As someone who played DAoC and UO/SB I'm not convinced CU or Crowfall offer the PvP experience I'm interested in. Not to diminish those games, because they were all more enjoyable than anything else currently out there, I just don't see what they've proposed offering a fun long term mmorpg experience. Particularly in the case of Crowfall, which is going for a seasonal approach.
My favorite PvP experience to date by far was EQ on Rallos Zek. Open world contested PvE content gave us both more to do and more to fight over than DAoC or SB ever did.
I'll be playing both games, but I believe Pantheon's PvP servers will provide players with a better fantasy world, more to achieve and thus, a more enduring mmo.
As long as PVP takes second place over behind PVE then cool. If the PVE games starts getting effected because of PVP then many will not be happy. I backed a PVE mmo not a PVP mmo
I remember the PVP servers in EQ which were okay but when they tried to do the same, in Vanguard it was a mess and full of cheaters to the, point of them having to shut the PVP servers down.
Agree with you wholeheartedly.
Aside from open world contested content (dungeons/raids), part of what made EQ pvp different was that they kept the high interdependence between classes needed for pve intact in pvp. There were very few changes for PvP. That meant some classes were not killing anyone, but the same were highly valued for group pvp.
Vanguard PvP could have been fun, just like everything else about it could have been fun... if it worked properly and wasn't full of exploits and other issues.
I won't back anything with PvP. I am playing Black Desert but I don't intend to PvP. If these games will allow me to play without PvP then I might consider it.
I find it quite interesting that so many posters here are ready to fund the game made by someone who failed the Warhammer franchise big time...
Keeping an eye on Camelot is definitely legit, I do it too, who knows?
But the guy completely messed up a golden cash cow. I'm reasonably dubious about him able to succeed with something without a big name to back him up.
I may end buying Camelot if it's really that good, but I definitely won't fund it.
Dark Age was good, Warhammer... I actually kinda liked it, but let's say it was bad. He is one for one right now, as far as his bigger games are concerned. Warhammer was a step back from Dark Age's siege mechanics in a lot of cases, which really doesn't make sense. Something went wrong with WAR, maybe it was the leadership, maybe it was EA etc. But I wouldn't put Mark Jacobs as a negative.
Comments
Aside from open world contested content (dungeons/raids), part of what made EQ pvp different was that they kept the high interdependence between classes needed for pve intact in pvp. There were very few changes for PvP. That meant some classes were not killing anyone, but the same were highly valued for group pvp.
Vanguard PvP could have been fun, just like everything else about it could have been fun... if it worked properly and wasn't full of exploits and other issues.
You say it's Mark Jacob's fault, he says it's EA's fault. It's tough to believe you over him
I decided to back the game because I could relate to the foundation principles he laid out prior to the Kickstarter.
My feeling has remained that he's again making a game that he wants, as opposed to the one the suits want him to make.