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!

Are you in favor of Battlegrounds?

13567

Comments

  • FearumFearum Cinnaminson, NJPosts: 1,166Member Uncommon
    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 Tumwater, WAPosts: 192Member
    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 Liberty Lake, WAPosts: 114Member
    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 Halifax, NSPosts: 771Member Uncommon

    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 Arrow, ALPosts: 207Member

    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.)

  • drakon3drakon3 Liberty Lake, WAPosts: 114Member
    Originally posted by dynamicipftw

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

    Here's a handy chart:

    .....

     

    Thank you for this.  I think too many people automatically lump DAoC BG's in with the rest.  There is a HUGE difference.
  • naezgulnaezgul Homer Glen, ILPosts: 374Member
    Originally posted by dynamicipftw

    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.)

    And your not playing tag or planting a bomb!

     

    why is everyone assuming there are no levels?  Mark said not traditional leveling!! This could mean a ton of things.

    also, if there are no levels the difference between a newly created toon and someone playing two years is not gonna be that great. Or else you would have no chance jumping into the fire!

  • audizmannaudizmann AalborgPosts: 24Member
    why is everyone assuming there are no levels?  Mark said not traditional leveling!! This could mean a ton of things.

    also, if there are no levels the difference between a newly created toon and someone playing two years is not gonna be that great. Or else you would have no chance jumping into the fire!

    MJ quote:

    "...we want players to get into RvR right from the beginning of their journey in CU. We want to create a system where a high level character is better than he was, better…faster…stronger… than a low level player but it should also not be a system (if we want to have a truly open world) where the high level player sneezes and the low level player is scattered to the four winds. You must be able to have actual RvR in an RvR-focused game and that means that the cavernous gulf of disparity between characters that can be found in other games must not be part of the system here. Again, being a more experienced player will come with tons of perks, benefits, abilities, etc. but it should not be instant death to see somebody a bit more powerful than you coming at you if we want this game to succeed."

    I like the sound of this, and it would not make any sense to have "levels" in the traditional sense. Plenty of progression/disparity can be achieved through stats/styles/abilities/equipment.

  • MidHealerMidHealer StuttgartPosts: 15Member

     

    No BGs.

     

    RvR should be one big playground for all levels, so no need to disperse people in some playground miniRvR zones.

    Having a system to level in RvR would be defied by having some BG zones where people level differently or play differently than in real RvR.

     

     

    ***

    For the I-wanna-insta-action, I-don't-wanna-wait crowd:

    "But but but.... I don't want to eat dirt 1, 2 or 3 months in big boy RvR until I reach the highest level and be able to "compete", I want insta action!!"

    Well, this seems to be a wrong game for that.

    Birger, Galahad, Healer
    Midgard forever

  • TelondarielTelondariel Ottawa, ONPosts: 1,001Member
    Originally posted by MidHealer

     

    No BGs.

     

    RvR should be one big playground for all levels, so no need to disperse people in some playground miniRvR zones.

    Having a system to level in RvR would be defied by having some BG zones where people level differently or play differently than in real RvR.

     

     

    ***

    For the I-wanna-insta-action, I-don't-wanna-wait crowd:

    "But but but.... I don't want to eat dirt 1, 2 or 3 months in big boy RvR until I reach the highest level and be able to "compete", I want insta action!!"

    Well, this seems to be a wrong game for that.

    Your "argument" against BG's doesn't make sense, and you are coming off as elitist and patronizing.

     

    The game isn't out, and a lot of details are still floating around in the air.  MJ probably has more scribbled notes lying haphazardly across his desk than anything concrete, and you are already telling people what the game is going to be like and if they don't like it then to go elsewhere?  Nice.

     

    BG's in DAoC did not split the population.  It was never an issue and not one community thread was made on it to cause heated debate amongst the players.  Level 50 RvR hummed along just fine with dedicated people participating in it.  People who wanted to RvR but did not want to join the lvl 50 scene had another option:  the BG's.  It was not a divisive distraction.  Level 50 RvR populations did not suffer from people funneling en masse to Thid, leaving the frontier keeps and relics undefended.  Thinking that there was impact of one against another is absolutely ridiculous, and is only a construct here in this thread by an irrational few trying to back up their personal opinions.

    image
  • ZinzanZinzan NorthPosts: 1,351Member

    Poll would be nice.

    Loved BG's, definitely in favour.

    Expresso gave me a Hearthstone beta key.....I'm so happy :)

  • EllyaEllya leylandPosts: 99Member

    Nope, no battlegrounds please.  With no levels in the game, there will be no need to separate the low levels from the higher levels.

    I hate instancing anyway. Splitting people up into small instanced areas would do nothing at all for the community feel that MJ wants to create.

    Basically, newer players will die  - a LOT - and hone their skills as they do it. And eventually they won't be newer players anymore, they will have built their skills and become the very people they feared a couple of months back, just as it should be . :)

  • Soki123Soki123 Kelowna, BCPosts: 1,478Member Uncommon

    The way I look at it, when DAOC first came out, and epic gear/df gear was available, we all pretty much had that and was the best you could get at that time. So basically everyone was on the same level of gear. Now we all had similar gear, we all we re level 50. So in CU, if we start at RR1L0, all have starter gear. Why have BGs. Where would they fit in.

    For newer people, just get used to dieing from time to time. Or better yet, join a guild. I remember going out into Mid frontier and defending Fens, at level 38, as a RR was happening. My guild actually kept me alive most of the time.

    I just don t see where they re needed or fit in.

  • RaventreeRaventree Yourtown, MNPosts: 456Member
    Originally posted by naezgul

    I most definitely am... Couple caveats. 

    It affects the big boy areas. 

    NO xpoff !

    Having an area where you have a decent range of characters is nice.

    i remember trying too participate being ten levels below others......not fun.

    DAoC had it right.  If they have BGs it should be for leveling and no max level BGs.

    Currently playing:
    Rift
    Played:
    SWToR, Aion,EQ, Dark Age of Camelot
    World of Warcraft, AoC

  • dynamicipftwdynamicipftw Arrow, ALPosts: 207Member
    Originally posted by Ellya

    Nope, no battlegrounds please.  With no levels in the game, there will be no need to separate the low levels from the higher levels.

    I hate instancing anyway. Splitting people up into small instanced areas would do nothing at all for the community feel that MJ wants to create.

    Basically, newer players will die  - a LOT - and hone their skills as they do it. And eventually they won't be newer players anymore, they will have built their skills and become the very people they feared a couple of months back, just as it should be . :)

    1) Battlegrounds don't have to be instanced (see DAoC).

    2) Can you name one game (with progression) that forces the newbies to fight against veterans on their first day?

  • naezgulnaezgul Homer Glen, ILPosts: 374Member
    Originally posted by audizmann
    why is everyone assuming there are no levels?  Mark said not traditional leveling!! This could mean a ton of things.

    also, if there are no levels the difference between a newly created toon and someone playing two years is not gonna be that great. Or else you would have no chance jumping into the fire!

    MJ quote:

    "...we want players to get into RvR right from the beginning of their journey in CU. We want to create a system where a high level character is better than he was, better…faster…stronger… than a low level player but it should also not be a system (if we want to have a truly open world) where the high level player sneezes and the low level player is scattered to the four winds. You must be able to have actual RvR in an RvR-focused game and that means that the cavernous gulf of disparity between characters that can be found in other games must not be part of the system here. Again, being a more experienced player will come with tons of perks, benefits, abilities, etc. but it should not be instant death to see somebody a bit more powerful than you coming at you if we want this game to succeed."

    I like the sound of this, and it would not make any sense to have "levels" in the traditional sense. Plenty of progression/disparity can be achieved through stats/styles/abilities/equipment.

    If it is like this what really is going to differentiate a toon 3 years played and a newly created one?

     

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon

    Bgs take players from the open world mass population and put them into smaller instanced conflicts, now does that not take away from the main population?

  • KarraptathidKarraptathid Tequesta, FLPosts: 78Member

    Absolutely for a BG in CU.  I typically only play in DAoC BGs, seldom if ever in NF.  It appears the current head of Mythic spends a considerable period of his game play in the BGs as well.  I think there will be some sort of BG, hopefully more like DAoC's in CU for the n00b/l0wbie to free of griefers.  Last project that MJ was involved in with Mythic was WAR.  War had a tier RVR system that prevented griefing of n00bs by the high level guys.  No traditional levels in CU?  There is still going to be a difference between the seasoned and well outfitted veteran vs the n00b that can not be properly ballanced without gimping the game. 

     

    What would be really cool if there are multi-"server" BGs.  I can think of all types of interesting events CSE could be running both for amusement of the players as well as a promotional tool for marketing CU which population of a multi-server BGs could support.  Throw in some real world and virtual world prizes, "helmet-Cam" (or maybe god-view cam) on the previous hour's top RP earner tied into CSE marketing promotion and could be good times for players and for CSE's bottomline. 

    Midranki - To us, Thidranki Faste is not just some center keep, it's our field Guild Hall.
    Camelot Unchained's Kickstarter - Warrior Forever

  • KarraptathidKarraptathid Tequesta, FLPosts: 78Member
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

    Bgs take players from the open world mass population and put them into smaller instanced conflicts, now does that not take away from the main population?

     

    Same can be said for crafters and home builders that CSE is planning on.

    Midranki - To us, Thidranki Faste is not just some center keep, it's our field Guild Hall.
    Camelot Unchained's Kickstarter - Warrior Forever

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Karraptathid
    Originally posted by Xobdnas Bgs take players from the open world mass population and put them into smaller instanced conflicts, now does that not take away from the main population?
     

    Same can be said for crafters and home builders that CSE is planning on.


    No, it really doesnt. The economy is entirely player based and housing isnt instanced...

  • KarraptathidKarraptathid Tequesta, FLPosts: 78Member
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

     


    Originally posted by Karraptathid

    Originally posted by Xobdnas Bgs take players from the open world mass population and put them into smaller instanced conflicts, now does that not take away from the main population?
     

     

    Same can be said for crafters and home builders that CSE is planning on.


     

    No, it really doesnt. The economy is entirely player based and housing isnt instanced...

     

    It takes them out of the primary RVR scene, that is the complaint of BGs by some.  I would be shocked to hear that MJ would do an instanced BG knowing full well how well his zone based DAoC BGs are loved.  Now he could do a morph of any too high experienced character wandering into the zone like the amusing chicken effect in WAR.

    Midranki - To us, Thidranki Faste is not just some center keep, it's our field Guild Hall.
    Camelot Unchained's Kickstarter - Warrior Forever

  • VyethVyeth Fayetteville, NCPosts: 1,459Member

    The ORvR world would be empty.. It would turn into sit in town and queue.. And people are going to come in here and say "No it wouldn't", but it has been proven time after time already.. They say, "Balance the rewards", what by giving no reward for battlegrounds? Why then even put them in the game? If they serve no purpose in the grand scheme of an epic factional conquest then I don't think they even matter.

    Now say, if the battleground results directly influenced ownership of certain ORvR perks, then perhaps it could add to the flavor of true factional conquest.. Anything else and it's just a reason and excuse why not to ORvR and then comes the forum speeches about how everyone needs a number associated with their skill level.. And how gear needs to be rated... Tournament brackets and.. The rest is history my friends..

    image

  • TelondarielTelondariel Ottawa, ONPosts: 1,001Member
    Originally posted by Xobdnas

     


    Originally posted by Karraptathid

    Originally posted by Xobdnas Bgs take players from the open world mass population and put them into smaller instanced conflicts, now does that not take away from the main population?
     

     

    Same can be said for crafters and home builders that CSE is planning on.


     

    No, it really doesnt. The economy is entirely player based and housing isnt instanced...

    As a counter to your stance that BG's take away from the base population, yes, it really does.

     

    It is asanine to continue with the same point that BG's will mysteriously damage RvR in some way.  It was never an issue in DAoC.  It is a fictitious creation that is not based on historical fact.  For some reason, the No crowd have made a non-issue into their standard to rally around.  Did you guys even play DAoC?  BG's had ZERO impact on the endgame RvR scene, and were a great source of entertainment for a large portion of the population.  People paid their subscriptions (read: financially supported DAoC) just to take part in the BG scene. 

    image
  • TelondarielTelondariel Ottawa, ONPosts: 1,001Member
    Originally posted by Vyeth

    The ORvR world would be empty.. It would turn into sit in town and queue.. And people are going to come in here and say "No it wouldn't", but it has been proven time after time already..

    Did you even play DAoC?  Because your statement is so far out in left field in relation to what actually happened that I can not draw any other conclusion.

    image
  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,969Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by naezgul
    Originally posted by audizmann
    why is everyone assuming there are no levels?  Mark said not traditional leveling!! This could mean a ton of things.

    also, if there are no levels the difference between a newly created toon and someone playing two years is not gonna be that great. Or else you would have no chance jumping into the fire!

    MJ quote:

    "...we want players to get into RvR right from the beginning of their journey in CU. We want to create a system where a high level character is better than he was, better…faster…stronger… than a low level player but it should also not be a system (if we want to have a truly open world) where the high level player sneezes and the low level player is scattered to the four winds. You must be able to have actual RvR in an RvR-focused game and that means that the cavernous gulf of disparity between characters that can be found in other games must not be part of the system here. Again, being a more experienced player will come with tons of perks, benefits, abilities, etc. but it should not be instant death to see somebody a bit more powerful than you coming at you if we want this game to succeed."

    I like the sound of this, and it would not make any sense to have "levels" in the traditional sense. Plenty of progression/disparity can be achieved through stats/styles/abilities/equipment.

    If it is like this what really is going to differentiate a toon 3 years played and a newly created one?

     

    Actually sounds a bit like a magic trick, and I'll be very interested to see how they pull this off.  I recall Thidranki used to be levels 17-24 and few people playing combat characters would go there until they were at least level 20 because the level disparity was too great to overcome. (or at the very least, very unpleasant)

    Even in end game RVR, a level "51" (RR Lvl 5) would have a significant advantage over the newer player (but not insurmoutable) but that doesn't seem like enough of a progression curve for a 2 or 3 year experience.

    The idea sounds good on paper, but I'm really curious how this will be accomplished.

     

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "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

Sign In or Register to comment.