Howdy, Stranger!

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

New World Talks PvP Wars And PvE Invasions In New Dev Diary

2»

Comments

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    wyldmagik said:

    There's 1k people per server and the 'pinnacle' of pvp is 50v50 timed by 1 hour per day.

    They likely went for high poly counts and glitz so their engine can only handle 50 v 50 and even then only in one smallish instanced spot.

    I saw the large battle performance of ESO deteriorate over time - it could handle things much better in 2014 - at the same time they added higher poly costumes and transmogs and made the cash shop's huge database something you could access instantly anywhere, even in PvP.
    KyleranAsheramYashaX
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,838
    Iselin said:
    wyldmagik said:

    There's 1k people per server and the 'pinnacle' of pvp is 50v50 timed by 1 hour per day.

    They likely went for high poly counts and glitz so their engine can only handle 50 v 50 and even then only in one smallish instanced spot.

    I saw the large battle performance of ESO deteriorate over time - it could handle things much better in 2014 - at the same time they added higher poly costumes and transmogs and made the cash shop's huge database something you could access instantly anywhere, even in PvP.
    I promise you there will not be fort battles once per day. Companies will have protects. The whole idea is to not lose your territory. The best way to do that is not engage in battle. Again there will be built in protections against battle.
    [Deleted User]YashaX
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 9,067
    I don't enjoy open world PvP but this BG type scenario looks like fun. I want to be in charge of the horn.
    bcbullyAsheram
    Chamber of Chains
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    cheyane said:
    I don't enjoy open world PvP but this BG type scenario looks like fun. I want to be in charge of the horn.
    You're just a horney person I guess :)
    bcbullyAsheram
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • xpsyncxpsync Member EpicPosts: 1,854
    A hope? - A chance.
    My faith is my shield! - Turalyon 2022

    Your legend ends here and now! - (Battles Won Long Ago)

    Currently Playing; Dragonflight and SWG:L
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    SkitzoXX said:
    cheyane said:
    I don't enjoy open world PvP but this BG type scenario looks like fun. I want to be in charge of the horn.
    They do not and will not happen nearly enough to keep players interested. When they do happen they are scheduled a day in advance and only last for 30 minutes. The company leaders have 100% say in who is selected for these battles. Pvp is not available 24/7, there is no pvp zones or battlegrounds, nobody flags because the benefits don’t justify the risk so you can go hours without finding a fight and the pve is as simple and boring as it gets. It’s obvious they rushed, the systems don’t work well together and the pve content is as basic as it gets. These invasions are fun but guess what... it’s a scripted event that is the Same exact experience every time. Guess how many times you can run this same scripted event before you lose interest? With how boring the rest of the game is it’s definitely not enough to get me logging every 4 days for one event.

    This has, over time become one of the most boring games I’ve ever played. People will buy it because it’s new and from Amazon but it’s terrible atm.
    Just about everyone currently playing and saying anything about it is saying the same thing: Pretty but boring seems to be the overwhelming consensus.
    [Deleted User]
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • McSleazMcSleaz Member RarePosts: 280
    This game would be Great if it didn't have PvP.
    bcbully
  • Pr0tag0ni5tPr0tag0ni5t Member UncommonPosts: 259
    PVP: 1 hourish long skirmish Defending/Attacking a Fort. Rando's can join either side if they wish.

    PVE: Your Fort is attacked by waves of NPC's.....end of PVE content....
    - No raids
    - No 'dungeons'
    - No Thanks.

    Hard Pass.
    bcbully

    image
  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 3,098
    Rhoklaw said:
    First off, to those of you complaining that there won't be any PvP outside of the scheduled 50 vs. 50, why is that? If you're so hardcore PvP then flag up and stay flagged up. If you can't find anyone else flagged up to fight than what does that tell you? If you do find someone else flagged up then you got your PvP. One way or the other, the outcome is destined. Either a lot of people want to PvP and will flag up or no one will flag up because no one gives a shit about OWPvP. Not really hard to comprehend the logic in that.

    There is so much wrong with what you have said here that it is hard to know where to start.
    bcbullyAncient_Exile[Deleted User]
    ....
  • AsheramAsheram Member EpicPosts: 5,071
    edited May 2020
    Amazon?bezos has the money they should make 2 server types, their original idea and the pve one with pvp set battle times.

    They have the $$$ to see which server does better as far as population.

    Plus they should add all pve content to pve servers first, not allow pve characters playable on pvp servers and vice versa and only 1 character slot for pvp servers.

    edit- also remove the giant anime hammers in a new world setting as when I hear new world I think of the american colonists not naruto.
    Ancient_Exile
  • BruceYeeBruceYee Member EpicPosts: 2,556
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    What I find interesting is the amount of people that hate or dislike this game leave more comments than those of us who are looking forward to it. I guess bitching about something once in a thread isn't enough. They need to bitch about same shit 10x in every thread.

    Anyhow, innovation isn't exactly a strong suit of any game development company lately, so it's nice to see a game that at least utilizes some of the mechanics of other games I enjoyed, such as DAoC, Rift and Conan Exiles.

    I have to agree with @Asheram about the "kids" enjoying toxic OWPvP gankfest. Which is totally fine with me and one of the main reasons I avoid those games.
    I think the issue for a lot of people is not that they dropped owpvp, but that it seems they haven't replaced it with anything interesting. Even more concerning is what they are describing as the "pinnacle" of both pvp and pve content seems quite weak. 

    Looking at the pvp for example, I am dubious of how compelling these 50 vs 50 fort raids are going to be. ESO already provides that kind of content almost 24/7 , and seems to do it a lot better judging by NWs promo videos.

    The pve raids look kind of fun to me, but a lot will depend on the implementation. It seems like its going to be very constrictive and limiting in terms of when you can play and who you can play with based on the information released to date, but hopefully it will be a lot more dynamic than it sounds on paper.

    Man I wish it was that simple but for me New World is possibly the biggest MMO missed opportunity that I think the world will ever see if you can even consider it a MMO now... let me explain...

    They start off as a "Colonial America" open world MMO game. There were only two types of human beings that existed in "Colonial America" at that time 1. indigenous 2. explorers/conquistadors and they can't have colonist white dudes killing the locals en masse to complete quests for modern PC reasons so the game was designed as full OW PVP cause I guess there's nothing wrong with white dudes killing each other. Then they change that part of the game that was supposed to be the core content of the game which was...

    1. Do your MMO business(crafting gathering building etc) in a beautiful early America landscape all while trying not to get ganked by others trying to take your stuff. < This was it, the game that was pitched for 4 years. For me that was enough to look forward to the game for 4 years. At 4.5 years they say never mind we're changing it to only PVE but how's that possible when you can't kill the locals so they come up with npcs that somewhat resemble zombies but look like a straight copy paste from Resident Evil and NOT a colonial setting like originally promised.

    Now the game has zombie invasions, an instanced pvp zone and housing that is closer to Wildstar hub public quests than the housing they originally had planned.

    The greatest missed opportunity for MMO's is because this company had a blank check when it came to funding and as time went on the features kept getting simplified to the point now where it's an instanced tower defense battle royale.

    Some of the kickstarter MMO projects like CU are a good example of not having enough funds to complete a proper MMO well I think New World is the exact opposite of that which is having TOO much money and not having a clue what to do with it. The direction changes they've made aren't free... years of development discarded like how they did could've probably tanked other game companies overnight. Those decisions weren't like us deciding if we want Burger King or McDonalds for lunch they had to be discussed, debated then approved all at great length. In the end we the players/fans don't get what was originally proposed but whatever it is now or they decide to change it to tomorrow.
    Ancient_Exile
  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 2020
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    First off, to those of you complaining that there won't be any PvP outside of the scheduled 50 vs. 50, why is that? If you're so hardcore PvP then flag up and stay flagged up. If you can't find anyone else flagged up to fight than what does that tell you? If you do find someone else flagged up then you got your PvP. One way or the other, the outcome is destined. Either a lot of people want to PvP and will flag up or no one will flag up because no one gives a shit about OWPvP. Not really hard to comprehend the logic in that.

    There is so much wrong with what you have said here that it is hard to know where to start.
    I'd certainly love to hear your spin on it, because let's face it. PvP doesn't need everyone forced into it for it to work. The ONLY reason forced PvP is interesting to people like you is because you love being part of a gankfest against lowbies or part of a zergfest taking out much smaller groups. Either of those scenarios is NOT challenging in the least.

    So please, explain to me why forced PvP is so much better, because deep down inside there isn't a single reason you can come up with where it is a requirement to have meaningful PvP engagements. As I just explained, if people WANT PvP, they can flag up for it. I'm surprised you find that so hard to understand.

    Someone else suggested having multiple server types. Which would probably be the best alternative. I certainly have nothing against that alternative.

    Have you ever considered the possibility that there may be a way to Solve the Griefing Problem in OWPVP Sandbox MMORPGs?

    There is actually a thread in The Pub at MMORPG.COM which explores this potentially revolutionary idea.




    YashaXKyleran
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    I don't liek the idea of pvp ,balance ,ctf idea doesn't intrigue me at all.
    However Invasions is the type of content i love to see and take part in.The problem is implementation.Lots of devs have cool ideas on paper but in the end they just see these as gimmicks to sell their product but don't put much effort into designing them.

    Example Rifts in Trions games was a cool idea on paper but after a few rifts i was bored and didn't care anymore.So for me Invasions is the ONLY selling point of this game,is it going to be good enough to keep me engaged long term or will i take part in 2/3 and get bored and never play the game again,is the question.

    The one issue i have and it's part of the pvp fail reason and that is WHAT IF,nobody is online from your guild/clan,you just lose to invasion,you just lose to pvp?You do not have to accept or even engage in a Siege to know the fail of pvp in these games.A very large clan can just hangout in front of your fort waiting for anyone to leave and gank them,,fun yeah...oh hell no.

    So Invasions yes pvp still a huge thumbs down.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member EpicPosts: 4,662
    edited May 2020
    Have you ever considered the possibility that there may be a way to Solve the Griefing Problem in OWPVP Sandbox MMORPGs?

    There is actually a thread in The Pub at MMORPG.COM which explores this potentially revolutionary idea.
    Well there won't ever be a solution that appeases both sides so that thread is useless. 
    [Deleted User]Kyleran

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 2020
    Bloodaxes said:
    Have you ever considered the possibility that there may be a way to Solve the Griefing Problem in OWPVP Sandbox MMORPGs?

    There is actually a thread in The Pub at MMORPG.COM which explores this potentially revolutionary idea.
    Well there won't ever be a solution that appeases both sides so that thread is useless. 

    So certain are you?





    Btw, Soul Eater is not my idea of a decent anime. 


    YashaX
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • AsheramAsheram Member EpicPosts: 5,071
    Ok I didnt know all that ty for the fyi.
  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 3,098
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    First off, to those of you complaining that there won't be any PvP outside of the scheduled 50 vs. 50, why is that? If you're so hardcore PvP then flag up and stay flagged up. If you can't find anyone else flagged up to fight than what does that tell you? If you do find someone else flagged up then you got your PvP. One way or the other, the outcome is destined. Either a lot of people want to PvP and will flag up or no one will flag up because no one gives a shit about OWPvP. Not really hard to comprehend the logic in that.

    There is so much wrong with what you have said here that it is hard to know where to start.
    I'd certainly love to hear your spin on it, because let's face it. PvP doesn't need everyone forced into it for it to work. The ONLY reason forced PvP is interesting to people like you is because you love being part of a gankfest against lowbies or part of a zergfest taking out much smaller groups. Either of those scenarios is NOT challenging in the least.

    So please, explain to me why forced PvP is so much better, because deep down inside there isn't a single reason you can come up with where it is a requirement to have meaningful PvP engagements. As I just explained, if people WANT PvP, they can flag up for it. I'm surprised you find that so hard to understand.

    Someone else suggested having multiple server types. Which would probably be the best alternative. I certainly have nothing against that alternative.
    You seem to be very focused on this pve vs pvp thing, kind of an "us" vs "them" mentality. To me that is not the issue at all. One of my favorite mmos is D&D Online and that is purely pve, and there are other great mmos like ESO and GW2 that take pvp completely out of the "main" world so that you could feasibly play the game without having to pvp at all.

    However, all those games have compelling pve, and were built from the ground up to be able to stand alone as rich pve focused experiences. My concern for New World, which looked like a very promising new game, is that the pve side of the game is not built out enough for it to be fun/interesting. And that didn't matter up until a few months ago because the pvp WAS the content.

    Now that they have stripped out the main content (the pvp), all that is left is a very mediocre pve game with a disastrously badly thought out "pinnacle" pvp/pve experience in the fort raids. At least that is the impression I get from the information they have released, hopefully I'm wrong.

    From my perspective there is no "us" vs "them", we are all gamers that I assume want to play awesome games. With no pvp apart from the occasional fort raid at end game, what is the draw of this game? Does it have a good story? awesome lore? interesting quests? intelligent mob AI? a large range of cool monsters to fight? awesome crafting? dungeons? world bosses? What's gonna be good about this game @Rhoklaw?

    [Deleted User]Ancient_ExilebcbullyIselin[Deleted User]
    ....
  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 3,098
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    First off, to those of you complaining that there won't be any PvP outside of the scheduled 50 vs. 50, why is that? If you're so hardcore PvP then flag up and stay flagged up. If you can't find anyone else flagged up to fight than what does that tell you? If you do find someone else flagged up then you got your PvP. One way or the other, the outcome is destined. Either a lot of people want to PvP and will flag up or no one will flag up because no one gives a shit about OWPvP. Not really hard to comprehend the logic in that.

    There is so much wrong with what you have said here that it is hard to know where to start.
    I'd certainly love to hear your spin on it, because let's face it. PvP doesn't need everyone forced into it for it to work. The ONLY reason forced PvP is interesting to people like you is because you love being part of a gankfest against lowbies or part of a zergfest taking out much smaller groups. Either of those scenarios is NOT challenging in the least.

    So please, explain to me why forced PvP is so much better, because deep down inside there isn't a single reason you can come up with where it is a requirement to have meaningful PvP engagements. As I just explained, if people WANT PvP, they can flag up for it. I'm surprised you find that so hard to understand.

    Someone else suggested having multiple server types. Which would probably be the best alternative. I certainly have nothing against that alternative.
    You seem to be very focused on this pve vs pvp thing, kind of an "us" vs "them" mentality. To me that is not the issue at all. One of my favorite mmos is D&D Online and that is purely pve, and there are other great mmos like ESO and GW2 that take pvp completely out of the "main" world so that you could feasibly play the game without having to pvp at all.

    However, all those games have compelling pve, and were built from the ground up to be able to stand alone as rich pve focused experiences. My concern for New World, which looked like a very promising new game, is that the pve side of the game is not built out enough for it to be fun/interesting. And that didn't matter up until a few months ago because the pvp WAS the content.

    Now that they have stripped out the main content (the pvp), all that is left is a very mediocre pve game with a disastrously badly thought out "pinnacle" pvp/pve experience in the fort raids. At least that is the impression I get from the information they have released, hopefully I'm wrong.

    From my perspective there is no "us" vs "them", we are all gamers that I assume want to play awesome games. With no pvp apart from the occasional fort raid at end game, what is the draw of this game? Does it have a good story? awesome lore? interesting quests? intelligent mob AI? a large range of cool monsters to fight? awesome crafting? dungeons? world bosses? What's gonna be good about this game @Rhoklaw?

    Trust me when I say, not enough developers take games like DAoC, ESO or GW2 into consideration when making a PvP/PvE MMOs. I'm trying to remember though, what incentives each of those games had in regards to PvP and PvE.

    For instance, DAoC gave a lot of bonuses to PvP and PvE mechanics based on how many Castles and Towers ( depending on which version you played ) as well as Relics you owned. Not to mention the PvP dungeon Darkness Falls. DAoC was and almost 100% sure still is the pinnacle of PvP/PvE game design in an MMO.

    My problem with OWPvP which is what New World focused on in the beginning and just recently opted out of for a more balanced PvP/PvE approach, is that OWPvP draws in the trolls, gankers and zergs ( this was proven true once again during New World alpha where countless instances of lowbie ganking was occuring ). Which is probably why you never really see a successful PvP focused MMO compared to PvE MMOs which drastically outnumber PvP MMO success, time and time again.

    I'm not against PvP at all. I just find OWPvP MMOs to be completely and utterly useless because of the massive imbalances between new and veteran players, between casual and hardcore players and so on. I will ALWAYS state that OWPvP in a progressive RPG setting does NOT work.

    PvP in a controlled setting such as DAoC, ESO or GW2 is perfectly fine. New World has done something a little different, which is to have PvP in the main world albeit within scheduled raid times. While that might prove to be inadequate for those who love PvP more than PvE, it is what it is. As for the 50 vs. 50 PvP battles, again, in my eyes that is a BALANCED engagement. Controlling numbers in a PvP engagement is one way to ensure a fair fight, so it doesn't get hammered to death with zerg excuses. That is a problem in ALL PvP games, such as Last Oasis, which just recently launched. I can't even fathom how many times we had clan members in that game get ganked / zerged while out gathering materials by groups twice their size, then when we show up with the cavalry to wipe out the attackers, THEY complain about us zerging them. It's a never ending issue in PvP games.

    As for the PvE invasions, its a start and probably the simplest or easiest form of meaningful PvE encounter to create in such short notice. Probably much easier than trying to create multiple fully fleshed out raid dungeons. My guess is, they will add dungeons in future updates, but for now, they only had time to implement the PvE invasions.

    Will PvE invasions be the ONLY PvE content at launch? I don't know. I'm sure there is other PvE content, just not raid dungeon content.

    Now that we both explained our opinions and insight into what we feel makes PvP/PvE games possible. The original argument I was dealing with was the fact certain people were complaining that there wasn't enough PvP or PvE content or that scheduled PvP / PvE wasn't going to work. That only having 50 vs. 50 wasn't going to be enough. My rebuttal was that 50 vs. 50 is balanced. That scheduled raids and invasions isn't any different than scheduling a raid in a dungeon. I think it's safe to say that no game is perfect for every type or style of gamer. Pretty sure that horse has been beaten to death, rezzed and beaten dead again several times over.

    I personally don't have a problem with the scheduled raid / invasions. It's just a means to an end to weed out zergs and offline raiding.



    Yes, I think the initial plan to have full-loot owpvp was crazy, for exactly the reasons you mention. But I think the change they made was even crazier, because, to borrow your phrasing, they seem to be set to release a game that is not fun for any type or style of gamer.



    Iselin[Deleted User]
    ....
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,838
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    First off, to those of you complaining that there won't be any PvP outside of the scheduled 50 vs. 50, why is that? If you're so hardcore PvP then flag up and stay flagged up. If you can't find anyone else flagged up to fight than what does that tell you? If you do find someone else flagged up then you got your PvP. One way or the other, the outcome is destined. Either a lot of people want to PvP and will flag up or no one will flag up because no one gives a shit about OWPvP. Not really hard to comprehend the logic in that.

    There is so much wrong with what you have said here that it is hard to know where to start.
    I'd certainly love to hear your spin on it, because let's face it. PvP doesn't need everyone forced into it for it to work. The ONLY reason forced PvP is interesting to people like you is because you love being part of a gankfest against lowbies or part of a zergfest taking out much smaller groups. Either of those scenarios is NOT challenging in the least.

    So please, explain to me why forced PvP is so much better, because deep down inside there isn't a single reason you can come up with where it is a requirement to have meaningful PvP engagements. As I just explained, if people WANT PvP, they can flag up for it. I'm surprised you find that so hard to understand.

    Someone else suggested having multiple server types. Which would probably be the best alternative. I certainly have nothing against that alternative.
    You seem to be very focused on this pve vs pvp thing, kind of an "us" vs "them" mentality. To me that is not the issue at all. One of my favorite mmos is D&D Online and that is purely pve, and there are other great mmos like ESO and GW2 that take pvp completely out of the "main" world so that you could feasibly play the game without having to pvp at all.

    However, all those games have compelling pve, and were built from the ground up to be able to stand alone as rich pve focused experiences. My concern for New World, which looked like a very promising new game, is that the pve side of the game is not built out enough for it to be fun/interesting. And that didn't matter up until a few months ago because the pvp WAS the content.

    Now that they have stripped out the main content (the pvp), all that is left is a very mediocre pve game with a disastrously badly thought out "pinnacle" pvp/pve experience in the fort raids. At least that is the impression I get from the information they have released, hopefully I'm wrong.

    From my perspective there is no "us" vs "them", we are all gamers that I assume want to play awesome games. With no pvp apart from the occasional fort raid at end game, what is the draw of this game? Does it have a good story? awesome lore? interesting quests? intelligent mob AI? a large range of cool monsters to fight? awesome crafting? dungeons? world bosses? What's gonna be good about this game @Rhoklaw?

    Trust me when I say, not enough developers take games like DAoC, ESO or GW2 into consideration when making a PvP/PvE MMOs. I'm trying to remember though, what incentives each of those games had in regards to PvP and PvE.

    For instance, DAoC gave a lot of bonuses to PvP and PvE mechanics based on how many Castles and Towers ( depending on which version you played ) as well as Relics you owned. Not to mention the PvP dungeon Darkness Falls. DAoC was and almost 100% sure still is the pinnacle of PvP/PvE game design in an MMO.

    My problem with OWPvP which is what New World focused on in the beginning and just recently opted out of for a more balanced PvP/PvE approach, is that OWPvP draws in the trolls, gankers and zergs ( this was proven true once again during New World alpha where countless instances of lowbie ganking was occuring ). Which is probably why you never really see a successful PvP focused MMO compared to PvE MMOs which drastically outnumber PvP MMO success, time and time again.

    I'm not against PvP at all. I just find OWPvP MMOs to be completely and utterly useless because of the massive imbalances between new and veteran players, between casual and hardcore players and so on. I will ALWAYS state that OWPvP in a progressive RPG setting does NOT work.

    PvP in a controlled setting such as DAoC, ESO or GW2 is perfectly fine. New World has done something a little different, which is to have PvP in the main world albeit within scheduled raid times. While that might prove to be inadequate for those who love PvP more than PvE, it is what it is. As for the 50 vs. 50 PvP battles, again, in my eyes that is a BALANCED engagement. Controlling numbers in a PvP engagement is one way to ensure a fair fight, so it doesn't get hammered to death with zerg excuses. That is a problem in ALL PvP games, such as Last Oasis, which just recently launched. I can't even fathom how many times we had clan members in that game get ganked / zerged while out gathering materials by groups twice their size, then when we show up with the cavalry to wipe out the attackers, THEY complain about us zerging them. It's a never ending issue in PvP games.

    As for the PvE invasions, its a start and probably the simplest or easiest form of meaningful PvE encounter to create in such short notice. Probably much easier than trying to create multiple fully fleshed out raid dungeons. My guess is, they will add dungeons in future updates, but for now, they only had time to implement the PvE invasions.

    Will PvE invasions be the ONLY PvE content at launch? I don't know. I'm sure there is other PvE content, just not raid dungeon content.

    Now that we both explained our opinions and insight into what we feel makes PvP/PvE games possible. The original argument I was dealing with was the fact certain people were complaining that there wasn't enough PvP or PvE content or that scheduled PvP / PvE wasn't going to work. That only having 50 vs. 50 wasn't going to be enough. My rebuttal was that 50 vs. 50 is balanced. That scheduled raids and invasions isn't any different than scheduling a raid in a dungeon. I think it's safe to say that no game is perfect for every type or style of gamer. Pretty sure that horse has been beaten to death, rezzed and beaten dead again several times over.

    I personally don't have a problem with the scheduled raid / invasions. It's just a means to an end to weed out zergs and offline raiding.


    PvP a few times a week due for anyone who considers themselves a pvpr 
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 22,823
    As yet I am not sure what sort of balance they are trying to achieve. They do not seem from my skimming of the thread to have gone down the RvR or PvP zone route but are allowing PvE areas to be sometimes invaded? That's full of issues and will make PvE's fed up with PvP.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Scot said:
    As yet I am not sure what sort of balance they are trying to achieve. They do not seem from my skimming of the thread to have gone down the RvR or PvP zone route but are allowing PvE areas to be sometimes invaded? That's full of issues and will make PvE's fed up with PvP.
    No you got it wrong. The PvP 50 v 50 is an instanced thing and so are the PvE invasions. They are also level 50 only, scheduled and infrequent - infrequent as in once or a couple of times per week.

    The non-instanced part of the world has just a simple optional PvP flagging system.
    Scot
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

Sign In or Register to comment.