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!

Obviously kickstarter will be funded..CU has gone Viral

13»

Comments

  • HokibukisaHokibukisa Midland, GAPosts: 185Member

    The good news is that a lot of people are easy to please in terms of PvE.

     

    I wish I had all of my old daoc screen shots from a decade ago, but when I was really bored and had nothing else to do I'd just go to a hill overlooking road that invaders would normally go through, and I'd just pull mobs. Thank god daoc didn't really have quests, so that just doing normal mob killing was never a waste of time. I'd be chatting while all of this is going on. Didn't have to think about a rotation, just nuke nuke nuke slam provoke provoke dead.

     

    PvE doesn't need to be complicated. Its a wolf den. Pitch a tent nearby, invite some freinds, kill all the mobs, throw another shimp on the barby while they respawn. Fill up bags, go to vault.

    image

  • StrommStromm BrisbanePosts: 243Member
    Originally posted by SoMuchMass
    Originally posted by Stromm

    I disagree 100%, PvP is just as important as PvE in MMOs especially MMOs that have mass appeal & longevity.  Players might not "focus" on PvP but they probably partake in just as much PvP content as they do in PvE in most of these games.  Developers have realized you will not be mass market unless you focus on both PvP and PvE.  WoW nerfs and buffs for PvP almost every month, the biggest streamers in WoW are all PvPers, there is immense popularity as Raiding and dungeons can old as you can only do them so many times while people have doing WSG and AB thousands of times a day for 8 years.

    If you want to be a mass market MMO you need to focus on both PvP and PvE.

    About people concerned about CU being only PvP, I have concerns too.  A game has to really good for it to have longevity.  There are PvP only games that have done really well in the market recently, some examples are LoL, World of Tanks and PlanetSide 2 they have their crowd and they have millions of players.  So it can work if it is done well.

    Its good to have disagreement, it makes you evaluate why you hold your position in a debate. :-)

    If I entirely removed PvP from WoW, EQ, EQ2, GW2 or Rift tomorrow I would still have a recognisable game, and in WoW's case at least still millions of subs.

    If I entirely removed PvE from WoW, EQ, EQ2, GW2 or Rift tomorrow I would have ... a brundlefly ... an unrecognisable mess. I'd have no questing, minimal lore, no 5 mans, no 10 mans, no 25 mans, no LFR, no dailies, no rifts, no hearts, no events, no puzzles. The games would be unrecognisable.

    That's kinda my point. PvP is secondary in those games. A tacked on afterthought used to fill in time, like daily quests and pet battles.

    WoW devs frequently nerf/buff abilities due to PvP, I agree. Why? Because they were designed for PVE and do not work well in PvP. If pvp was impactful on their subscriber base they would work on getting PvP sorted properly, instead they seem to spend more effort on pet battles and daily quests, now why do you think that is? To my knowledge there have been very few "seasons" that have no been considered broken, with certain comps being viable and the rest not, with whole class specs left to wither, and in some cases whole classes left with no options to be competetive. It. Is. An. Afterthought.

    Streamers have no relevance in this discussion, 99% of MMO players have probably never streamed, most have probably never even recorded a fraps. But since you bring up web interaction I would suggest far and away more web content originates from pve than ever will or does from pvp. MLG doesn't even include WoW 3v3 anymore does it?

    Hehe yeah people have been doing those same BG's over and over for years, because they locust the pve content and still want to play the game and BG pvp is a readily available disposable source of no-brain content, or because they are completionists working on cheevos/mounts/reps waddeva.

    I agree 100% with your comment about mass market MMO needing both PVE and PVP, that is basically a restatement of my entire arguement. Two things I seem to recall though, MJ has said he plans to be niche, not mass market, and he's not aiming for millions of subs.

    You raise LoL, WoT and PS2. We're not talking MOBAs or MMOFPS here, but since you do, lets discuss. LOL is the most played PC game in the world. DOTA2 just recently beat Skyrim for the most concurrent players in Steam and is rising, and you have a swag of MOBA/wannabeMOBAs out there *cough* SMITE *cough* AND you have D3 introducing PvP and Path of Exile with PvP and Marvel Heroes coming. So you tell me why those millions of players currently playing F2P, B2P would want to play subbed CU when they already have a gluttons banquet of PvP titles crying out for their attention? I would suggest that PvE content would be the missing enticement, don't you think?

    But I realise that times change, the gaming playerbase has changing tastes and I am more than willing to accept that my preconceptions may outdated, but nothing you have said has convinced me so far. I've played ALL the games you mentioned except PS2 (and yes back in the day I played PS1), before MMOs took over as my genre of choice I played DOOM/Duke IPX LAN, Quake, HL, and Wolf:ET. I am not anti-pvp by any stretch, but I feel I am aware of the very serious challenges faced by PvP only MMO titles.

     

  • shadeviceshadevice memphis, TNPosts: 68Member

    Another fact about pvp/pve combo games is that PVEers, that don't really like pvp, generally suck at it.

    So they were easy prey and were farmed. So the semi skilled pvpers seem a lot better than they really are.

    Now when you have a pvp only game, the competiton is much more straight forward, all players obviously like pvp or they wouldn't be playing it. Wether or not they are any good still remains but a bad pvper that only pvps will still beat a pver who is clueless.

    Point being, in a PVP only game. much less FREE, EZ, Kills.

    It's like sending a bread maker against a battle hardened gladiator...whos gonna win.

  • KappenWizKappenWiz Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 162Member
    Originally posted by pdjkeelan

    I was a hardcore DAOC player and had an account full with 50s from all 3 realms. However after reading everything about Camelot Unchained I honestly cannot see myself contributing to the kickstarter campaign.

    In DAOC I loved it for all elements of the game, RvR, crafting and PvE. Camelot has such a rich lore to pull from for PvE encounters and quests. Removing the PvE from the game really removes such a huge amount of content that I cannot understand why the kickstarter is going to require so much money, the majority of resources in an MMO goes into game resources such as scripts, quests (incl translations) and artwork. Yet CU is meant to launch with a tiered subscriber price when all it will offer is RvR and crafting? If I wanted this I would be playing Guild Wars 2 and I'd get my PvE fix too.

    My memories of DAOC stem from every element, most notably teaming up with random people and grinding for hours in Avalon City and becoming friends with the people I played with, I see no way that this kind of socialising will happen with RvR only. It didn't even happen in DAOC, I RvRed a lot but made very few friends through it, I made my friends by exploring PvE content. DAOC was made brilliant because of the social elements including alliances, guilds and PvE encounters.

    At the moment the Camelot Unchained information makes it sound like WvW in Guild Wars 2 without anything else. I hope when the Kickstarter launches that I'm proven wrong, but if the 'no PvE' remains there is almost no way I will help to kickstart it and after speaking with many friends from DAOC they also say they feel the same way.

    This is an interesting post and something I hope is addressed clearly on the kickstarter page because my first impression was similar: Is this going to be just the frontiers with everyone getting the equivalent of insta 50s?

    First blush, it sounds like a medieval fantasy frag fest in a few RvR zones with some scattered mobs. They want more interaction, forced grouping, etc, but haven't said what, besides RvR, you'll group to do. If RvR is the only time you'll group, well we all know that's not the time to learn how to play your character generally. If grouping will be necessary for crafting or gathering, how so? And why will the RvR'ers want to do that?

    These may or may not be problems. Until we learn more about the design intention, it's all speculation. But I do think it bears noting how it comes across. A few serious, deal-breaker type questions popped into my head:

    • Well, first, the one above about the frontiers...
    • Second, they keep mentioning about levelling up in RvR, but what about when alts are made and there's nobody to fight at your level? How will you advance that character? I believe they've also said there will be no "level boosting' type mechanics to allow level 8 players to play against level 50 players in RvR. Could be wrong about that one, but thought I heard it. If so, what is there for lower level characters to do when they're alone?
    • Third, PvE gives the players something to do at all times. Whether they found the PvE terribly exciting or not in DAoC, it was there. It kept at least some people online, creating a player base for when things picked up in RvR areas. With no PvE, whats to keep people from logging on, seeing if theres any action, then logging off if it's dead? If crafting is supposed to fill that void, how? Will it be attractive for the players that like to RvR? or just for the crafter-types?
    I've learned more about the idea now, so I know what they're shooting for and like what I hear, but a lot of people might not take the time to learn more, they might just stop by to take a glance at the project. If the impression people take away at first sight is, If you mainly like to RvR, and there's no action, there's not really anything for you to do, that could doom the KS campaign. If there's more to it than that, it would be really helpful to supply a little more detail.
     
  • SoMuchMassSoMuchMass New York, NYPosts: 548Member
    Originally posted by Stromm

    If I entirely removed PvP from WoW, EQ, EQ2, GW2 or Rift tomorrow I would still have a recognisable game, and in WoW's case at least still millions of subs.

    If I entirely removed PvE from WoW, EQ, EQ2, GW2 or Rift tomorrow I would have ... a brundlefly ... an unrecognisable mess. I'd have no questing, minimal lore, no 5 mans, no 10 mans, no 25 mans, no LFR, no dailies, no rifts, no hearts, no events, no puzzles. The games would be unrecognisable.

    That's kinda my point. PvP is secondary in those games. A tacked on afterthought used to fill in time, like daily quests and pet battles.

    WoW devs frequently nerf/buff abilities due to PvP, I agree. Why? Because they were designed for PVE and do not work well in PvP. If pvp was impactful on their subscriber base they would work on getting PvP sorted properly, instead they seem to spend more effort on pet battles and daily quests, now why do you think that is? To my knowledge there have been very few "seasons" that have no been considered broken, with certain comps being viable and the rest not, with whole class specs left to wither, and in some cases whole classes left with no options to be competetive. It. Is. An. Afterthought.

    Streamers have no relevance in this discussion, 99% of MMO players have probably never streamed, most have probably never even recorded a fraps. But since you bring up web interaction I would suggest far and away more web content originates from pve than ever will or does from pvp. MLG doesn't even include WoW 3v3 anymore does it?

    Hehe yeah people have been doing those same BG's over and over for years, because they locust the pve content and still want to play the game and BG pvp is a readily available disposable source of no-brain content, or because they are completionists working on cheevos/mounts/reps waddeva.

    Devs from Rift realized what happened when they ignored the PvP community they left in droves and servers were completely empty.  Then what did they try to do?  Cater to the MMO community by introducing 3 faction PvP which was just too late.

    Someone asked Hartsmann:

    • It doesn't seem like PvP is being "tacked on", it will be a focus.
    To which he replied:
    • True. The gentleman running the team wouldn't have it any other way. (If you saw last year's E3 videos -- Russ Brown. That's him. He's awesome.) PvP is built in from the ground up, not being added to a PvE game

    http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/38803-rift-planes-telara-heroes-telara-e3-09-a-12.html#post1687892

    So it was not "secondary".  The whole design of GW2, WoW and Rift was designed with PvP in mind and not just secondary.  The whole world was in Rift and WoW was designed for two factions due to sides and the PvP conflict.  The earliest trailers had Orcs fighting Humans.  WoW wouldn't be the same with out it. Same with Rift, the whole lore and world design was based around 2 factions at war.

    If it was an after thought the WoW devs could have just said screw it and let the PvErs stay happy and screw over the PvPers but they realize they would lose pretty much half their community.  Even the population in PvE vs. PvP servers is about 55 to 45 in favor of PvE.

    GW2 is another example of this, the major part of the game is the WvW.  Servers were set up to support that whole system, they wouldn't even need servers if it weren't for WvW.  GW2 failed in every regard especially PvP but it doesn't mean they didn't design PvP to me a primary if not important part of the game

    Streamers have major influence over the community.  Some of them get 100k unique viewers a day (just one person).  Sites like Twitch get millions of views a month.  Companies pay streamers to advertiser for them.  The most popular in most cases, are usually PvP players because others want to be like them.

    When devs specially design the world around faction conflict and specially state it was not "tacted" on.  I will take their word.

    About some classes being useless in PvP in WoW that is true, that is also the case in PvE where some classes are pretty much useless to take.

    I am also a fan of both PvE and PvP.  But I don't see a mass market success of a PvE only game.  Tabulsa Rasa, FFXIV, Vanguard, Asheron's Call 2 were PvE only and didn't do well at all.  If a MMO is PvE only it will also be a niche game like PvP only MMOs.

  • zephermarkuszephermarkus qunatico, MDPosts: 201Member
    The thing about kickstarter is I haven't seen one of these kickstater games actually come out yet  or even have a lpha video or beta nothing and most have over reached their goals by so much that they could have these games done in 6 months max. Kickstater is a cash grab scam and i for one am glad I haven't backed anything.
  • tleartlear Toronto, ONPosts: 142Member
    Originally posted by shadevice

    Another fact about pvp/pve combo games is that PVEers, that don't really like pvp, generally suck at it.

    So they were easy prey and were farmed. So the semi skilled pvpers seem a lot better than they really are.

    Now when you have a pvp only game, the competiton is much more straight forward, all players obviously like pvp or they wouldn't be playing it. Wether or not they are any good still remains but a bad pvper that only pvps will still beat a pver who is clueless.

    Point being, in a PVP only game. much less FREE, EZ, Kills.

    It's like sending a bread maker against a battle hardened gladiator...whos gonna win.

    There is a lot fo truth to this unfortunately. I remember esecially with Alb for whatever reason you would get hordes of people who were truly clueless. You might really need bottom feeders, guys who level alts 24/7 and show up once in a few days to donate RPs. People who play RvR primarily but are just not that good then have someone to kill and keep playing. If you get schooled non-stop and never win many people tend to quit which then leads to a chain reaction

     

    But then again PS had a lot of really horrible players and in that game all you did is kill each other till you got bored and startd greefing your own side

  • shadeviceshadevice memphis, TNPosts: 68Member
    Originally posted by tlear
    Originally posted by shadevice

    Another fact about pvp/pve combo games is that PVEers, that don't really like pvp, generally suck at it.

    So they were easy prey and were farmed. So the semi skilled pvpers seem a lot better than they really are.

    Now when you have a pvp only game, the competiton is much more straight forward, all players obviously like pvp or they wouldn't be playing it. Wether or not they are any good still remains but a bad pvper that only pvps will still beat a pver who is clueless.

    Point being, in a PVP only game. much less FREE, EZ, Kills.

    It's like sending a bread maker against a battle hardened gladiator...whos gonna win.

    There is a lot fo truth to this unfortunately. I remember esecially with Alb for whatever reason you would get hordes of people who were truly clueless. You might really need bottom feeders, guys who level alts 24/7 and show up once in a few days to donate RPs. People who play RvR primarily but are just not that good then have someone to kill and keep playing. If you get schooled non-stop and never win many people tend to quit which then leads to a chain reaction

     

    But then again PS had a lot of really horrible players and in that game all you did is kill each other till you got bored and startd greefing your own side

    PS is an entire different animal. I play PS 2 very casually right now as a heavy assault...there is skill involved and you can tell the difference. But PS style pvp is sooo different than fantasy rvr, daoc style etc...

    I doubt there will be instant action deployments, massive air and vehicle assaults dropping bombs on your head while you're having your own personal battles.

    PS is great for the instant gratification style pvp fix, start the game, pvp instantly rinse repeat. Death has little consequence which means lower levels of care/skill/tactical play. 

  • fanglofanglo Virginia, VAPosts: 290Member
    Originally posted by SoMuchMass
    Originally posted by Stromm

    If I entirely removed PvP from WoW, EQ, EQ2, GW2 or Rift tomorrow I would still have a recognisable game, and in WoW's case at least still millions of subs.

    If I entirely removed PvE from WoW, EQ, EQ2, GW2 or Rift tomorrow I would have ... a brundlefly ... an unrecognisable mess. I'd have no questing, minimal lore, no 5 mans, no 10 mans, no 25 mans, no LFR, no dailies, no rifts, no hearts, no events, no puzzles. The games would be unrecognisable.

    That's kinda my point. PvP is secondary in those games. A tacked on afterthought used to fill in time, like daily quests and pet battles.

    WoW devs frequently nerf/buff abilities due to PvP, I agree. Why? Because they were designed for PVE and do not work well in PvP. If pvp was impactful on their subscriber base they would work on getting PvP sorted properly, instead they seem to spend more effort on pet battles and daily quests, now why do you think that is? To my knowledge there have been very few "seasons" that have no been considered broken, with certain comps being viable and the rest not, with whole class specs left to wither, and in some cases whole classes left with no options to be competetive. It. Is. An. Afterthought.

    Streamers have no relevance in this discussion, 99% of MMO players have probably never streamed, most have probably never even recorded a fraps. But since you bring up web interaction I would suggest far and away more web content originates from pve than ever will or does from pvp. MLG doesn't even include WoW 3v3 anymore does it?

    Hehe yeah people have been doing those same BG's over and over for years, because they locust the pve content and still want to play the game and BG pvp is a readily available disposable source of no-brain content, or because they are completionists working on cheevos/mounts/reps waddeva.

    Devs from Rift realized what happened when they ignored the PvP community they left in droves and servers were completely empty.  Then what did they try to do?  Cater to the MMO community by introducing 3 faction PvP which was just too late.

    Someone asked Hartsmann:

    • It doesn't seem like PvP is being "tacked on", it will be a focus.
    To which he replied:
    • True. The gentleman running the team wouldn't have it any other way. (If you saw last year's E3 videos -- Russ Brown. That's him. He's awesome.) PvP is built in from the ground up, not being added to a PvE game

    http://www.fohguild.org/forums/mmorpg-general-discussion/38803-rift-planes-telara-heroes-telara-e3-09-a-12.html#post1687892

    When devs specially design the world around faction conflict and specially state it was not "tacted" on.  I will take their word.

    Rift was never a pvp game. On the PvP servers the things that the devs said would be points of conflict never really were. Open world pvp never really materialized. WF's always trumped open world pvp in terms of fun and rewards. There simply was no real reason to do any open world pvp. Now RIFT has pretty much completely abandoned any new pvp aside from the random WF ruleset. The devs can say that their game is focused on pvp or rvr till they are blue in the face, but in the end if they don't deliver than guess what, the devs lied. In Rifts case I don't care what any dev said, the game was and is a PvE game with PvP as an afterthought tacked on. 

     

    I healed Mistwraith and all I got was this stupid tee-shirt!

  • MaephistoMaephisto somewhere, DCPosts: 632Member

    Viral for kickstarter is Wasteland 2, DFA, Shadowrun and Torment.

    Kind of a high standard to reach.  In the end, I hope it has the same kind of success.

    Does anyone know what CU's initial funding goals will be? 

    Stretch goals?

     

    image

  • ZakatakZakatak Nampa, IDPosts: 17Member
    I believe there was an announcement made by Mark Jacobs somewhere but I don't want to quote the wrong numbers.  If you look through the announcement of the Kickstarter from him you should find it..

    Bige - Bors.
    Bigge, Zmallz, Reiggn, Faty)

    (Everquest(99-02), Lineage(01-02), DAoC(02-09), WoW(07), WAR(10-11), Rift(11)
    Nothing Current.

  • SoMuchMassSoMuchMass New York, NYPosts: 548Member
    Originally posted by Maephisto

    Viral for kickstarter is Wasteland 2, DFA, Shadowrun and Torment.

    Kind of a high standard to reach.  In the end, I hope it has the same kind of success.

    Does anyone know what CU's initial funding goals will be? 

    Stretch goals?

     

    2 million.

  • zekuelzekuel portage, INPosts: 38Member
    Everyone assumes that there will now pve at all in this game, no quests,no bosses. Hmm and as that doesn't appeal to a lot of people I would say that there will be all of this. You will not have realm points because you level doing all of these things in a PvP environment. Im sure there will be kill quests(players/guards) but also I would be dumb to think that a game is built without thousonds of quests. Example (just making this up) destroy bridge, save captured princess from keep, dam up water supply, stop supply routes, and on and on. I'm sure many quest while not pve base as far as mobs will have pve mobs and bosses. I actually like the thinking of this idea because in most games you grind to the max level grind for the best gear only to come to the end game and that is(for me at least) going out and showing oof how much of a bad @$$ I am, and pawning others. That is why even Daoc still has followers. Infact alot of people left when ToA came out. Sometimes to much expansion and grinding and change detours players who have already put alot of time into the grind of the game. ToA a mistake I think even Mythic realized. They later made leveling up getting scrolls and artifacts easier. The idea that the game will be base around longevity(pvp) and not PvE content which can not be created as fast or sustained over time is awesome. I invision a solid PvP fondation with PvE elements in it and maybe with enough funding and time some PvE put in on the side like most games do with PvP. But as we read no realm points because there is no need for them because the PvP world and other players will be primarily how you level. At least this is what I get out of what I read.
  • morfidonmorfidon BochniaPosts: 245Member

    "You raise LoL, WoT and PS2. We're not talking MOBAs or MMOFPS here, but since you do, lets discuss. LOL is the most played PC game in the world. DOTA2 just recently beat Skyrim for the most concurrent players in Steam and is rising, and you have a swag of MOBA/wannabeMOBAs out there *cough* SMITE *cough* AND you have D3 introducing PvP and Path of Exile with PvP and Marvel Heroes coming. So you tell me why those millions of players currently playing F2P, B2P would want to play subbed CU when they already have a gluttons banquet of PvP titles crying out for their attention? I would suggest that PvE content would be the missing enticement, don't you think?"

    Why? Because PvP in this game is nothing. What the hell Path of Exile and Diablo 3 as an example of PvP?

    In CU you will have RvR, you will have enormous battles, you will have realm pride. Not a fast instant action (smite) etc. That's why people will want to pay for it.

    There is one problem. 2 milon might be a bit too much Mark is asking for. If it was 1 milion then it would be easy.

  • meddyckmeddyck Athens, GAPosts: 1,140Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by morfidon

    There is one problem. 2 milon might be a bit too much Mark is asking for. If it was 1 milion then it would be easy.

    Yeah that's pretty much my read on it. I will be (pleasantly) surprised if the goal is met.

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

  • StrommStromm BrisbanePosts: 243Member
    Originally posted by morfidon

    "You raise LoL, WoT and PS2. We're not talking MOBAs or MMOFPS here, but since you do, lets discuss. LOL is the most played PC game in the world. DOTA2 just recently beat Skyrim for the most concurrent players in Steam and is rising, and you have a swag of MOBA/wannabeMOBAs out there *cough* SMITE *cough* AND you have D3 introducing PvP and Path of Exile with PvP and Marvel Heroes coming. So you tell me why those millions of players currently playing F2P, B2P would want to play subbed CU when they already have a gluttons banquet of PvP titles crying out for their attention? I would suggest that PvE content would be the missing enticement, don't you think?"

    Why? Because PvP in this game is nothing. What the hell Path of Exile and Diablo 3 as an example of PvP?

    In CU you will have RvR, you will have enormous battles, you will have realm pride. Not a fast instant action (smite) etc. That's why people will want to pay for it.

    There is one problem. 2 milon might be a bit too much Mark is asking for. If it was 1 milion then it would be easy.

    I wasn't the one who started to bring in other genres, I just pursued the discussion when it meandered. For the record D3, PoE, LoL and DotA2 are all regularly discussed on this site afaik.

    Good point, persistent world is potentially an MMORPG advantage over the other genres, but only If the results of PvP confilct are in fact persistent and impactful. I don't buy realm pride. GW2 taught me that, todays MMO players would rather change servers to the winning side, there is no realm pride. Class pride is a strange concept especially when he announced his desire for asymmetrical class design, which means different "tanks" will play and integrate with the team differently, so not comparable, by design.

    I dunno if 1 mill is any more likely than 2 mill personally *shrug* only time will tell. CSE has no prototype, no gameplay vids, no concrete game mechanics to announce, it's all very high level undefined spitballing right now. In fact it seems the DAoC vets are projecting their desire to relive DAoC onto this project (regardless of what MJ says) and have started predicting and assuming certain factors about the game that MJ has never confirmed.

    In any case as I originally posted, I want to see the KS get started. I want to see the result. I would like a solid experiemental result to finally show whether PvPers are a significant factor or not. My personal belief is that PvP cannot support a development like this one, even one with modest subscriber goals like CU, and so far the consensus seems to be that only the combo of PvE and PvP is successful. The only real debates have been whether PvP is a secondary part of successful MMO's and whether PvP on its own is strong enough to support an entire MMORPG.

  • morfidonmorfidon BochniaPosts: 245Member

    Mark if you are reading this you could make stages:

    1 $ milion 

    1,2 $ milion 

    1,5$ milion

    but let the game being created after 1$ milion but it would miss some of the features. Many game companies do something like this and it works really good.

  • morfidonmorfidon BochniaPosts: 245Member
    Good point, persistent world is potentially an MMORPG advantage over the other genres, but only If the results of PvP confilct are in fact persistent and impactful. I don't buy realm pride. GW2 taught me that, todays MMO players would rather change servers to the winning side, there is no realm pride. Class pride is a strange concept especially when he announced his desire for asymmetrical class design, which means different "tanks" will play and integrate with the team differently, so not comparable, by design.

     

    GW 2 and realm pride? How can you do realm pride by creating a game where you have world vs world vs world where your enemies are changing. Where you don't see realm ranks above other people. When everyone looks the same from enemy nation. Where there is no distinction between enemy races and your allies. When there is instant BG action.

    Todays MMO did all things wrong, so you can't believe in something like realm pride. 

    Have you ever played DAOC at the beginning? When there was relic under siege people were suiciding in very far far away zone Lyonesse to defend the relic. They lost experience that was worth about 1 hour of leveling to just defend the keep. 

    Maybe CU will be different if Mark will do it the right way. Not for "everyone". Not for just "cash". We will see...

     

  • SoMuchMassSoMuchMass New York, NYPosts: 548Member
    Originally posted by Stromm
    The only real debates have been whether PvP is a secondary part of successful MMO's and whether PvP on its own is strong enough to support an entire MMORPG.

    It can but it won't be mass market.  Just like a PvE only MMO can survive on its own but won't be mass market.  But this game doesn't strive to be mass market.  It wants to hit a niche target.

    About GW2 and "faction pride" it is totally different when are fighting over colors or server names.  All races were the same, all classes were the same, the lore was the same.  It just had no meaning.  Even in WoW players take a lot of pride in their faction, you see nerd rage by Alliance on the forums crying over the faction devs don't give them love.  And it gets pretty serious.

  • zekuelzekuel portage, INPosts: 38Member
    one of the worst things with GW2 and even Rift is the class balance and not uniqueness to the realms and classes. you might as well all be the same realm(wait didn't rift do something like that). I don't think old Daoc players want this balnce. This does give you a since of pride in your class and realm. Being able to tank like no other palidin in your realm taking down hib and mid. Being a sorc and getting a good timed mezz off while taking down and kiting and taking down an 8 man solo(well with a buff bot) knowing not many other sorc in your realm could do that and the other realm couldn't either they don't have same class. going to the bords and seeing that you have most rps for day/week/month checking out some video of a sic sorc killing an 8 man and saying hey thats me. I think that gives you some personal pride. pride in realm in class and in your hard work to your characters build. 30+ abilities to choose from too. I like all my guns to come to the party.
  • StrommStromm BrisbanePosts: 243Member
    Originally posted by morfidon
    Good point, persistent world is potentially an MMORPG advantage over the other genres, but only If the results of PvP confilct are in fact persistent and impactful. I don't buy realm pride. GW2 taught me that, todays MMO players would rather change servers to the winning side, there is no realm pride. Class pride is a strange concept especially when he announced his desire for asymmetrical class design, which means different "tanks" will play and integrate with the team differently, so not comparable, by design.

     

    GW 2 and realm pride? How can you do realm pride by creating a game where you have world vs world vs world where your enemies are changing. Where you don't see realm ranks above other people. When everyone looks the same from enemy nation. Where there is no distinction between enemy races and your allies. When there is instant BG action.

    Todays MMO did all things wrong, so you can't believe in something like realm pride. 

    Have you ever played DAOC at the beginning? When there was relic under siege people were suiciding in very far far away zone Lyonesse to defend the relic. They lost experience that was worth about 1 hour of leveling to just defend the keep. 

    Maybe CU will be different if Mark will do it the right way. Not for "everyone". Not for just "cash". We will see...

     

    I played DAoC for about 3 months. Some EQ friends and I got sick of EQ at the end of ToV and move do Albion, we rolled Armsman, Friar, Merc and I played Smite Cleric. Some other friends rolled on Hibs and Mid. We're all aussies. Lag was horrible. Large scale fights were a slideshow. Class balance was terribad. I recall skilling up smithing and something else, and we'd wander contested areas looking for fights or roll with the zerg looking for keep action.

    It was a very frustrating experience, when I say slideshow I mean slideshow. The DAoC engine at the start just could not handle the player numbers.

    PvE was very boring, most dungeons were cut and paste geometry from a standard dungeon layout cookie-cutter. Quests were fun and enjoyable (for the time) up until about level 25 when it seemed that the devs just ran out of time and the quests stopped and you just ground out XP killing mobs. My bro played Merc, couldn't get to grips with positional attacks and horrible lag. Mate played a Friar and felt squishie. Armsman friend just felt useless in RvR.

    They left, I followed.

    So yep I did play DAoC, but not for very long. I can only assume it got a lot better, but it was awful at release.

  • StrommStromm BrisbanePosts: 243Member
    Originally posted by SoMuchMass
    Originally posted by Stromm
    The only real debates have been whether PvP is a secondary part of successful MMO's and whether PvP on its own is strong enough to support an entire MMORPG.

    It can but it won't be mass market.  Just like a PvE only MMO can survive on its own but won't be mass market.  But this game doesn't strive to be mass market.  It wants to hit a niche target.

    About GW2 and "faction pride" it is totally different when are fighting over colors or server names.  All races were the same, all classes were the same, the lore was the same.  It just had no meaning.  Even in WoW players take a lot of pride in their faction, you see nerd rage by Alliance on the forums crying over the faction devs don't give them love.  And it gets pretty serious.

    Hehe yeah I saw Alliance getting all sulky about the MoP pre-events, Theramore or some rubbish like that. :-)

     

13»
Sign In or Register to comment.