Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 07:08:58 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Topic: Mythic-EA shuts down Warhammer beta, tells players to come back later 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 16 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mythic-EA shuts down Warhammer beta, tells players to come back later  (Read 354493 times)
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #385 on: November 05, 2007, 11:54:32 AM

I'm sorry, but PvP in CoH is terrible.  I had fun with it for about a day, but quickly came to realize that most people will only stay and fight if a) they have numbers on their side or b) they see that they are winning.  Other than that, it becomes a chase-fest.  I had a similar experience in EQ2 early on when everyone was playing stealthers.  I guess this is why I stuck with DAoC, shadowbane, EvE, and Planetside for PvP.  Those titles realize that iPvP needs to be well-considered rather than just slapped onto a pve framework. 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #386 on: November 05, 2007, 11:55:50 AM

Seeing enemies I can't kill = I will never subscribe.
Once you accept no perma-death, it's all just mechanics.
Quote
As it stands, this is Sporthammer, not Warhammer.  And if I were a sport-PvPer, I can't imagine why I'd choose this one over (correct me if I'm forgetting any that offer Sport PvP):
Which is ironic because the core Warhammer is sport pvp.

Quote
Puzzle Pirates
On the island blockade level, you can bring any number of ships of any number of players that your alliance can muster.

Quote
Christ, this game is such a massive abortion.

It's a good thing that people like you and sinji hate WAR.  That means EA Mythic is heading the correct direction.  Sorry, but you'll have to wait a while longer for Kicked in the Jimmy Online 2.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 12:15:38 PM by tazelbain »

"Me am play gods"
shiznitz
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4268

the plural of mangina


Reply #387 on: November 05, 2007, 12:09:28 PM

Don't you mean "Let Me Kick You in the Jimmy Online 2.0"?

I have never played WoW.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11838


Reply #388 on: November 05, 2007, 02:55:42 PM

Quote
As it stands, this is Sporthammer, not Warhammer.  And if I were a sport-PvPer, I can't imagine why I'd choose this one over (correct me if I'm forgetting any that offer Sport PvP):
Which is ironic because the core Warhammer is sport pvp.

Eh?

I grant you this game won't be at all like WHFRPG which it is supposedly based on, but eh? what?



Coming back to the thing about seeing enemies you can't kill, this all comes around to the realm community thing again.

Seeing the enemy army is a big deal in DAoC, the game keeps the enemy army as a direct and ever present threat to your realm. It also helps dehumanise the other lot and adds atmosphere to the realm war. I continue to be amazed at how keen they are to chuck out everything that went right in DAoC. People keep turning up and saying how niche or unpopular DAoC2 would be, but the thing is, the DAoC concept can pretty much be slotted right in without taking a risk and removing any of the supposedly 'mainstream' stuff.

Making Sport-PvP as a quick and fun sideshow for people without much time, LIKE IN WoW, would be a good idea. It's not incompatible with differentiation through RvR as the elder game. Or with taking positive steps to build realm community. And as discussed before, when it isn't the achiever end game it doesn't have the same uber domination problem.

Similarly, if they want to allow everyone to visit all the pve content (and I can understand why they would) but wanted to keep the DAoC style separation of the realms, then this would be a fine occaision to apply a little instance-sauce for the greater good.

I see no issue with a high level Orc instance quest to visit an instanced copy of Dwarf_starting_area_01 to kill all the trainers.

On the other hand, having them stroll through the same area, killing the same mobs, possibly getting (the same) quests from the same neutral NPCs, right alongside Dwarfs but without fighting, diminishes the realm identity and flavour of both player's experience for no benefit I can see.

I might have missed something, but if you have opposing realm players in the same zone, but unable to talk or fight, what advantage could that have over just instancing them off into alternate copies of the same area?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 03:05:06 PM by eldaec »

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #389 on: November 05, 2007, 03:34:37 PM

1) Fantasy Battles definitely were sport pvp.
2) WAR appears to have no relation to WHFRPG other they are both based on the same lore.
3) Between the two properties, I am sure more fans identify to Warhammer with FB than FRPG.
4) Ergo, Sport PvP is not out of character for Warhammer.

Quote
Similarly, if they want to allow everyone to visit all the  pve content (and I can understand why they would) but wanted to keep the DAoC style separation of the realms, then this would be a fine occaision to apply a little instance-sauce for the greater good.
Another thing CoH did really well and I would love to see it.


"Me am play gods"
Trouble
Terracotta Army
Posts: 689


Reply #390 on: November 05, 2007, 03:52:07 PM

Uhg no more sport pvp please. I want to take castles and crazy shit, I don't want to win a fuckin arena battle and move up one rung on the ladder.
BigBlack
Terracotta Army
Posts: 179


Reply #391 on: November 05, 2007, 04:11:57 PM

I'm sorry, but PvP in CoH is terrible.  I had fun with it for about a day, but quickly came to realize that most people will only stay and fight if a) they have numbers on their side or b) they see that they are winning.  Other than that, it becomes a chase-fest.  I had a similar experience in EQ2 early on when everyone was playing stealthers.  I guess this is why I stuck with DAoC, shadowbane, EvE, and Planetside for PvP.  Those titles realize that iPvP needs to be well-considered rather than just slapped onto a pve framework. 

Part of good PvP that's not sport-PvP, IMHO, is giving an advantage to those who'd rather escape combat than stay and fight.  It gives an advantage to guerrilla tactics, makes the idea of consequences for death more palatable (because if you're dying at a level where you might lose something of actual value, it's usually because in some way you chose to throw your lot in and give it a shot), and encourages the development of "hideaways" where you can retreat to, and makes the knowledge of where your enemies are retreating to a social good to be bargained over, sought out, or betrayed -- adding to the game's politics.

All told, I prefer a PvP game with relatively fewer actual deaths, and deaths that can be meaningful, to ones where either your side overwhelms them or they overwhelm you.
Count Nerfedalot
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1041


Reply #392 on: November 05, 2007, 04:44:13 PM

Quote
As it stands, this is Sporthammer, not Warhammer.  And if I were a sport-PvPer, I can't imagine why I'd choose this one over (correct me if I'm forgetting any that offer Sport PvP):
Which is ironic because the core Warhammer is sport pvp.

Eh?

I grant you this game won't be at all like WHFRPG which it is supposedly based on, but eh? what?


Since folks here have discussed and debated and everyone has finally come to a consensus agreement on the definition of MMO, let's turn our attention to a new term that needs defining, for the sake of humanity and whatnot.

Sport PvP

What distinguishing characteristics define some style of PvP as sport versus, uhm, not sport? 

I get the implication that at least some folks consider sport pvp to include table top gaming.  As in, two or more players sitting down with presumably balanced starting positions, some sort of common rules/framework defining the contest, a definite ending, and then a world reset for the next match.  At least those are the more obvious characteristics that I can find between WoW pvp and a tabletop game.  I deliberately left out anything to do with character persistence, because, while I never got too involved with WFB, I did play some Battletech tabletop, and there was some degree of character development and persistence there.

I'm not really clear what others mean by the term, except that whatever it is it's not for them.  From the long list of pvp games/styles BigBlack gives as examples of sport pvp, it seems like anything short of the ability to attack anyone you want anytime anywhere is sport.  So I'm really curious as to what his definition of it is.

For myself, the term conjures up images of even contests, competition ladders, well-defined rules and even referees to enforce the rules.  All of which sound rather odd in the context of a role-playing game.  I can see why "hardcore" pvp'ers would turn their nose up at it, when what they seem to want is a world where all is uncertain, you survive by being meaner or cleverer than everyone else, and where pvp has lasting consequences.  I can also see why the vast majority of people who so far have proven willing to invest both money and months of playtime into building characters in online games don't want anything to do with that kind of hardcore pvp.

So is that all it is?  Is "sport pvp" just a derogatory term for anything that isn't hard-core open pvp?  Or is there some scenario where a game's pvp would be interesting to the hardcore (not sport) and still be palatable to enough non-hardcore to be financially attractive for developers?

Yes, I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #393 on: November 05, 2007, 06:12:31 PM

> Is "sport pvp" just a derogatory term for anything that isn't hard-core open pvp?
Exactly.  I think they got tired of people laughing at them every time they uttered "meaningful pvp."
« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 06:30:13 PM by tazelbain »

"Me am play gods"
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335


Reply #394 on: November 05, 2007, 06:28:36 PM

"Sport PVP" is a good term, it connotes structure and no lasting consequences.

When did this term become popular? I've been using it for a couple of years.

vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
Numtini
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7675


Reply #395 on: November 05, 2007, 07:07:09 PM

I think of sport pvp as pvp completely removed from the "world" and set up as a "game" with a beginning, end, and some kind of scoring. Effectively a FPS played with your MMO characters. To me, MMOs are about two things massive and persistant. Sport pvp is neither. Basically WOW.

DAOC was derided as "carebear" by a lot of the PKs because you couldn't make derogatory comments to other players or camp the newbie zone with your max levels, but it was massive, open field, and persistant. Even the battlegrounds, while level limited, were persistant and open other than the level limits. Both are to me in a different category than sport pvp.

If you can read this, you're on a board populated by misogynist assholes.
KyanMehwulfe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 64


WWW
Reply #396 on: November 06, 2007, 01:32:16 AM

When did this term become popular? I've been using it for a couple of years.
Anecdotaly, the largest influx I saw was when Arenas were introduced to WoW last winter and from the already instance-bitter Battleground (namely AV since Warsong was sometimes refered to this way already) or world PvP crowd. I'm sure I've seen it sparsely for years, though little comes to mind, but it became a bit of a catch phrase and caught steam culminating Blizzard's transition from world PvP to instanced war PvP to - the catalyst - instanced 'sport PvP'.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #397 on: November 06, 2007, 09:28:32 AM


tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #398 on: November 06, 2007, 10:41:03 AM

Listening to the latest interview with Josh, they want PvP to be accessible from the beginning. Walling it off would make it less so.


"Me am play gods"
Draegan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10043


Reply #399 on: November 06, 2007, 11:05:07 AM

If you take a look at that one podcast where they explained how the tiers work, I get the feeling the whole world will be just a series of large battle grounds you play through.  Doesn't even seem the tiers for different races are even attached.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11838


Reply #400 on: November 06, 2007, 11:51:55 AM

Sport PvP, at least in the way I've been taking it, is a self contained pvp match with a clearly defined start and finish, and a clearly defined winning team, where teams are fixed at the start, with fixed numbers on each side (generally even numbers), and usually some form of point scoring determines the winner. Once a sport pvp match starts, it can't be interfered with from outside, so it is typically held in an instance.

Sport PvP is good term because it is about a face off between two teams where you try to make things as 'fair' as possible so that the most organised guild wins. Every. Single. Time. I'm crossing into editorial there.

In short, it is the Guild Wars mechanic.

Quote
"Sport PVP" is a good term, it connotes structure and no lasting consequences.

Not what I've been meaning in this case.

WAR Sport PvP Scenarios do have lasting consequences.

This is the problem.

I'm arguing that using Sport PvP matches as the primary achiever end game and realm war driver is a bad decision. It is too susceptible to domination by uber guilds, and weak players entering can actively disadvantage their own realm.

I think Sport PvP is an excellent mechanic to use outside of the primary achiever end game and where it does not impact realm goals, because it provides just enough simple structure and immediate fun for people to play who are not seeking long term game reward.

I'm not saying Sport PvP isn't hardcore. I'm saying it is *too* hardcore, and as such, you have to avoid over-rewarding it.



If people disagree with me on what Sport pvp is I don't really mind what we call 'the-guild-wars-mechanic' instead.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2007, 11:57:32 AM by eldaec »

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
amiable
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2126


Reply #401 on: November 06, 2007, 12:20:39 PM

Couldn't you mitigate the "sport PvP having adverse consequences on the World" by either:

1.  Seperating Queues into PUG v PUG and Guild v Guild?
2.  Introducing a ranking system so that awesome teams rolling newbs will not earn many realm points?

#1 would be particularily useful as it avoids the annoyance of roll groups for both sides.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #402 on: November 06, 2007, 12:35:28 PM

I'm arguing that using Sport PvP matches as the primary achiever end game and realm war driver is a bad decision. It is too susceptible to domination by uber guilds, and weak players entering can actively disadvantage their own realm.

You do realize that no matter what type of PVP there is, the "uber guilds" who can organize best win no matter how many roadblocks you throw in their way, right? Over time, they will win many more than they lose.

tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #403 on: November 06, 2007, 12:38:14 PM


If people disagree with me on what Sport pvp is I don't really mind what we call 'the-guild-wars-mechanic' instead.
We can call it Posh PvP.  Rimshot

Quote
I'm not saying Sport PvP isn't hardcore. I'm saying it is *too* hardcore, and as such, you have to avoid over-rewarding it.
Until we know how Victory points are awarded,  I don't see how we can argue about this.

"Me am play gods"
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11838


Reply #404 on: November 06, 2007, 02:37:59 PM

You do realize that no matter what type of PVP there is, the "uber guilds" who can organize best win no matter how many roadblocks you throw in their way, right? Over time, they will win many more than they lose.

Yes, over time, of course, and they probably should.

But fair, organised, predictable battles suit them best and reduce variability, to the detriment of others. That doesn't mean a system can't be included which...
1) Better includes newbie players with the realm objectives.
2) Allows non-ubers to win some of the time.
3) Provides enough randomness to keep things feeling new.

And Mythic have such a system already...

Quote
Until we know how Victory points are awarded,  I don't see how we can argue about this.

Sure, what we know so far is that you win a scenario you get VPs, and the bulk of the VPs are attached to scenarios.

We also know you accumulate n VPs to push the battlefront around, and that pushing the battlefront around is intended as the end game.


Things might not work as intended, YMMV, but any mechanism that presents Sport-PvP/Posh-PvP as its primary achiever end game is going to have the same problem. It's not so much the detail of how the points go out, but the nature of the battlefront being a zero-sum game (back for me = forward for you) and being the achiever endgame while also being an inherently exclusive playstyle.


Quote
Couldn't you mitigate the "sport PvP having adverse consequences on the World" by either:

1.  Seperating Queues into PUG v PUG and Guild v Guild?
2.  Introducing a ranking system so that awesome teams rolling newbs will not earn many realm points?

Only real way to keep PUG v PUG pure is to reduce the stake/reward. Otherwise people will start doing stupid shit like rushing the queues and dropping out of guilds to look like a mixed group.

Any low-stakes sport pvp doesn't have the uber problem because the ubers will want to dominate the uber endgame instead. That's why low stakes sport pvp works well in the likes of WoW. I'm sure it would work fine in WAR too.

It's only making the high-stakes game about Sport-pvp that I think is a wasted opportunity.

« Last Edit: November 06, 2007, 03:03:20 PM by eldaec »

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
BigBlack
Terracotta Army
Posts: 179


Reply #405 on: November 06, 2007, 02:55:21 PM

I'm arguing that using Sport PvP matches as the primary achiever end game and realm war driver is a bad decision. It is too susceptible to domination by uber guilds, and weak players entering can actively disadvantage their own realm.

You do realize that no matter what type of PVP there is, the "uber guilds" who can organize best win no matter how many roadblocks you throw in their way, right? Over time, they will win many more than they lose.

The best worldy PvP creates an ecosystem where there's room for a wide variety of groups -- not just uber guilds -- to co-exist, but still enough scarcity to spur them to conflict.  You tend not to have outright 'winners' and 'losers', but a large number of groups trying to forge a life for themselves in the world, with varying degrees of success.  There are probably work-arounds for sport-PvP as well.  It's a balancing act.
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #406 on: November 06, 2007, 03:11:27 PM


Sure, what we know so far is that you win a scenario you get VPs, and the bulk of the VPs are attached to scenarios.

We also know you accumulate n VPs to push the battlefront around, and that pushing the battlefront around is intended as the end game.
I don't think we are going to see such a straight forward implementation. 

[
Only real way to keep PUG v PUG pure is to reduce the stake/reward. Otherwise people will start doing stupid shit like rushing the queues and dropping out of guilds to look like a mixed group.

Actually zero-sum would make that tactic, moot as far as vp since it pretty much guarantees a lose that would cancel the easy win you were trying to set up.  It would probably work renowned, tho.

"Me am play gods"
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #407 on: November 06, 2007, 06:03:32 PM

Separate the ubers and the PUGs. Think WoW BGs vs Arenas. It works. The people complaining about this split aren't the type to be made happy anyway.

I like the concept of immersive server-spanning socioeconomic-compelled PvP. Unfortunately, the only two games to really get it right were either broken enough to piss off the core (SB) or just esoteric enough to never grow to enviable numbers (Eve, which mostly works because everyone is on one uniserver big enough to house sub-societies). Neither inspires companies to rip off their ideas, so the companies take the safer routes.

Further, "Approachable PvP for Casuals" and Levels do not mix without copious compartmentalization into sub-groups. SB was a good example. The only time people bothered fighting below the soft cap was to piss off someone else or because they stumbled across a grind group. That's not success. That's people adopting a behavior to make up for what lacks in the rules.
Johny Cee
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3454


Reply #408 on: November 06, 2007, 07:46:54 PM

Separate the ubers and the PUGs. Think WoW BGs vs Arenas. It works. The people complaining about this split aren't the type to be made happy anyway.

I like the concept of immersive server-spanning socioeconomic-compelled PvP. Unfortunately, the only two games to really get it right were either broken enough to piss off the core (SB) or just esoteric enough to never grow to enviable numbers (Eve, which mostly works because everyone is on one uniserver big enough to house sub-societies). Neither inspires companies to rip off their ideas, so the companies take the safer routes.

Further, "Approachable PvP for Casuals" and Levels do not mix without copious compartmentalization into sub-groups. SB was a good example. The only time people bothered fighting below the soft cap was to piss off someone else or because they stumbled across a grind group. That's not success. That's people adopting a behavior to make up for what lacks in the rules.

Umm.  Didn't DAoC rvr accomplish the same thing?  Casuals were your footsoldiers and cannon fodder,  while the rvr guilds, gank guilds, and serious non-aligned players did the things that required coordination?

What eldaec and others are screaming about is that Mythic had a system that worked for both casual and hardcore,  but the early PR seems to be moving away from it.
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449

Badge Whore


Reply #409 on: November 06, 2007, 08:43:28 PM

Umm.  Didn't DAoC rvr accomplish the same thing?  Casuals were your footsoldiers and cannon fodder,  while the rvr guilds, gank guilds, and serious non-aligned players did the things that required coordination?

What eldaec and others are screaming about is that Mythic had a system that worked for both casual and hardcore,  but the early PR seems to be moving away from it.

Because, as they constantly ignore or pooh-pooh, realm population imbalance always caused problems and was one of the biggest gripes I recall the majority having about the game. (After the bitching about group xp nerf)   The system didn't work unless you were on the winning side, or had the desire to find a server where your preferred side was larger/ winning and reroll.

The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
Johny Cee
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3454


Reply #410 on: November 06, 2007, 09:21:32 PM

Umm.  Didn't DAoC rvr accomplish the same thing?  Casuals were your footsoldiers and cannon fodder,  while the rvr guilds, gank guilds, and serious non-aligned players did the things that required coordination?

What eldaec and others are screaming about is that Mythic had a system that worked for both casual and hardcore,  but the early PR seems to be moving away from it.

Because, as they constantly ignore or pooh-pooh, realm population imbalance always caused problems and was one of the biggest gripes I recall the majority having about the game. (After the bitching about group xp nerf)   The system didn't work unless you were on the winning side, or had the desire to find a server where your preferred side was larger/ winning and reroll.

On most servers,  population imbalance wasn't the problem people make it out to be in the long run.  Most servers,  you had shifts in who was winning based more on morale,  but those could take months.  It was pretty common to see a realm go on the upswing after a big love patch, or take a header after a nerf patch,  when the line troops would slow down RvRing or just hit the battlegrounds waiting for the dust to settle.

There were a few servers with an inordinate imbalance that was basically a lock,  but I'd say they were as common as servers where population was close enough that you had a pretty constant three horse race.


Population/side imbalance is just as much a problem with the other games Darniaq mentioned, though. 

Wasn't a large part of SB's downfall the rise of the uber-guillds/alliances that stamped out all competition?  (Leaving aside sb.exe)

And Eve,  the whole 0.0 game seems to revolve around numbers and the major players,  with the smaller orgs just playing a game of whose boot do I lick.  The size of the play field mitigates this a great deal,  but....


Why does Mythic seem to be reinventing the wheel,  when they could be working at the pop imbalance problem with their old system?  Some combination of xp gain bonuses, queuing, npc balancing, supply lines, pop cap on zones...  establish systems and work at the problem.  Mythic made a good honest effort at it,  but by the time they tried implementing solutions it was far too late.
Ratman_tf
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3818


Reply #411 on: November 06, 2007, 09:52:55 PM

Umm.  Didn't DAoC rvr accomplish the same thing?  Casuals were your footsoldiers and cannon fodder,  while the rvr guilds, gank guilds, and serious non-aligned players did the things that required coordination?

Not really. RvRing at anything below the level cap was an exercise in frustration. Most everyone I knew didn't even step into the frontier until they hit max level.



 "What I'm saying is you should make friends with a few catasses, they smell funny but they're very helpful."
-Calantus makes the best of a smelly situation.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11838


Reply #412 on: November 07, 2007, 01:07:47 AM

Umm.  Didn't DAoC rvr accomplish the same thing?  Casuals were your footsoldiers and cannon fodder,  while the rvr guilds, gank guilds, and serious non-aligned players did the things that required coordination?

Not really. RvRing at anything below the level cap was an exercise in frustration. Most everyone I knew didn't even step into the frontier until they hit max level.

This aspect of Daoc did indeed suck once we got outside the first 9 months of the game.

But the problem was the "play average pve grind for 20 days /played, then you can join the real game" design. It really didn't matter if the 'real game' was RvR or something else - you couldn't get to it without an almighty grind.

It was fixed in late daoc with RvR BGs from level 1 with decent xp, and trivialisation of the pve grind.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2007, 01:16:17 AM by eldaec »

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11838


Reply #413 on: November 07, 2007, 01:15:49 AM

Also I really don't understand why people appear to be suggesting that fixed sides RvR in geographically locked areas of the world, plays anything like open pvp / Guild v Guild games such as EVE or SB.

DAoC had an open pvp server - it sucked and nobody played there.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
croaker69
Terracotta Army
Posts: 318


Reply #414 on: November 07, 2007, 06:16:59 AM

If Mythic had just added a frontier pop cap similar to the Planetside continent lock system (before New Frontiers obviously) it would have solved alot of problems.  Maybe have it unlocked or doubled for the home team to mitigate getting double-teamed in Emain (yeah I was Hib from release).

What may at first appear to be an insurmountable obstacle will in time be seen for what it really is: an impenetrable barrier.
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #415 on: November 07, 2007, 08:10:11 AM

But the problem was the "play average pve grind for 20 days /played, then you can join the real game" design. It really didn't matter if the 'real game' was RvR or something else - you couldn't get to it without an almighty grind.

Yes.
Vinadil
Terracotta Army
Posts: 334


Reply #416 on: November 07, 2007, 08:14:35 AM

Also I really don't understand why people appear to be suggesting that fixed sides RvR in geographically locked areas of the world, plays anything like open pvp / Guild v Guild games such as EVE or SB.

DAoC had an open pvp server - it sucked and nobody played there.

Eh, they had 2 at one time... and my time on Mordred kept me playing months after I would have otherwise quit.  We were definitely in the minority, but the guilds who moved to those servers were generally the ones that had already conquered their "normal" server and grown bored.  I suppose those types of guilds are the minority in gamers... so they might be better served not caring about them, if they want a huge game.  But, EVE shows that they tend to be a very loyal group once they find a home they like.
Johny Cee
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3454


Reply #417 on: November 07, 2007, 10:53:46 AM

If Mythic had just added a frontier pop cap similar to the Planetside continent lock system (before New Frontiers obviously) it would have solved alot of problems.  Maybe have it unlocked or doubled for the home team to mitigate getting double-teamed in Emain (yeah I was Hib from release).

A straight pop cap is problematic.  It eliminates the casuals and PUGers from using numbers to counter Gank Groups/Premade Groups.  I'd love to see some kind of handicaping system that varies numbers allowed into battle by a rating system based on past performance.... 
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #418 on: November 07, 2007, 12:52:29 PM

I think having the Red Sox playing some Little League team for the same rewards is the wrong way to go for sport PvP. And if you're going for a world-y PvP game, you'll end up with everyone aligned in way or pocket areas where newbies hang while the big kids go off and have the real war.

I don't think anyone has the stomach to do a truly multi-year effort on how to do massive persistent PvP right, and I can't blame them. For one, there's no guarantee it's possible. For another, there's no guarantee people will like it.
BigBlack
Terracotta Army
Posts: 179


Reply #419 on: November 12, 2007, 12:29:33 PM

Which is why if I had to put stock in anything right now, I'd put it in MetaPlace.  I may not come up with anything great, and neither may a lot of other people, but given the tools they're talking about, fan-made labor-of-love world-PvP seems reasonable.  It might take a few years after the tools come out, but they can get there eventually and incrementally.  There wasn't a gigantic market demand for a 'modern remake' of Ultima V, either, but with the right tools and a dedicated enough team, J. and friends pulled it off.

What I really don't understand is why few games are willing to consider bastard-child full-PvP servers.  EQ2 started one.  Why not WoW?  You'd think Blizzard would at least be interested in seeing if the idea would take off or not.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 16 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Topic: Mythic-EA shuts down Warhammer beta, tells players to come back later  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC