Howdy, Stranger!

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

Are you in favor of Battlegrounds?

2456

Comments

  • TuktzTuktz Member Posts: 299

    I liked non instances bgs in daoc, but I don't see the point in cu.

    in daoc, it was to split up people,by level, and give people,a rvr playground while leveling in a pve world.

    in cu the whole world is rvr, and there's no pve leveling, so,I don't think bgs are needed.

    the point of cu is a static world.

    nowmimwouldnt mind underground non instances rvr dungeons :-)

    image
    MMO history - EVE GW2 SWTOR RIFT WAR COH/V EQ2 WOW DAOC
    Tuktz - http://www.heretic.shivtr.com/

  • akleyakley Member Posts: 17

    Battlegrounds, of any kind, SUCK. It is not real pvp. I hate them.

     

    Plenty of games with BGs, if you like them go play one of those.

  • GitmixGitmix Member UncommonPosts: 605

    RvR alone gets boring after a while to me. BGs are a good way to mix it up a little while still doing PvP.

    Either way I don't really care. The presence or not of BGs isn't what makes a good or bad game.

  • drakon3drakon3 Member Posts: 114
    Originally posted by akley

    Battlegrounds, of any kind, SUCK. It is not real pvp. I hate them.

    This sounds like the response of some 8man's that didn't like having their casual RP fodder going and having fun elsewhere.  How is it any less PvP than 50 RvR was?  Your argument holds true for BG's like WoW or Scenarios from WAR etc., but DAoC BG's are very different from those.  It was a scaled down, near identical copy of 50 RvR. 

  • naezgulnaezgul Member Posts: 374
    Originally posted by drakon3
    Originally posted by akley

    Battlegrounds, of any kind, SUCK. It is not real pvp. I hate them.

    This sounds like the response of some 8man's that didn't like having their casual RP fodder going and having fun elsewhere.  How is it any less PvP than 50 RvR was?  Your argument holds true for BG's like WoW or Scenarios from WAR etc., but DAoC BG's are very different from those.  It was a scaled down, near identical copy of 50 RvR. 

    BG's are NOT instances

  • BrohimeBrohime Member Posts: 34

    DAoC Battlegrounds were the best, I actually prefered their battlegrounds to 50 RvR. It was just soo hard to get templated and masterlevels to compete in level 50 rvr.

     

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread Member EpicPosts: 7,254
    Originally posted by Brohime

    DAoC Battlegrounds were the best, I actually prefered their battlegrounds to 50 RvR. It was just soo hard to get templated and masterlevels to compete in level 50 rvr.

     

    So is that what unchained is going to be like in RvR? Are people going to have to get stomped for a month or two to compete?

  • audizmannaudizmann Member Posts: 24

    I don't think there should be battlegrounds in CU and I highly doubt there will be. The lack of actual levels, and the "consequence of dying" are two strong indications against the use of BGs.

  • NanulakNanulak Member UncommonPosts: 372

    I like battlegrounds they offered me a change of pace within many games.  I also see them as a good game extender.  After you have played to max level and have a lot of in game money, you need something to spend it on.

    Enter the twinks :)  And they need battlegrounds to fight in.

    This also helps the crafters and the overall player economy.  When my main toon was leveling I would never waste my money on exotic gear.  The money was too precious.  But later in the game when money was not that much of a factor, gear upgrades become a focus.

    Nanulak

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Member Posts: 6,403
    Originally posted by akley

    Battlegrounds, of any kind, SUCK. It is not real pvp. I hate them.

    Plenty of games with BGs, if you like them go play one of those.

    Objective-less PvP tends to suck. Dueling in the road...yawn.

    This is very much a "your mileage will vary" experience, obviously.

    A) Territory control, by definition, includes some strategic objectives, not purely tactical.

    B) Open world, usually, just a simplistic "rawr get em guys" zerg v zerg.

    C)  "Battlergrounds", as typically instanced in modern games, opposite end of the spectrum, strategic goals and games that end.

     

    Pick your poison and go nuts. :shrug:

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • TelondarielTelondariel Member Posts: 1,001
    Originally posted by colddog04
    Originally posted by Brohime

    DAoC Battlegrounds were the best, I actually prefered their battlegrounds to 50 RvR. It was just soo hard to get templated and masterlevels to compete in level 50 rvr.

     

    So is that what unchained is going to be like in RvR? Are people going to have to get stomped for a month or two to compete?

    ..which is why I didn't do lvl 50 RvR.  It was too steep and too long of a climb to get to a point where you could survive.  Also, if and when you got there, you then had to contend with the people who had been max RR and fully templated for years as well as fully buffed by their bot. 

     

    That's why I loved the BG system in DAoC.  You could still RvR, but you did it in tiers and didn't have to compete with the pro RvR zerg guilds who would swoop in and destroy you.  The BG's were a ton of fun, and I don't understand why there are people here saying "No" to the concept.  The people that have naysayed it haven't given a reason for their opinion, and I'd honestly like to know.  Its not like the BG's ever infringed on any of the hardcore RvR folk's gameplay or agenda.  The people that enjoyed the BG's made it their preferred avenue for RvR, and I think there are a lot of players who'd like to do that again if it was made available.

     

    image
  • OdamanOdaman Member UncommonPosts: 195
    I'd rather they focus on rvr on a larger scale than throwing out tiny maps to split the population. There might not even be a point in having battlegrounds anyways depending on how progression is implemented. We already know the armor isn't supposed to scale up very much. I liked BGs in daoc, and if there actually is a large power gap then having one for either a tutorial or the first few steps in progression wouldn't be the worst thing. I'd rather avoid the handholding though.
  • RaunuRaunu Member UncommonPosts: 480

    As long as the game is set-up in a way that encourages you to defend your keeps while going and taking more, then no, I would not support any type of battlegrounds.

    I thought I was going to love GW2, however the WvWvW turned into a game where everyone avoids the enemy force and you just trade keeps. To me, this is totally missing the point of PvP and needs to be something that is avoided like the plague.

     

    Your character progression needs to be driven by killing other players. However a 2nd system needs to be in place so that owning a keep benefits your entire realm. In this way, groups are rewarded for killing other players and defending keeps that are under attack.

    - - "What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?" - -

  • TelondarielTelondariel Member Posts: 1,001
    Originally posted by Odaman
    I'd rather they focus on rvr on a larger scale than throwing out tiny maps to split the population. There might not even be a point in having battlegrounds anyways depending on how progression is implemented. We already know the armor isn't supposed to scale up very much. I liked BGs in daoc, and if there actually is a large power gap then having one for either a tutorial or the first few steps in progression wouldn't be the worst thing. I'd rather avoid the handholding though.

    BG's don't split the population.  There are people that RvR on the large scale, and those that prefer a tighter map, and those that do both.

     

    BG's aren't about handholding.  You log on, enter the zone, and kill or be killed as you try to take the keep or roam around looking for action.  Its still RvR.

    image
  • OdamanOdaman Member UncommonPosts: 195

    If people are in the BGs they're not in the frontiers, so yes it does split the population whether you choose to admit it or not. The handholding response was more towards someone else than you, but nevertheless the lowbie bgs of daoc were intended to ease you into pvp (and give you some action as you leveled). With no pve levels I still don't see the need to split people up... we'll see though.

  • aleosaleos Member UncommonPosts: 1,942
    Totally 100% against.
  • drakon3drakon3 Member Posts: 114
    Originally posted by Telondariel

    That's why I loved the BG system in DAoC.  You could still RvR, but you did it in tiers and didn't have to compete with the pro RvR zerg guilds who would swoop in and destroy you.  The BG's were a ton of fun, and I don't understand why there are people here saying "No" to the concept.  The people that have naysayed it haven't given a reason for their opinion, and I'd honestly like to know.  Its not like the BG's ever infringed on any of the hardcore RvR folk's gameplay or agenda.  The people that enjoyed the BG's made it their preferred avenue for RvR, and I think there are a lot of players who'd like to do that again if it was made available.

    The reason is (and they will deny it of course) that they like having low RR cannon fodder to destory.  There are some elite players that truly enjoy a good challange.  But there are a lot that say they do, but really they get a high from destroying people that really have no chance of winning.  So when those people go play in a BG with other people of similar skill and mindset, they complain that BG's have split the population.  (or some other excuse)

  • dynamicipftwdynamicipftw Member UncommonPosts: 206
    Originally posted by Odaman

    If people are in the BGs they're not in the frontiers, so yes it does split the population whether you choose to admit it or not. The handholding response was more towards someone else than you, but nevertheless the lowbie bgs of daoc were intended to ease you into pvp (and give you some action as you leveled). With no pve levels I still don't see the need to split people up... we'll see though.

    You are making no sense at all. In daoc you had pve and bgs to ease you into PvP. In CU we won't have PvE so your solution is to take away the BGs too? 

     

    Also "splitting up" the population is another silly argument. In DAoC on a 1500 people server (cap) you had maybe 300-400 in RvR. The rest were PvEing/idling/in BGs. I never heard anyone say anything bad about BGs.

     

    In WAR the BGs (which are nothing like DAoC BGs) were harmful because 90+% of the population was in them (at launch at least), and the RvR/PvE zones were deserted.

  • Ice-QueenIce-Queen Member UncommonPosts: 2,483
    I absolutely despise the current battlegrounds in mmos. I did however like the ones we had in DAOC. It was fun and nothing like the cratastic battlegrounds we have with games like WoW, Warhammer, Rift, GW2, SWTOR, etc.

    image

    What happens when you log off your characters????.....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
    Dark Age of Camelot

  • naezgulnaezgul Member Posts: 374
    Originally posted by Fearum

    I have to ask, Why? Why would you need bg's when the whole game is about PvP? Why would you want them and what purpose would they serve when you level yourself on PvP?

    I could really careless if they are in a game because I don't like them. The only ones that were fun and I did enjoy were the ones in DAoC. They were more like a practice for the big game though instead of just a death match like alot of other games use them.

    Because that is what I did in the BG's .....level with pvp......near my level

  • FearumFearum Member UncommonPosts: 1,175
    Originally posted by naezgul

    Originally posted by Fearum
    I have to ask, Why? Why would you need bg's when the whole game is about PvP? Why would you want them and what purpose would they serve when you level yourself on PvP? I could really careless if they are in a game because I don't like them. The only ones that were fun and I did enjoy were the ones in DAoC. They were more like a practice for the big game though instead of just a death match like alot of other games use them.

    Because that is what I did in the BG's .....level with pvp......near my level

     

    So you don't want open world pvp in a open world rvr game? That makes no sense. Having specific level area pvp sounds like its the total opposite from what this game is going for.
  • grimjakkgrimjakk Member Posts: 192
    Originally posted by PerfArt
    This isn't related to CU specifically because the design of CU has no need of BGs... But holy hell if Thidranki was not more fun than anyone should be allowed to have.

    Say what you will about it's effects on big boy RvR. You will have some valid points. Say what you will about the direction that the BGs took the game in. Again, valid points will be made.

    But holy SHIT was Thidranki FUN. Hell, if Thid was the endgame, I would have been happy. I liked the BGs that much. Even Caledonia was fun. Thid just appealed to me because that's when classes started being what they were supposed to be, but didn't yet have any "i win" buttons.
    ***
    Thidranki is my single fondest memory of an mmo.
    I am not sure what dark gods Mythic sacrificed children to in order to acheive this, but "THANK YOU DARK GODS!"

    Best of times.

     

     

    QFT.  QFE, even.  Even after the whole ToA thing, Thidranki kept pulling me back to the game off and on for years.

  • drakon3drakon3 Member Posts: 114
    Originally posted by grimjakk

    QFT.  QFE, even.  Even after the whole ToA thing, Thidranki kept pulling me back to the game off and on for years.

    Thidranki was the ONLY thing that kept me subbing for as long as I did.  Sure I enjoyed OF/NF a ton.  But Thid is what kept me subbing on and off for 6+ years.  Without Thid I would probably have subbed for a year, maybe two at most. 

  • GhavriggGhavrigg Member RarePosts: 1,308

    In WAR, a lot of the problems with RvR might have been fixed if people were only participating in thee RvR lakes, but people preferred to use the battlegrounds, because it was a faster way to level.

    For a game based on PvP, I think battlegrounds are a bad idea. You want as many people as possible out in the fields of the main land as possible, and you want systems that drive people to WANT to be there.

    You can't have distractions like BG's if you want the game to last.

  • dynamicipftwdynamicipftw Member UncommonPosts: 206

    It seems most people ITT don't understand the differences between WoW/GW2/WAR BGs and DAoC BGs.

    Here's a handy chart:

    DAoC BGs WoW/GW2/WAR BGs
    3 sides 2 sides
    not instanced instanced
    never ends ends after a few minutes
    there is no winner there is a winner (99.9% of the time)
    RvR not RvR
    uneven numbers even numbers
    no score or k/d ratio or stats has all of those
    has central keep doesn't
    multiple playstyles (zerging/8v8/soloing) one or two playstyles
    you get to know your allies and enemies you play with and against randoms
    you need to form your own groups automatic grouping
    casual/fun PvP  all about winning (people usually rage when they lose)
    you progress by killing enemies you progress by winning the bg (kills aren't important)
    you can make your own luck if your team sucks you can't make a difference
    big map and more players (in prime time) small map, few players

    Here is a handy map: http://www.valmerwolf.com/mappe/BG/bg-thidranki.jpg 

     

    In essence DAoC BGs are just like RvR but in a smaller map. They are more balanced than 50 RvR though which makes them great for new players to learn the game without having to face veterans who will probably crush them with their superior items/progression/teamwork/experience etc.

    Some players even prefer DAoC BGs to level 50 RvR for various reasons (it's more casual, more balanced, they may not care about progression etc.)

Sign In or Register to comment.