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!

10 people are kicking the guy, guess I should too

11214161718

Comments

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,610Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Iselin

    There's no sense of arguing about the influence of broadband saturation on the online game market--especially online games that have real-time components. There is a direct relationship. This is a fact not an opinion.

    There's no sense of using 2001 numbers to discuss 2013. There wasn't a single MMO in the top 10 PC games sold in 2001--it was a niche market. Expecting 20K customers is not a mark of dedication, just the economic reality at the time.

    No one here is saying that RvR has the most MMORPG appeal... that would be the PvE-based WOW that has the most appeal obviously. If mass appeal was the only criteria, this would be another WOW-formula clone. As a matter of fact, the fact they decided to go with a less popular system, shows more, not less integrity and dedication.

    Except they didnt go for a less popular formula. Everything except the PvP areas is your standard, WoW like, ThemePark quest-hub type of gameplay.

    So what they "cleverly" did is to combine DAoC RvR with WoW PvP, using Elder Scrolls skin.

    Will it work? Dunno. But I do know that it will not be very much like Skyrim or other Elder Scrolls games which I believe is what many are griping about.

    Skyrim had minimal levels but if you chose to follow the various story lines--which most people did--it was pretty WOW-like complete with quests that sent you to appropriate places. It even had areas that were locked to you until you had learned the proper shout required to get through the obstacle. Same is true of all of the TES games going back to Arena.

    The main story lines are guided and quest driven. Same here.

    The only difference is that here (after level 10) you can level with just RvR--if you have the patience to wait for fights to happen that is, and that they have levels.

    There isn't a single level-based game I know of where you can go off to any PvE area you choose and grind. You could push the boundaries by grouping but only up to the point where your abilities either miss too often or the damage you do is insignificant with the mobs level-dependent hit-points.

    BTW, a no level MMO would have no character advancement. Or if it did by getting better gear and better at your abilities, it would eventually trivialize the content. Only way around that dilemma I can think of is having mobs auto-bolstered to match you.,.which in turn would lead to personal instances. Now we're back at a single player game image

  • immodiumimmodium ManchesterPosts: 1,577Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Nanfoodle:
    Sorry but RPS are one of the few gaming sites I trust.

    They rightfully called out diablo3, sim city and all the boring cod iterations, they've pointed me in the direction of severs cool indie games and they like mmos I like e.g. eve and ps2.

    If they say TESO has wow style led by the nose pve, it has wow style led by the nose pve.

    Hopefully they can fix this, although the anti-rvr clamour probably means they will alter things elsewhere.

    They will likely not "fix" it because they probably see it as working as intended.

    It probably is working as intended.

     

    The thing is how do you implement the system TES has, enemys level as the player does into an MMO?

    Imagine if Skyrim was an MMO. You got a player whos level 45 and wants to start exploring around Riften. You also have a new player who wants to explore Riften first. You also have hundreds of other players inbetween those levels also in the area. What level are the enemy NPC's?

    image
  • jmcdermottukjmcdermottuk LiverpoolPosts: 976Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Drakynn
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
     
     I don't feel that the Elder Scrolls world fits in with a 3 faction RvR system.

     

    And many of us feel like it fits well.

    And some feel like only a sandbox would fit.

    And some feel like only ffa PvP would fit.

    And some feel only a co-op PvE game would fit.

    And each side has its own arguments

    And each side brings up RvR

    And your point is? Am I not allowed to voice my opinion? What are you saying with this post exactly?

    Many of you feel it fits well, just as many don't.

    Some feel only a sandbox would fit, I think more sandbox than themepark would be a good way to go.

    Some feel FFA PvP would fit, and in regards to a TES game it would  in my opinion, given the freedom we experienced in TES games, although I'd prefer an EVE approach rather than a DF or MO approach.

    Some want only co-op PvE, and that would also work. I think it would work better than the 3 locked factions we can expect.

    Each side has it's own arguments, which is a good thing isn't it? Aren't we all here to discuss the game? Are we not all ES fans? Don't we all want the game to be the best it can possibly be? We may not agree on how to deliver that but we have every right to share out thoughts.

    Each side brings up RvR, and that's probably because it's the biggest single point of contention. Not only does it dictate the way PvP will be done but it also has a knock on effect on the PvE experience of the game, and probably due to balancing issues it also forces a class system on a game franchise that never had fixed classes. I do try to avoid it as a single point when I can.

     

    Now, you'll have to forgive me for being completely dense but I really don't get the point of your post. Are you demonstrating the many different views held or are you simply writting all these off because you disagree with them? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, it's just there's no punchline.

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,610Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Drakynn
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
     
     I don't feel that the Elder Scrolls world fits in with a 3 faction RvR system.

     

    And many of us feel like it fits well.

    And some feel like only a sandbox would fit.

    And some feel like only ffa PvP would fit.

    And some feel only a co-op PvE game would fit.

    And each side has its own arguments

    And each side brings up RvR

    And your point is? Am I not allowed to voice my opinion? What are you saying with this post exactly?

    Many of you feel it fits well, just as many don't.

    Some feel only a sandbox would fit, I think more sandbox than themepark would be a good way to go.

    Some feel FFA PvP would fit, and in regards to a TES game it would  in my opinion, given the freedom we experienced in TES games, although I'd prefer an EVE approach rather than a DF or MO approach.

    Some want only co-op PvE, and that would also work. I think it would work better than the 3 locked factions we can expect.

    Each side has it's own arguments, which is a good thing isn't it? Aren't we all here to discuss the game? Are we not all ES fans? Don't we all want the game to be the best it can possibly be? We may not agree on how to deliver that but we have every right to share out thoughts.

    Each side brings up RvR, and that's probably because it's the biggest single point of contention. Not only does it dictate the way PvP will be done but it also has a knock on effect on the PvE experience of the game, and probably due to balancing issues it also forces a class system on a game franchise that never had fixed classes. I do try to avoid it as a single point when I can.

     

    Now, you'll have to forgive me for being completely dense but I really don't get the point of your post. Are you demonstrating the many different views held or are you simply writting all these off because you disagree with them? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, it's just there's no punchline.

    The part in red would also have been my preference and I've said it many times. PVP everywhere with real consequences for behaving like an asshat is always my preference.

    The point? That you keep continuously mentioning RvR as something only one of the groups brings up when in fact all do.

    From what I've noticed, you actually bring it up more often than most. You get the point now?

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,447Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Deivos
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    Later yes, start no. As it takes time for servers in ESO case conflicts to settle into their grove. My guess things wont start to do that for 3 months+ and things wont really start to till 12 months+. At best at the start you can make an educated guess by what guilds are joining what conflicts.

    That's an optimistic estimation of time.

     

    A simple point of reference is to point at Planetside 2. It's obviously a condition emphasized byt the fact that game is nothing but PvP, but it's faction balance issues with stacking the competition came almost immediately. I'd say suprisingly it's gotten more balanced over time, but that has somewhat to do with SOE toying with the servers.

     

    GW2 had rather immediate faction bsalance issues as well, it was a large secondary aspect as to why people wanted server transfers (the primary one being the awkward server structure for the game).

     

    The balance of factions in PvP is going to become an issue as soone as people start stepping onto the field for the first time and watching for a few days to see how each faction is faring.

     

    Within the first week you will have rerolls stacking sides.

    What a shock, a game with no level system got its balance worked out quicker. All they have is battle rank and that counts for very little. Point I made is, given time it willl balance out. Once the MMO hoppers leave and people settle into their main chars and get top level. The guilds get to know eachother and then communities start to from. Thats when the real game starts.


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    As I pointed out they went with rvr as a compromise.

    I would play a fantasy eve thousands wouldn't.

    I wouldn't touch a pure pve mmo. Or even a wow style queue to do instanced crap setup.
  • DeivosDeivos Mountain View, CAPosts: 1,757Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    So rank these games in order of balance.

    Ps2
    Gw2
    Tsw
    Swtor
    Rift SL
    Wow

    ps2 wins hands down. My server is 37% nc, 32% tr, 31% vs. I'm vs, we regularly win alerts / dominate continents etc..

    Can't say the same for gw2, you pretty much know who's going to win a WvW cycle as soon as they pair the servers.

    Didn't say it wasn't balanced now. I said out the gate it had plenty of blance issues. SOE has been good about seeking blance in that game.

     

    Or do you not remember when the servers had an upwards of a consistent 50% playerbase dedicated to a single faction?

    That was the case on US West 3, it had that kinda bias for the NC. It was frakkin' rediculous and people couldn't compete on the TR and VS.

     

    Things that stand true for one server doesn't apply to every server. You're might be a magical balance, but on the server my VS lives on (my main is VS too) we still regularly sit as 25% of the faction total with NC being the majority. We haven't had a server merge or anything for that one yet too, because it's actually pretty well populated. As a result, that faction bias is still there.

     

    That being said, even with the least numbers we regularly cap the server.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners."
    - Thomas B. Macaulay

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    You level in ps2

    If not what are all those upgrades you buy with certs.
  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Agh devios, I should point out I'm in the UK.

    American servers always seem to have more of the "pile on the winning side" mentality. It was the same with warhammer, you guys had some crazy 80% servers and stuff, our worst imbalances were around 60%+

    We've never had a server over here where a side had 50%+



  • DeivosDeivos Mountain View, CAPosts: 1,757Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    What a shock, a game with no level system got its balance worked out quicker. All they have is battle rank and that counts for very little. Point I made is, given time it willl balance out. Once the MMO hoppers leave and people settle into their main chars and get top level. The guilds get to know eachother and then communities start to from. Thats when the real game starts.

    I just don't agree with the notion that this will happen.

     

    You claim to have played DAoC. then you should remember the faction bias of many servers. Sure some might have been balanced, but it was far from abnormal for midgard , albion, or the hibbies to have a dominant hold on a server.

     

    There was no 'balancing out' on those servers. People picked the strong side and settled down.

     

    WoW isn't a three way conflict and it's world PvP is a joke, it's cross server PvP mechanics have also solved some of the issues here too. However, if you think back on that game too, because it was only two faction, it was easy to tell how faction bias affected that games servers too. Many of them went very clearly to the alliance or horde simply because of players stacking faction.

     

    The point you made is the one I'm saying is off. It trusts that a majority people aren't going to take the path of least resistance in order to attain the things they desire.

     

    EDIT: That clarifies plenty Shaky.

    We seem to have a strong trait overall to metagame in the US. Won't say it's a universal aspect, but it's common enough to be able to be a characteristic trait of almost any MMO one could play at least.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners."
    - Thomas B. Macaulay

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,447Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    You level in ps2

    If not what are all those upgrades you buy with certs.

    I could be worng, never play it. Just read up on it and see lots of info on no levels or level cap. Just battle rank that means very little.


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • jmcdermottukjmcdermottuk LiverpoolPosts: 976Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Drakynn
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jmcdermottuk
     
     I don't feel that the Elder Scrolls world fits in with a 3 faction RvR system.

     

    And many of us feel like it fits well.

    And some feel like only a sandbox would fit.

    And some feel like only ffa PvP would fit.

    And some feel only a co-op PvE game would fit.

    And each side has its own arguments

    And each side brings up RvR

    And your point is? Am I not allowed to voice my opinion? What are you saying with this post exactly?

    Many of you feel it fits well, just as many don't.

    Some feel only a sandbox would fit, I think more sandbox than themepark would be a good way to go.

    Some feel FFA PvP would fit, and in regards to a TES game it would  in my opinion, given the freedom we experienced in TES games, although I'd prefer an EVE approach rather than a DF or MO approach.

    Some want only co-op PvE, and that would also work. I think it would work better than the 3 locked factions we can expect.

    Each side has it's own arguments, which is a good thing isn't it? Aren't we all here to discuss the game? Are we not all ES fans? Don't we all want the game to be the best it can possibly be? We may not agree on how to deliver that but we have every right to share out thoughts.

    Each side brings up RvR, and that's probably because it's the biggest single point of contention. Not only does it dictate the way PvP will be done but it also has a knock on effect on the PvE experience of the game, and probably due to balancing issues it also forces a class system on a game franchise that never had fixed classes. I do try to avoid it as a single point when I can.

     

    Now, you'll have to forgive me for being completely dense but I really don't get the point of your post. Are you demonstrating the many different views held or are you simply writting all these off because you disagree with them? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, it's just there's no punchline.

    The part in red would also have been my preference and I've said it many times. PVP everywhere with real consequences for behaving like an asshat is always my preference.

    The point? That you keep continuously mentioning RvR as something only one of the groups brings up when in fact all do.

    From what I've noticed, you actually bring it up more often than most. You get the point now?

    Yes! Thank you. Ok I get it now.

    In my own defense I will say that the reason it keeps coming up in my posts is usually because it's in reply to something thats been ongoing. That and the fact that everyone and his dog keeps bringing it up, and having such a strong opinion on the subject I just can't let it alone when I see these posts.

    It's nice to see we're actually more like minded than it would have first appeared. Yes, a more FFA system would just be more in keeping with the franchise.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Think of certs working like rr in daoc. It's not the sane thing, but its a simmilar rate of progression / power gap.

    E.g. it isn't like wow, but it isn't like gw2 with no progression either.
  • nate1980nate1980 Evans, GAPosts: 1,829Member

    All I've gotta say is when a developer claims to target a specific audience, they better pay attention to what the majority of that audience wants from said game. In this case, a TES game needs to be a TES game. Not a TES-esque game. 

    I just read the Game Informer review on ESO and that guy is raving about how fun the game is and feels like TES, yet on the other hand admits that the game is far more linear than other TES games. You go from one quest hub to the next. I think this is probably the main storyline, but he says each area has some good side quests, area quests, and plenty of nuggets for explorers. The point being, when you change things that don't need changing in an IP series, fans get upset. They changed the way content is delivered, they've gated content and zones by level, they've melded TES/GW2 combat into one (IMO) craptacular model.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,447Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Deivos
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    What a shock, a game with no level system got its balance worked out quicker. All they have is battle rank and that counts for very little. Point I made is, given time it willl balance out. Once the MMO hoppers leave and people settle into their main chars and get top level. The guilds get to know eachother and then communities start to from. Thats when the real game starts.

    I just don't agree with the notion that this will happen.

     

    You claim to have played DAoC. then you should remember the faction bias of many servers. Sure some might have been balanced, but it was far from abnormal for midgard , albion, or the hibbies to have a dominant hold on a server.

     

    There was no 'balancing out' on those servers. People picked the strong side and settled down.

     

    WoW isn't a three way conflict and it's world PvP is a joke, it's cross server PvP mechanics have also solved some of the issues here too. However, if you think back on that game too, because it was only two faction, it was easy to tell how faction bias affected that games servers too. Many of them went very clearly to the alliance or horde simply because of players stacking faction.

     

    The point you made is the one I'm saying is off. It trusts that a majority people aren't going to take the path of least resistance in order to attain the things they desire.

    I do, played Ab and midguard was always over populated. The EXp and money boots helped but on my server we were always lots to midguard and zerged to death 3 and sometimes 4 too 1. Took us little less then a year to learn tatics to beat zergs. We started to win as often as they did and in time the war balanced out for the most part. Sometimes outnumbered and sometimes 1 to 1.

    WoW was the same thing, Hord was the winners almost always but in time PvP guilds moved to Ally to have more fun. As a real PvPer who likes auto win? I want a fight! Same with Warhammer, in the end it balanced out from what I read but they are down to 2 servers from what I hear lol


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • DeivosDeivos Mountain View, CAPosts: 1,757Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    You level in ps2

    If not what are all those upgrades you buy with certs.

    I could be worng, never play it. Just read up on it and see lots of info on no levels or level cap. Just battle rank that means very little.

    Your baseline functionally stays the same, but through certs you can unlock new items for your character and components to improve your gear/class.

     

    A standout example is the cloaking device for the quad in the game. After I got that I've had fun infiltrating things much more often because people just can't place me easily enough when I'm a transparent blur.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners."
    - Thomas B. Macaulay

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,447Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nate1980

    All I've gotta say is when a developer claims to target a specific audience, they better pay attention to what the majority of that audience wants from said game. In this case, a TES game needs to be a TES game. Not a TES-esque game. 

    I just read the Game Informer review on ESO and that guy is raving about how fun the game is and feels like TES, yet on the other hand admits that the game is far more linear than other TES games. You go from one quest hub to the next. I think this is probably the main storyline, but he says each area has some good side quests, area quests, and plenty of nuggets for explorers. The point being, when you change things that don't need changing in an IP series, fans get upset. They changed the way content is delivered, they've gated content and zones by level, they've melded TES/GW2 combat into one (IMO) craptacular model.

    Low level is never a good judge of how a game plays. Also the devs have said you can wander off the quest hubs. There is lots of things to encounter in the open world and to explore. Most MMOs have quest hubs so they added them but thats not the end of things with ESO.


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,447Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Deivos
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    You level in ps2

    If not what are all those upgrades you buy with certs.

    I could be worng, never play it. Just read up on it and see lots of info on no levels or level cap. Just battle rank that means very little.

    Your baseline functionally stays the same, but through certs you can unlock new items for your character and components to improve your gear/class.

     

    A standout example is the cloaking device for the quad in the game. After I got that I've had fun infiltrating things much more often because people just can't place me easily enough when I'm a transparent blur.

    So a gear progression. Cool. Always wondered if a MMO like WoW, ESO, Rift could pull that off. Here is your char, go play the end game. BTW thats all the game has.


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Iselin

    There's no sense of arguing about the influence of broadband saturation on the online game market--especially online games that have real-time components. There is a direct relationship. This is a fact not an opinion.

    There's no sense of using 2001 numbers to discuss 2013. There wasn't a single MMO in the top 10 PC games sold in 2001--it was a niche market. Expecting 20K customers is not a mark of dedication, just the economic reality at the time.

    No one here is saying that RvR has the most MMORPG appeal... that would be the PvE-based WOW that has the most appeal obviously. If mass appeal was the only criteria, this would be another WOW-formula clone. As a matter of fact, the fact they decided to go with a less popular system, shows more, not less integrity and dedication.

    Except they didnt go for a less popular formula. Everything except the PvP areas is your standard, WoW like, ThemePark quest-hub type of gameplay.

    So what they "cleverly" did is to combine DAoC RvR with WoW PvP, using Elder Scrolls skin.

    Will it work? Dunno. But I do know that it will not be very much like Skyrim or other Elder Scrolls games which I believe is what many are griping about.

    Skyrim had minimal levels but if you chose to follow the various story lines--which most people did--it was pretty WOW-like complete with quests that sent you to appropriate places. It even had areas that were locked to you until you had learned the proper shout required to get through the obstacle. Same is true of all of the TES games going back to Arena.

    The key word is is choice various storylines, not just one. And it is completely your opinion that most people followed story lines in a linear fashion. I didnt and many of my friends, who loved Skyrim, didnt either. That was actually the reason why we liked it so much as you were not forced to follow some arbitrary, linear storyline.

    Even if you look in Wikipedia for Skyrim:

     The open world gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series returns in Skyrim; the player can explore the land at will and ignore or postpone the main quest indefinitely.

    The nonlinear gameplay traditional in The Elder Scrolls series is incorporated in Skyrim.

    So the fact that you played the game like WoW is your choice but it is a choice. In WoW and other ThemeParks there is no such choice because the gameplay is linear and quest hub like. And you can play Skyrim that way if you like but in no way is that the only viable way.

    Will TESO be like that? Who knows (except the devs) but judging from what I have seen so far, the answer would be probably not.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by nate1980

    All I've gotta say is when a developer claims to target a specific audience, they better pay attention to what the majority of that audience wants from said game. In this case, a TES game needs to be a TES game. Not a TES-esque game. 

    I just read the Game Informer review on ESO and that guy is raving about how fun the game is and feels like TES, yet on the other hand admits that the game is far more linear than other TES games. You go from one quest hub to the next. I think this is probably the main storyline, but he says each area has some good side quests, area quests, and plenty of nuggets for explorers. The point being, when you change things that don't need changing in an IP series, fans get upset. They changed the way content is delivered, they've gated content and zones by level, they've melded TES/GW2 combat into one (IMO) craptacular model.

    Low level is never a good judge of how a game plays. Also the devs have said you can wander off the quest hubs. There is lots of things to encounter in the open world and to explore. Most MMOs have quest hubs so they added them but thats not the end of things with ESO.

    yes im hoping its just the starter zone, and they've made that more wow like to ease "acustomed mmo players" in.

    hopefully it will open up and be more exploration and less quest driven later, like tes (and daoc).

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Iselin

    There's no sense of arguing about the influence of broadband saturation on the online game market--especially online games that have real-time components. There is a direct relationship. This is a fact not an opinion.

    There's no sense of using 2001 numbers to discuss 2013. There wasn't a single MMO in the top 10 PC games sold in 2001--it was a niche market. Expecting 20K customers is not a mark of dedication, just the economic reality at the time.

    No one here is saying that RvR has the most MMORPG appeal... that would be the PvE-based WOW that has the most appeal obviously. If mass appeal was the only criteria, this would be another WOW-formula clone. As a matter of fact, the fact they decided to go with a less popular system, shows more, not less integrity and dedication.

    Except they didnt go for a less popular formula. Everything except the PvP areas is your standard, WoW like, ThemePark quest-hub type of gameplay.

    So what they "cleverly" did is to combine DAoC RvR with WoW PvP, using Elder Scrolls skin.

    Will it work? Dunno. But I do know that it will not be very much like Skyrim or other Elder Scrolls games which I believe is what many are griping about.

    Skyrim had minimal levels but if you chose to follow the various story lines--which most people did--it was pretty WOW-like complete with quests that sent you to appropriate places. It even had areas that were locked to you until you had learned the proper shout required to get through the obstacle. Same is true of all of the TES games going back to Arena.

    The key word is is choice various storylines, not just one. And it is completely your opinion that most people followed story lines in a linear fashion. I didnt and many of my friends, who loved Skyrim, didnt either. That was actually the reason why we liked it so much as you were not forced to follow some arbitrary, linear storyline.

    Even if you look in Wikipedia for Skyrim:

     The open world gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series returns in Skyrim; the player can explore the land at will and ignore or postpone the main quest indefinitely.

    The nonlinear gameplay traditional in The Elder Scrolls series is incorporated in Skyrim.

    So the fact that you played the game like WoW is your choice but it is a choice. In WoW and other ThemeParks there is no such choice because the gameplay is linear and quest hub like. And you can play Skyrim that way if you like but in no way is that the only viable way.

    for the first couple of months play, i never touched a quest, I just worked my way up river taking in anything that popped up on my compass.

    But then i started with morrowind, not oblivion or skyrim, so to me thats how you play a tes game.

  • DeivosDeivos Mountain View, CAPosts: 1,757Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    I do, played Ab and midguard was always over populated. The EXp and money boots helped but on my server we were always lots to midguard and zerged to death 3 and sometimes 4 too 1. Took us little less then a year to learn tatics to beat zergs. We started to win as often as they did and in time the war balanced out for the most part. Sometimes outnumbered and sometimes 1 to 1.

    WoW was the same thing, Hord was the winners almost always but in time PvP guilds moved to Ally to have more fun. As a real PvPer who likes auto win? I want a fight! Same with Warhammer, in the end it balanced out from what I read but they are down to 2 servers from what I hear lol

    I'm forced to ask 'when'.

     

    In the case of Warhammer it has much to do with the fact their population is just small to begin with. Faction bias is hard in that case.

     

    Same can be said for DAoC. When the servers start dwindling and having to get merged is generally when you see an inprovement in faction balance, becise that's the point where there's no longer enough players to be moving around and forming bias.

     

    In WoW it's as I noted got multiple reasons, and it's PvP woes were not cured by players themselves swapping factions as you just claimed. Blizzard enacted a cross server PvP system specifically to address this imbalance issue. It was a strong enough problem that people had to wait around in queues because there simply weren't enough of the opposing faction's players to match the other side.

     

    Going back to DAoC. It's again the notion that maybe your server blanced out. However, not everyone is what you seem to call a 'real PvPer'. The fact you saw zergs (and could beat them with inferior numbers) is rather evidence of that on it's own.

    What this ultimately means is what I already said. There is a fair number of people you can trust to play PvP because they want something out of it. Be it gear or a score number. The easiest way to get either of those is not through competition, but to stack the odds in your favor, and that's just what you can expect mobs of people to do (mob mentality, it applies to game worlds too).

    In the time I played DAoC I can honestly say that the most balanced server I ever saw was an emulated server, not an official one.

     

    EDIT: Note, I'm not arguing against DAoC style PvP in TES. I generally think it's a compatible and good idea.

    I mostly just take umbrage to how some things are approached in the implementation.

    Glossing over the issues the system has faced is not a good thing to do either.

    "The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners."
    - Thomas B. Macaulay

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Iselin

    There's no sense of arguing about the influence of broadband saturation on the online game market--especially online games that have real-time components. There is a direct relationship. This is a fact not an opinion.

    There's no sense of using 2001 numbers to discuss 2013. There wasn't a single MMO in the top 10 PC games sold in 2001--it was a niche market. Expecting 20K customers is not a mark of dedication, just the economic reality at the time.

    No one here is saying that RvR has the most MMORPG appeal... that would be the PvE-based WOW that has the most appeal obviously. If mass appeal was the only criteria, this would be another WOW-formula clone. As a matter of fact, the fact they decided to go with a less popular system, shows more, not less integrity and dedication.

    Except they didnt go for a less popular formula. Everything except the PvP areas is your standard, WoW like, ThemePark quest-hub type of gameplay.

    So what they "cleverly" did is to combine DAoC RvR with WoW PvP, using Elder Scrolls skin.

    Will it work? Dunno. But I do know that it will not be very much like Skyrim or other Elder Scrolls games which I believe is what many are griping about.

    Skyrim had minimal levels but if you chose to follow the various story lines--which most people did--it was pretty WOW-like complete with quests that sent you to appropriate places. It even had areas that were locked to you until you had learned the proper shout required to get through the obstacle. Same is true of all of the TES games going back to Arena.

    The key word is is choice various storylines, not just one. And it is completely your opinion that most people followed story lines in a linear fashion. I didnt and many of my friends, who loved Skyrim, didnt either. That was actually the reason why we liked it so much as you were not forced to follow some arbitrary, linear storyline.

    Even if you look in Wikipedia for Skyrim:

     The open world gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series returns in Skyrim; the player can explore the land at will and ignore or postpone the main quest indefinitely.

    The nonlinear gameplay traditional in The Elder Scrolls series is incorporated in Skyrim.

    So the fact that you played the game like WoW is your choice but it is a choice. In WoW and other ThemeParks there is no such choice because the gameplay is linear and quest hub like. And you can play Skyrim that way if you like but in no way is that the only viable way.

    for the first couple of months play, i never touched a quest, I just worked my up river taking in anything that popped up on my compass.

    Cool, I did as well and so you know what I am talking about. There is no way that would be viable in a game like WoW or any ThemePark out there, short of maybe GW 2. But that is pushing it.

  • HersaintHersaint Oak, WIPosts: 366Member

    Loved DAoC trierealm
    Worried about ESonline mixture of PvE PvP turning into griefing.

    image
  • immodiumimmodium ManchesterPosts: 1,577Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Yamota

    Cool, I did as well and so you know what I am talking about. There is no way that would be viable in a game like WoW or any ThemePark out there, short of maybe GW 2. But that is pushing it.

    Actually, seeing as TES gamers ARE themepark games, you can.

    image
This discussion has been closed.