implications for gameplay. Sure, any Bosmer child can fire a bow better than my Breton at level 1, but by level 50 I can overcome the deficit.
The illusion is that humans and orcs are separate, but equal, yet this hasn't proven any more true in game design than it did in American society. Just make them equal, and let us play what we want, rather than what we must.
Comments
I really like these ideas! It would be awesome to be able to upgrade keeps and visually tell the difference. This could affect the way attackers go about laying siege to them. I'm excited to see how the crafting is implemented in this game. The idea of not having seperate PvP and PvE armor is a big draw for me.
"One persistent problem with systems such as AvA? People tend to find the path of least resistance and go for it."
And thus was born easymode MMO's. An achievement is now a title or badge that pings up when you enter a new zone. The difficulty balance effects the whole of MMO's not just PvP battlefields.
"Elder Scrolls already has a strong sense of making racial choice matter in character development, and that should carry through to AvA." Sorry but BULL ****
TES is about making a char and then picking your path in the game, helping one faction or another, this is fu stupid, i play a nord and my friend an high elf so we cant quest together? fu seriously, im british and if i want i could go become an alqaeda terrorist tommorow even though im white and english, wtf have they done here? forcing you into a pvp faction as a rce so you cant play with friends, sorry but * idiots...
We should make our char and THEN pick the faction, not being forced to play a zone/faction based upon race its just tarded.
Er no, not really, pretty sure you have to first be a member of the the moslem "faction" in order to join that side. See, even in real life your factions are pre-chosen for you in many cases.
All kidding aside, this game is first and foremost a more traditional MMORPG, with strong influences from DAOC in terms of PVP/RVR design, and probably third or fourth, inspired by TES.
I know it isn't want fans of the TES single player titles want to see, but it is what it is, and your only real choice is to play it and have some fun, or ignore it and wait for the next single player game in the series.
Consider being a bit more flexible in your racial choices if you wish to play with your friends, they aren't absolutes to having fun you know.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Thanks for the article Bill! I'd like to see what ESO has planned for player movement and communication. In their AvA world, it seems a big factor will be how fast you can move your zerg from A to B to meet the enemy. Significant differences in Alliance populations are sure to happen but it will matter less if that huge juggernaunt can't huff it's way to where it needs to be within x amount of time to counter a smaller force's move.
As far as communication, it should only come from other players or be very zone specific, like within 200m diameter. GW2 has made some wvw changes so that fights involving a group of less than 25 people won't show up on the map. This is a good change, you should only rely on players to know where the enemy is and who controls each piece of real estate
You know, that would be very interesting. I wonder what the play would be like if they limited all communication in the PvP zone to just /say. Scouts would truly have a purpose now, stealth, speed and intel would carry a premium. Getting information between 2 or 3 gathering camps would be a skill in and of itself. Folks would be more encouraged to group up at the "main base" for instructions and battle planning rather than roaming the map trying for solo kills and then rushing back to the keep for the final blows and xp gain.
Then again, in the age of voice comms, i.e. ventrilo, maybe all of the above is a moot point.
So people are making claims about TESO like AVA better then ever, before it's even released?
Hype train incoming.
QFT
Again, opinion is not truth, so blow your nose and relax.
I could care less about this world, lore, etc., but they are luring me in with 3 realm pvp. In other words, I wasn't interested in this game - likely another boring explore, quest, kill, level, ride mount, "craft", dungeon crawl, hit max level, The End game - until I heard about that. And you're seriously underestimating the number of people who enjoy 3 faction pvp - especially if it means something to the world/realm.
It sounds like pvp is limited to a central territory. What's the issue with that?
Did you play DAoC back when it was popular, pre-ToA?
I share that thought about th ekeep taking aspect in WAR. it got really boring to often go capture a keep justy because it was empty and that you would get the rewards easily.
So instead of making insta rewards for keep taking, i'd try to go for a LOSS of something when you lose a keep instead. Trust me, people would run to defend it. As in DAoC relic keeps, where losing that relic meant you lost bonuses both for PvE and PvP.
So instead of going back n forth to capture empty keeps, as a defender you wuld run to not lose thoses bonuses, and as attackers, you d have to use strategies, coordination and such to be able to capture a keep.
Another option would also be to implement a sort of timer on keeps. once you lose a keep, there could be a delay of lets say 6 hours before the keep can be captured again. So when you start losing your keeps that lets say gave you access to DF or something else that mostly everyone value, you would sure go fast to defend the remaining ones in your possession to keep DF access.
Since most of mmmorpg players strive for loots, rare equipments, money and stuffs, dont insta reward people that capture keeps, give consequence to keep loss.
Bowbow (kob hunter) Infecto (kob cave shammy) and Thurka (troll warrior) on Merlin/Midgard DAoC
Thurka on WAR
"One persistent problem with systems such as AvA? People tend to find the path of least resistance and go for it. In many case, what winds up happening is that players actually trade the taking of objective points, because it’s easier than defending them or holding them. And that’s where the problem lies. In any and all areas of Cyrodiil where you capture an objective, it should always be more rewarding for the players to defend and hold the place, than to just let it be taken and retake it after."
This point is really the only one that matters.
I think this is a generational problem.
DAOC veterans had realm pride, you'd want to hold a keep so that the other guys didn't get it.
GW2 has kind of proven that doesn't really exist anymore.
Is it because it's more difficult to be proud of your server than it is a faction or alliance? Or has the mindset really changed where the gamer just wants to "get theirs" even if it's at the expense of their team?
There are of course outliers and cases where people do still take a lot of pride in their "realm" but I'm talking in generalities - the "overall" mood or perceived mood.
So how do you fix that?
How do you make people want to take the more difficult / arduous path?
To most MMO gamers race is just a cosmetic choice or a specific buff to min/max their character.
A factional choice is just tied to race or whatever their friends/guilds are doing.
How do you design a game/gameplay system where players actually believe in something?
Is the average modern MMO player even capable of believing in anything?
So if you can't inspire true loyalty and pride in your faction and hatred of yours enemies - especially when at the same time you are trying to get players to play a character from each faction for the story elements (terrible design choice to mix the two conflicting motivations BTW Zenimax)
How do you force players to play the way they are "supposed" to and not break your sytems?
We all know players never play as expected and rarely play as the developer wants them to.
So how do you foolproof the systems?
Lots of unanswered questions in this post - but the answers to those questions is the answer to "How do you make AvA thrive?"
Hopefully Zenimax has some answers.
GW2 failed to create any sort of faction or server pride because:
1) Pure mirror match
2) Free server transfers for nearly 6 months allowing people to bandwagon to the winning side
3) Scoring system kills motivation for losing side
4) Constant changing of servers makes it harder to form rivalries
5) Super small maps and fast travel turn the game into a giant zerg fest since huge numbers of people can almost instantly react to any situation making it impossible for smaller groups to accomplish anything
Great article.
I love the fact that you call it AvA and not PvP. This should be Alliance vs. Alliance rather than Player vs. Player.
It would be awesome to see if we can send NPC's to attack sites or command seige weapons and almost give players an option of a tactical role, rather than just running into the fray. We have been grunts for so many years, it would be great to lead (not just players) once and awhile.
You can tell this article is not being written truthfully but instead by someone being paid to make the game sound better than it is right at the begining...trying to make it sound like 3 faction games are making a comeback based on Warhammer failing with 2 factions, and Guild Wars 2 being a success...with 5, yes FIVE factions.
because somehow, 2 factions is not closer to 3, than 5. Or how about the 3 factions in this game are CLOSED OFF from the other factions which isnt the case in GW2 which is being used as an example of success? Well?
Three faction games are not making a comeback, the people that made THE 3 faction game, DaoC, are making the 3 faction games coming soon...everyone else already learned that it was a piss poor game design and moved on sticking with OPEN faction warfare.
BTW, Warhammer failed because of 2 factions? Then please explain why WoW is a hit with 2 factions...all around bad shill article. Sure am glad the TES fansites are doing their job and posting all over other game sites making sure as many TES fans are aware that this game is not TES, its DaoC...dont want this IP to suffer a hit in the future if they ever make a TES6 by too many people being screwed over by this game.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Thankfully open world PvP and free for all PvP is not the same thing. One can have a game that allows PvP anywhere without having forced PvP everywhere...but then again, you already knew that.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
This would be awesome, and having money one can put into keeps to upgrade them and such would make the whole 'alliance thing' feel more real. I never played DAoC, so I have no opinion on the matter in that regard. Something that really peeks my interest atm, is Chivalry, with its dedication to PVP, First Person combat, and old ES type of swinging the mouse to swing your weapon combat system. I haven't gotten a chance to play it just yet.. but I want to try it out.
But PVP needs to have something that makes it different, and innovative. SWTOR, was boring... WoW, ever since battlegrounds were introduced, made PvP kinda boring (Twinks were another reaon). There wasn't any real PVP in DDO or LOTRO. If ESO is going to succeed, it needs to make it fun and interesting, and possibly expand it someday.
No it is not because GW2 does not limit factions to their own land. Big difference.
One is open world with PvP in closed areas because the factions are NOT AT WAR with each other.
The other game split its lands into 3, didnt let another cross an invisible wall and on top of it limited PvP to neverland while claiming factions were at war with each other. Nothing like factions at war that actually cant attack the other faction except in some special magical place.
Hey lets go to war with people that arent actually attacking our lands and cant!
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Thats not the problem many have with ESO.
Its that the rest of the world (the PvE part) is split in to 3 segregated Faction specific areas.
The only way to explore the entire gameworld is to roll (and level) 3 seperate characters
Bringer of Eternal Darkness and Despair, but also a Nutritious way to start your Morning.
Games Played: Too Many
Sounds good to me.
As a recovering WoW veteran with seven years of experience toiling in Blizzard's salt mines, I just wanted to chime in favorably on point #4 and against point #5.
Win trading is the enemy of all that is good and just in the world, and I say that as the hapless bastard who's spent a good part of those seven years encouraging the Alliance to throw AV as soon as it goes against us. Quite simply, you receive more honor per hour from a 10 minute loss in AV than you would from a 20 minute loss (or a 30 minute win through attrition). Once the writing's on the wall, you're better off throwing the match entirely and getting into another round as quickly as possible. After all, the next 10 minute round could be in your favor.
This is clearly something that ESO needs to avoid. Give the min/maxers a reason to fight, or we won't. I can see compelling gameplay and strategy arising from making an orderly withdrawal from one objective to strike at the next, but it will inevitably lead to win-trading and a system where smart players will never bother with a contested objective.
With regard to race- or alliance-based advantages, however, I disagree entirely. Ghostcrawler himself (lead systems designer for WoW and famed vanquisher of alligators) has said that he wishes races in WoW provided no benefits whatsoever and were purely a cosmetic choice. I can only assume that the reason he hasn't made the change is that players would screech and gnash their teeth and beat their breasts, but they simply don't know what's good for them.
65% of the top 100 guilds in WoW's T14 were Horde guilds, and so it has been since time immemorial. The players judge that Horde has the better racials, and so the best players flock to their side. It's only rational. And it's inevitable, despite the best efforts of anybody to balance A to be just as good as B. The only thing that's just as good as A is A, and I truly hope that races and alliances will be an apples to apples comparison.
That doesn't mean that there can't be a tremendous amount of flavor and character for each. In fact, I'd love to see the return of the starting skill bumps that we're used to from the series, since they define the strengths of each race without lasting implications for gameplay. Sure, any Bosmer child can fire a bow better than my Breton at level 1, but by level 50 I can overcome the deficit.
The illusion is that humans and orcs are separate, but equal, yet this hasn't proven any more true in game design than it did in American society. Just make them equal, and let us play what we want, rather than what we must.