God if large MMOs could pull-off what these guys have done, we would see some pretty amazing virtual worlds. I do have a few issues with some of the concepts about how PVPs handled but it's still shaping up to be something pretty amazing.
Still a handful of guys making a sandbox with limited funds with no source code and using hero engine is inspiring to nub developers like me.
because large company's know that stuff like don't sell. Mark my words this game will have a population of a few thousand at most.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
This is another open world ffa pvp game, nothing for pveers to do accept sit inside city and craft.
This is another game to please those less then 10% of gamers.
I bet that this game is going to stop taking care of bugs after few month due to low income.
But anyway, eventualy game developers would learn the hard way from their loss.
You apparently know a lot less about this game than your trying to lead on. It is not a FFA PvP game. It features a complex generated mission and engagement (similar to events in GW2) system, as well as a boss system that generates special abilities when mobs spawn and which are spawned dynamically through a Den system.
So...there isn't any forced PvP? My fear is the game will have world PvP that prevents anti-PvPers from enjoying the game. I am one of those players that has zero interest in PvP, and does not want to deal with it when I am out in the game world harvesting, exploring, etc...
This is another open world ffa pvp game, nothing for pveers to do accept sit inside city and craft.
This is another game to please those less then 10% of gamers.
I bet that this game is going to stop taking care of bugs after few month due to low income.
But anyway, eventualy game developers would learn the hard way from their loss.
Exactly right, and 99% of MMO developers think they got it right and then end up failing... because of fundamental misses in design, despite that maybe they've got the best crafting system, the best profession system... doesn't matter when players don't want to play it and so the best of breed fundamentals die with the game over some bad foundations.
Case in point, this one is based on an open-world PvP mandate, that the devs still haven't sorted out by their own admission, and features a "player city" fundamental design strategy that makes player cities and all related roles, activities, structures, creativity, and ventures... temporary and destroyable... which makes vast numbers of players say, "then why bother if all this work, all this creativity, all the activities we organized and structured... is all potentially gone tonight when I log in, or next week, or next month... why bother?"
It may have the very best MMO design features for elements such as professions, crafting, etc., and in fact looks like it leverages my favorite SWG philosophies, but then instead of delivering a sandbox game, they're marching forward deliverying an open world PvP type of sandbox game. Big difference...
...that may appeal to some, who don't care that all their work, communities' work, and guild work has just been demolished and what you all scheduled on your calendars, and progressive work that you thought your community was going to be working on tonight, next Saturday and whenever has all been demolished to the roots of your community, and you're now looking at devestation and wondering how you're going to keep your community together with such devestation, and how you're going to motivate your community to do it all over again, and then face that whatever you can do to rebuild, can then be destroyed too. Seems like a game of C&C rather than building progressive MMO roles and structure...
I am really looking forward to the game, including the way they are shaping up with open world pvp and city sieges. If people don't want to risk losing their work and losing their city, they have other options for housing. There are non-pvp areas as well.
Nobody knows how easy or common a successful city takeover will be, but I'm guessing it will be rare unless that guild is not able to defend it themselves or build an alliance.
I am not a hardcore pvper, but I enjoy it. I believe there is a large population of people like myself who think modern pvp is a joke with the instanced "fair" warzones and flagging systems that lead to a watered down pvp experience where people only pvp when they outnumber the enemy....both of which have no risk Vs reward elements or objectives.
You think flagging systems and warzones (matched play) lead to watered down pvp where people only pvp when they outnumber the enemy? You've got that completely backwards. Warzones mitigate outnumbered situations by presenting matched play. Warzones and matches introduce victory conditions, strategies, teamwork... Open world PvP, in contrast is 99% guaranteed to present one case after another of mis-matched numbers of opponents (of balanced classes otherwise) where superior numbers win in ganking exercises that players hate with a passion as the banal, thoughtless gameplay that it is, where superior numbers heal and overwhelm the inferior numbered players. That's not multiplayer combat, nor challenging, nor strategic, it's just childs play of open world PvP, aka Lego PvP. That driven by player's QQ'ing about "this class is OP", "alpha classes are bad", "no Jedi", and all the other rhetoric about how classes have to be perfectly balanced, making devs chase their tails to make class perfectly balanced all the time (constant drain on resources) or players quit, and as a result of having to always have balanced classes, so no surprises, no danger, no doubt, no risk... it's always:
5 v 3 = 3 dead
10 v 3 = 3 dead
3 v 1 = 1 dead
It's banal nonsense at best.
My hope is, that this game is not 10-v-3 = 3 dead PvP-gank exercise. That since there are no player levels, and wide variety of professions (70+?), such that when 3 players approach a solo player, they should have some doubt, some danger, that this 1 guy can kill any or all of them, and maybe even walk away as the survivor. That's the way open world should be, pick your battles, pick your fights, and be smart. Not just mindless ganking exercises where superior numbers = Win. This may be that game.
Originally posted by xNIAx1 yea you're all REALLY REALLY looking forward to this game! just like you did the last game the failed, and the one before that one and the one before that! Ever think it was YOU that was the problem? these games suck and so do you
Lol, I said GW2 would suck and it does, I said PS2 would suck and it did, I said TSW would suck it did. I think this game will be good enough to play longterm and much better than the titles I previously mentioned.
So wait -you predicted the 3 games you mentioned would suck for you and they sucked for you ,so you are pretty good at foretelling what sucks for you awesome.=p
They may have other options for individual players' housing (in instanced apartments), but not for guild's Player Cities and all that should be rich related activities, ventures, creativity, roles, etc. that come from rich progressive player city engagement. You seem to lack awareness of what I'm talking about, or just dismiss it to try and make another point, so its a huge miss on your part.
If sacking of cities are rare, then what's the point? Right? Really, think about it. You really think they're rare? What's the point if its so rare that supposedly most people wont suffer it, or thereby care the rare devestation of some guild's creativity, work, and community? That's what you're saying, and honestly, it falls completely flat and lacks any credibility. "It's a big feature of our game, but it rarely happens" LOL, come on.
Otherwise, if we're just churning our guild's and guildmember's creativity and progress over and over again into dust, with devestating community consequences and engagement consequences, like various rounds of a C&C game, "send in the Orcas," "we win," "restart the next round." Really? That's not MMO or progression, and why would we bother or suffer the devestation of our progress and start over, to suffer the next devestation of our progress of our community? Wow, the lack of critical thinking is... well, given the track record of MMO's... expected. Makes the failure rate of restaurants look stellar by comparison. Needless failures.
That makes zero sense, and its just things like this that leads yet another MMO's developers off the edge into failure, failure to meet their expectations and success points, when they may otherwise have had the best systems like crafting or professions... but they make some bonehead foundational error on an MMO fundamental that costs them everything.
You think flagging systems and warzones (matched play) lead to watered down pvp where people only pvp when they outnumber the enemy? You've got that completely backwards. Warzones mitigate outnumbered situations by presenting matched play. Warzones and matches introduce victory conditions, strategies, teamwork... Open world PvP, in contrast is 99% guaranteed to present one case after another of mis-matched numbers of opponents (of balanced classes otherwise) where superior numbers win in ganking exercises that players hate with a passion as the banal, thoughtless gameplay that it is, where superior numbers heal and overwhelm the inferior numbered players. That's not multiplayer combat, nor challenging, nor strategic, it's just childs play of open world PvP, aka Lego PvP. That driven by player's QQ'ing about "this class is OP", "alpha classes are bad", "no Jedi", and all the other rhetoric about how classes have to be perfectly balanced, making devs chase their tails to make class perfectly balanced all the time (constant drain on resources) or players quit, and as a result of having to always have balanced classes, so no surprises, no danger, no doubt, no risk... it's always:
5 v 3 = 3 dead
10 v 3 = 3 dead
3 v 1 = 1 dead
It's banal nonsense at best.
So here's a game that may be (don't really know) the best at many things, but alas, comes in with fundamental and fatal flaws in "churning devestation of player cities and its consquences to guild communities and engagement of MMO fundamentals" and "open world PvP" as pilars of design.
Sorry, I know where this game is going, and it's name is not "thriving" nor "success."
1. There will be non-instanced housing (not cities) that cannot be taken by means of pvp. The developers have already mentioned that city take-overs will not be happening left and right. It will not be a common occurrence. You ask "what's the point" regarding city sieges if there won't be successful take-overs every week? Risk and making it valuable.
2. PvP in SWG was "ok" pre-cu. Base busting raids were some fun, but pointless. Due to this, the biggest guilds that I saw left the game. City sieges adds a dimension of risk Vs reward and a way to allow players a chance to get a city if they don't have one. Not every guild and player can have their own city, there just isn't any way with a limited game world.
3. Flagging and instanced warzone pvp is not fun for many old school pvpers. There is an aspect of factional pride and bonding that happens with open world pvp. It happened in SWG to a degree, and could be even more exciting in a non-flagging system.
You obviously have an aversion to open world PvP. That's ok, but it's simple minded to say the world "failure" over and over like you did just because a lot of people don't like it. A lot of people DO like it as well. The success of this game isn't going to be determined by 500K+ players, it will be determined by whatever goal the developers have in mind.
My concerns are this, and an update follows after some late-breaking clarificatoin by devs:
1. already addressed that regarding apartments =/ player cities and depth of player cities. You're skating the issue.
2. agree city sieges adds an interesting dimension, which also by the way is not true PvP, but includes strong - if not driving - PvE elements of defense turrets and barracks (NPC troops). However, linking these PvE/PvP "bases" to traditional tenets of MMO "player cities" is a design paradigm that is fatal and not necessary. This dynamic could easily be accomplished by bases, that have the same dynamics, same features, same risks, same rewards... while maintaining player cities and all the associated guild glue and player activities, depth of roles and gameplay, behind the lines.
3. that's hardly compelling reasons to sink an MMO.
Your attributing an aversion to open world PvP to me is weak and unfounded, and skates over the experiences, consequences, and outcomes that have been stated clearly. I don't have an aversion to a word, but many underlying issues and outcomes. Don't simplify it to the point that critical thinking doesn't apply and we deal with it on rhetorical terms that lead to bad conclusions and outcomes. An MMO can fail on those terms, and as an industry, have a terrible track record.
Let's step aside for a minute also, to the reason I returned to the boards today. I wanted to add that the fact that they hook player cities and all the guild's infrastructure and community glue to contested land and subject it to destruction time and again, to ultimately destroy the engagement and glue of players to guilds, and guilds to MMO...
... what drives this other than artifice? Why am I a nation belonging to one faction? Why would I ally or oppose another nation? Is it religeous? Is it political? Is it random chance? For what reason do I enter the game, build a nation, and choose to ally with 5 other nations in counterpoint to 10 other nations who do the same against me?
What determines - rationally or logically (or chance) - that 10 nations are going to ally against me and set out to ruin my guild's infrastructure and community?
"hey ally with us, we're gaining steam and going to be unbeatable, then we can go destroy all the others"
"why do I ally with you"
"because, we're already big, and that way we can't be beat, and we can raid everyone else"
"but I don't like you or what you stand for. Frankly you act and sound like a jerk that wants to be a griefer to others, and your guild name alone "Greifers" says it all, doesn't it?"
"doesn't matter, OK, if you want to be on the wrong side of the numbers, have it your way, we'll just get that other nation that we were going to conquer and you can be conquered instead"
"OK, then, I guess I'll join you"
Then, you're the ones who the 10 nations didn't happen to talk to first, and so you're odd man out, and for no other reason than where you were on the contact list, you're in the cross hairs of the others and conquered, and your guild is devestated, and your community is destroyed, and players quit the game, and players leave the guild. We all know how hard it is already to keep players engaged in a guild, and keep a guild alive, right?
And for what? For chance and random alignment? And for no good reason being on the side with numbers, or being on the side that gets the target on your back? It's basically what I describe for the banality of open world PvP as often implemented, the 10-v-3 = 3 dead, but now taken to a guild level, where 10-v-3 = 3 dead is not referring to players, but to guilds.
A sandbox game that would thrive, would be enjoyable features and systems (crafting, profession, pvp, raids, merchants, activities and ventures, ...) where players can thrive and enjoy, build, be creative, progression...
In this case, what might work instead is that player cities (could just be big buildings with interior guildhall features, market, and instanced apartments to serve as a guild core) are sustained as "guild-centric infrastructure" preserved behind the lines, and put guild bases (outside of player cities) in contested areas that don't put the guild's core infrastructure under the axe, but put bases and related features and infrastructure at risk with all the same features (turrets, barracks, NPC troops), and same rewards for doing so (access to whatever, forward base of operations, faction rewards, whatever the devs had intended as carrots) and with appropriate rewards and motivation to do it again when faced with destruction. That way, PvP has motivation, engagement, infrastruture, activities, etc., without destroying guilds and the myriad roles and activities that traditionally accompany player cities.
Update: Devs have described a portable structure system that preserves the creativity of your structures design and contents, such that if lost to conquest, can be replaced in another location without missing a beat, so your work is not lost, just your location. I'm satisfied with that for the time being. Let's see what they got, and the other system features seem robust, rich, and engaging. The concerns above are still question marks, but appreciate the big picture so far and will give it a try. After two decades of waiting for a good MMO built on solid foundations, it's time we got one. This has promise.
Many dev teams are very engaged and responsive ... up until game play doesn't deliver and things quickly sour ... which so happens to be the track record for MMO's as an industry due to hubris and a lack of subscribing to design best practices.
Comments
Elder Scrolls Online would get my vote.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
because large company's know that stuff like don't sell. Mark my words this game will have a population of a few thousand at most.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
So...there isn't any forced PvP? My fear is the game will have world PvP that prevents anti-PvPers from enjoying the game. I am one of those players that has zero interest in PvP, and does not want to deal with it when I am out in the game world harvesting, exploring, etc...
I am really looking forward to the game, including the way they are shaping up with open world pvp and city sieges. If people don't want to risk losing their work and losing their city, they have other options for housing. There are non-pvp areas as well.
Nobody knows how easy or common a successful city takeover will be, but I'm guessing it will be rare unless that guild is not able to defend it themselves or build an alliance.
I am not a hardcore pvper, but I enjoy it. I believe there is a large population of people like myself who think modern pvp is a joke with the instanced "fair" warzones and flagging systems that lead to a watered down pvp experience where people only pvp when they outnumber the enemy....both of which have no risk Vs reward elements or objectives.
Waiting on: The Repopulation
You think flagging systems and warzones (matched play) lead to watered down pvp where people only pvp when they outnumber the enemy? You've got that completely backwards. Warzones mitigate outnumbered situations by presenting matched play. Warzones and matches introduce victory conditions, strategies, teamwork... Open world PvP, in contrast is 99% guaranteed to present one case after another of mis-matched numbers of opponents (of balanced classes otherwise) where superior numbers win in ganking exercises that players hate with a passion as the banal, thoughtless gameplay that it is, where superior numbers heal and overwhelm the inferior numbered players. That's not multiplayer combat, nor challenging, nor strategic, it's just childs play of open world PvP, aka Lego PvP. That driven by player's QQ'ing about "this class is OP", "alpha classes are bad", "no Jedi", and all the other rhetoric about how classes have to be perfectly balanced, making devs chase their tails to make class perfectly balanced all the time (constant drain on resources) or players quit, and as a result of having to always have balanced classes, so no surprises, no danger, no doubt, no risk... it's always:
5 v 3 = 3 dead
10 v 3 = 3 dead
3 v 1 = 1 dead
It's banal nonsense at best.
My hope is, that this game is not 10-v-3 = 3 dead PvP-gank exercise. That since there are no player levels, and wide variety of professions (70+?), such that when 3 players approach a solo player, they should have some doubt, some danger, that this 1 guy can kill any or all of them, and maybe even walk away as the survivor. That's the way open world should be, pick your battles, pick your fights, and be smart. Not just mindless ganking exercises where superior numbers = Win. This may be that game.
So wait -you predicted the 3 games you mentioned would suck for you and they sucked for you ,so you are pretty good at foretelling what sucks for you awesome.=p
1. There will be non-instanced housing (not cities) that cannot be taken by means of pvp. The developers have already mentioned that city take-overs will not be happening left and right. It will not be a common occurrence. You ask "what's the point" regarding city sieges if there won't be successful take-overs every week? Risk and making it valuable.
2. PvP in SWG was "ok" pre-cu. Base busting raids were some fun, but pointless. Due to this, the biggest guilds that I saw left the game. City sieges adds a dimension of risk Vs reward and a way to allow players a chance to get a city if they don't have one. Not every guild and player can have their own city, there just isn't any way with a limited game world.
3. Flagging and instanced warzone pvp is not fun for many old school pvpers. There is an aspect of factional pride and bonding that happens with open world pvp. It happened in SWG to a degree, and could be even more exciting in a non-flagging system.
You obviously have an aversion to open world PvP. That's ok, but it's simple minded to say the world "failure" over and over like you did just because a lot of people don't like it. A lot of people DO like it as well. The success of this game isn't going to be determined by 500K+ players, it will be determined by whatever goal the developers have in mind.
Waiting on: The Repopulation
My concerns are this, and an update follows after some late-breaking clarificatoin by devs:
1. already addressed that regarding apartments =/ player cities and depth of player cities. You're skating the issue.
2. agree city sieges adds an interesting dimension, which also by the way is not true PvP, but includes strong - if not driving - PvE elements of defense turrets and barracks (NPC troops). However, linking these PvE/PvP "bases" to traditional tenets of MMO "player cities" is a design paradigm that is fatal and not necessary. This dynamic could easily be accomplished by bases, that have the same dynamics, same features, same risks, same rewards... while maintaining player cities and all the associated guild glue and player activities, depth of roles and gameplay, behind the lines.
3. that's hardly compelling reasons to sink an MMO.
Your attributing an aversion to open world PvP to me is weak and unfounded, and skates over the experiences, consequences, and outcomes that have been stated clearly. I don't have an aversion to a word, but many underlying issues and outcomes. Don't simplify it to the point that critical thinking doesn't apply and we deal with it on rhetorical terms that lead to bad conclusions and outcomes. An MMO can fail on those terms, and as an industry, have a terrible track record.
Let's step aside for a minute also, to the reason I returned to the boards today. I wanted to add that the fact that they hook player cities and all the guild's infrastructure and community glue to contested land and subject it to destruction time and again, to ultimately destroy the engagement and glue of players to guilds, and guilds to MMO...
... what drives this other than artifice? Why am I a nation belonging to one faction? Why would I ally or oppose another nation? Is it religeous? Is it political? Is it random chance? For what reason do I enter the game, build a nation, and choose to ally with 5 other nations in counterpoint to 10 other nations who do the same against me?
What determines - rationally or logically (or chance) - that 10 nations are going to ally against me and set out to ruin my guild's infrastructure and community?
"hey ally with us, we're gaining steam and going to be unbeatable, then we can go destroy all the others"
"why do I ally with you"
"because, we're already big, and that way we can't be beat, and we can raid everyone else"
"but I don't like you or what you stand for. Frankly you act and sound like a jerk that wants to be a griefer to others, and your guild name alone "Greifers" says it all, doesn't it?"
"doesn't matter, OK, if you want to be on the wrong side of the numbers, have it your way, we'll just get that other nation that we were going to conquer and you can be conquered instead"
"OK, then, I guess I'll join you"
Then, you're the ones who the 10 nations didn't happen to talk to first, and so you're odd man out, and for no other reason than where you were on the contact list, you're in the cross hairs of the others and conquered, and your guild is devestated, and your community is destroyed, and players quit the game, and players leave the guild. We all know how hard it is already to keep players engaged in a guild, and keep a guild alive, right?
And for what? For chance and random alignment? And for no good reason being on the side with numbers, or being on the side that gets the target on your back? It's basically what I describe for the banality of open world PvP as often implemented, the 10-v-3 = 3 dead, but now taken to a guild level, where 10-v-3 = 3 dead is not referring to players, but to guilds.
A sandbox game that would thrive, would be enjoyable features and systems (crafting, profession, pvp, raids, merchants, activities and ventures, ...) where players can thrive and enjoy, build, be creative, progression...
In this case, what might work instead is that player cities (could just be big buildings with interior guildhall features, market, and instanced apartments to serve as a guild core) are sustained as "guild-centric infrastructure" preserved behind the lines, and put guild bases (outside of player cities) in contested areas that don't put the guild's core infrastructure under the axe, but put bases and related features and infrastructure at risk with all the same features (turrets, barracks, NPC troops), and same rewards for doing so (access to whatever, forward base of operations, faction rewards, whatever the devs had intended as carrots) and with appropriate rewards and motivation to do it again when faced with destruction. That way, PvP has motivation, engagement, infrastruture, activities, etc., without destroying guilds and the myriad roles and activities that traditionally accompany player cities.
Update: Devs have described a portable structure system that preserves the creativity of your structures design and contents, such that if lost to conquest, can be replaced in another location without missing a beat, so your work is not lost, just your location. I'm satisfied with that for the time being. Let's see what they got, and the other system features seem robust, rich, and engaging. The concerns above are still question marks, but appreciate the big picture so far and will give it a try. After two decades of waiting for a good MMO built on solid foundations, it's time we got one. This has promise.