Camelot Unchained

[Fordel]

The only bigger MMO fubar would be SWG's and it's various 'revisions'. ToA was THAT bad.

[Malakili]

Wait, what?  Didn't you have to level your goddamn pants in DAOC?  I remember my friend telling me on the phone how he finally max leveled his dumb flail and was killing entire groups of people by himself with a heal bot hidden in a tower.

You summed up exactly how ridiculous the game was after ToA. #1 you had buff bots in towers (always a problem), #2 PANTS ON HEAD LEVELING UNDER FULL MOON WHILE IN STORMY WEATHERS.

I imagine this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tu9s-rf_VTw#t=72s when I read Rasix's story.

[Draegan]

My "no one" always leaves out the crazies.  The die hard RVR/PVP folk and "must play every shitbag MMO" folk will buy this even if Jacobs never produces a working build.   We have a lot of category 2 here.  Hasn't the novelty worn off yet?

Edit: I know this is your holy grail and the sequel to that game that's  been poisoning your perception of gaming for more than a decade.  But this.. this thing has no chance of being good.  Literally zero.  You can't make this kind of game for chump change.  And if you could, would you trust the old guard to do so?   

The guild I ran with in GW2 was trying together a few $1000 to donate to the kickstarter for this game. It was lulzy. These are the same people who are trying to get into TESO as well. They're all PVPers who hear RvR and thing the game is going to be gold.

[Draegan]

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't RvR just a 3-way open world PVP game? I never got the excitement that it brought, like it was something uniquely special.

[Malakili]

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't RvR just a 3-way open world PVP game? I never got the excitement that it brought, like it was something uniquely special.

RvR is almost entirely tied to DaoC nostalgia. 

[Ingmar]

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't RvR just a 3-way open world PVP game? I never got the excitement that it brought, like it was something uniquely special.

No. It has hard-coded sides and permanent objectives.

[Malakili]

Also, maybe I'm missing something, but isn't RvR just a 3-way open world PVP game? I never got the excitement that it brought, like it was something uniquely special.

No. It has hard-coded sides and permanent objectives.

So did a bunch of the WoW zones in Burning Crusade.  Yea, granted, they weren't designed to be a fundamental part of the game, I know that wasn't what anyone means when they say "RvR."

[Nebu]

Why do people even care about what I think?  

For the record:

- Yes, I hate CC in PvP games.  Anything that renders players unable to act is bad.  I can tolerate short cc as long as it breaks on damage.

- I hate stealth in PvP games as well.  Initiative is impossible to balance correctly.

- PvE in PvP games is fine as long as the PvP isn't helped by or dependent on the PvE.

- I liked DAoC for the sandbox PvP (solo, zerg, small group, BG's, or 8v8 were all viable)

- I hated ToA.  It was the dumbest idea I've ever seen, particularly in a PvP game.

- I liked the depth of DAoC's combat mechanics, the resist trees, and the ability to make use of crafted gear/gems to tailor your suit.
  
- I like that players had a specific role on a team.

- I like that the 3 realms had very different feels yet were reasonably balanced for 8v8.  My guild did well in all 3 realms.  

- I liked the graphics style and atmosphere of the game.

- I loved the player housing.  

- I enjoyed the PvP advancement system.  I would have liked the power curve to be a bit flatter though.  

There is so much more... including just plain nostalgia.  There is also a MUCH MUCH longer list of the things that I didn't like.

Can I be done now?

[Falconeer]

- Yes, I hate CC in PvP games.  Anything that renders players unable to act is bad.  I can tolerate short cc as long as it breaks on damage.

- I hate stealth in PvP games as well.  Initiative is impossible to balance correctly.

- PvE in PvP games is fine as long as the PvP isn't helped by or dependent on the PvE.
 

I am with you here 100%

- I liked DAoC for the sandbox PvP (solo, zerg, small group, BG's, or 8v8 were all viable)

Except for battlegrounds, to me "sandbox PvP" can only happen in a free for all PvP game, where the conflict between players is only managed by players and their choices, not managed by the system. But I digress. Using your quote, is that something that has to do with RvRvR? Is it something that is still present in DAoC these days? Is it something that was pretty much hardcoded into the game, or were it some random circumstances, including player behaviour that wasn't tainted by today's achievement mentality, that allowed for that to happen in that game at that time?

- I liked the depth of DAoC's combat mechanics, the resist trees, and the ability to make use of crafted gear/gems to tailor your suit.

Is that something that hasn't been replicated in any other game so far, or that requires RvRvR to happen? Or Marc Jacobs?

 
- I like that players had a specific role on a team.

Is that something that hasn't been replicated in any other game so far, or that requires RvRvR to happen? Or Marc Jacobs?

- I like that the 3 realms had very different feels. 

Agree 100% with you here.

- I liked the graphics style and atmosphere of the game.

- I loved the player housing.  

Well graphic style and atmosphere are tied to emotions, so in my opinions they are gone and would never come back in any DAoC 2, or 3, or 4. And they definitely have to do with a "first time" kind of bias. Same way we love the graphics of 80s games. At least that's true for me.
Housing, is that something that hasn't been replicated in any other game so far, or that requires RvRvR to happen? Or Marc Jacobs?

- I enjoyed the PvP advancement system.  I would have liked the power curve to be a bit flatter though.  
 

Is that something that hasn't been replicated in any other game so far, or that requires RvRvR to happen? Or Marc Jacobs?

Anyway, reason people care about what you think Nebu (or I do) is because you don't have to agree with someone to respect their opinion or the way they deliver it. You know more than enough about games, and give enough fucks about PvP that even those who disagree with you want to have your angle on PvP games. If anything, it gives them (me) perspective. This is why I asked you that question and why I used your reply to ask a few more here. Don't mistake this for an attempt at sirbrucing you. I don't plan to dissect your nostalgia and I get pretty annoyed when people try to tell me that I am wrong for liking something. I am just interested to see how much of that ten years old fun can be realistically retrieved and implemented in other games, and how much of it simply belongs to the past in a way that only a time machine could fix. I know so many people who spend hours every day celebrating DAoC's glory and how it was the best PvP ever (it was very popular in Italy, they even translated the client, never happened before or after until WAR), and while I totally see why it was awesome at the time, the problem is that they are unhappy with everything else that is not DAoC that gets released today, and I am now pretty much convinced that it's not because of the incredibly unique features that DAoC had, but because some golden memories are simply unbeatable.

[JRave]

That post just caused a flashback to the old TL Reports.

[Phred]

I was shocked about GW2 to be honest.  GW's best feature was the pvp.  I found it quite strange that it would be the world PvE that would shine in GW2.

It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone who followed the pre-release interviews. The devs said they discovered 80% of their GW1 players barely touched pvp at all so they put more attention into PVE for GW2. Pretty sure I've linked the interview this came from before but I will post it again if anyone asks.

Here it is. 1:30 is where the quote is.
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/51704/guild-wars-2-pvp-system-dynamic-content-preview

[Typhon]

Why do people even care about what I think?  

Because you are the Bat- er, Jackalope-Avartar'd Science Dude.

Can I be done now?

No.  You genuinely love games.  You don't post about liking games as some sort of statement.  You don't need to be 'right', you state your peace and move on.  Need more Jackalope.  (this is actually the answer to both questions)

[Lantyssa]

Why do people even care about what I think?  

Because we love your scruffy little avatar.

[shiznitz]

When I say I miss Shadowbane PvP, I am talking about a nation-based PvP where territorial control, expansion, defense on a vast scale was more important than the single fight, since few things were more satisfying than seeing the actual map of the world changing based on your victories or defeats. Again, nothing even remotely similar seems to be available on the market at the moment.

You must have liked other things because that paragraph describes Planetside 1 and 2.  I know you didn't mean to compare SB to those games but if watching the map change with your victories is a key element of your PvP enjoyment, PS2 will give that to you.

[Malakili]

When I say I miss Shadowbane PvP, I am talking about a nation-based PvP where territorial control, expansion, defense on a vast scale was more important than the single fight, since few things were more satisfying than seeing the actual map of the world changing based on your victories or defeats. Again, nothing even remotely similar seems to be available on the market at the moment.

You must have liked other things because that paragraph describes Planetside 1 and 2.  I know you didn't mean to compare SB to those games but if watching the map change with your victories is a key element of your PvP enjoyment, PS2 will give that to you.

I think the part PS2 blows is the time scale. It is all so temporary and arbitrary.

[Njal]

That can't be it, DAOC had the most oppressive CC of any game I've ever played.

Speaking for myself, the appeal of DAOC is a bunch of people with a reason to fight together fighting over control of permanent map features, with persistent rivalries and the opportunity to make a name for yourself and recognize and hate names on the other side. Nebu was an 8v8er so he probably doesn't care about the important part (the keep fighting/control) though. 
[/quote]

This.

[Merusk]

When I say I miss Shadowbane PvP, I am talking about a nation-based PvP where territorial control, expansion, defense on a vast scale was more important than the single fight, since few things were more satisfying than seeing the actual map of the world changing based on your victories or defeats. Again, nothing even remotely similar seems to be available on the market at the moment.

You must have liked other things because that paragraph describes Planetside 1 and 2.  I know you didn't mean to compare SB to those games but if watching the map change with your victories is a key element of your PvP enjoyment, PS2 will give that to you.

I think the part PS2 blows is the time scale. It is all so temporary and arbitrary.

It was *always* temporary and arbitrary.  I quit playing PS1 when I realized that every night I was fighting the same battle on the same continent over the same patches of land.  It really struck-home when I had a day off, played mid-day and suddenly there were new hotspots. I realized it all depended on the time of day and what faction was online at that time, the "winning' faction for that time-slot always getting more powerful because nobody wanted to play the losing side.  Game over.

[waffel]

That post just caused a flashback to the old TL Reports.

Tabled, need specifics.

I realized it all depended on the time of day and what faction was online at that time, the "winning' faction for that time-slot always getting more powerful because nobody wanted to play the losing side.  Game over.

Well, you couldn't transfer in DAOC so you had to deal with it. Usually dealing with your faction getting shitslammed meant:
Doing some PvE (crafting, leveling alts, farming for gold, etc)
Doing some battleground PvP
Taking a small group to Mid/Alb, taking a few keeps to piss off the opposing forces and holding them as along as possible

Hell, it wasn't uncommon for two realms to semi-team up to help vs. the realm that was doing the curbstomping.

But maybe nowadays people simply wouldn't accept that one of the three realms is perceived as more popular and powerful on a specific server and would bitch about needing a transfer. Despite the kickstarter, I'm pretty sure we'll never know since CU has nothing else to do other than PvP.

[Nebu]

Falc,

I don't want a rehash of DAoC.  I'm playing DAoC on a freeshard now and can VERY OBVIOUSLY see the the shortcomings of the game.  What baffles me is why no one seems to have created a better PvP MMO.  WAR was a close attempt, but still lacked on many fronts.  Perhaps there's just not enough of a marketshare to drive innovation in this area.

[Falconeer]

When I say I miss Shadowbane PvP, I am talking about a nation-based PvP where territorial control, expansion, defense on a vast scale was more important than the single fight, since few things were more satisfying than seeing the actual map of the world changing based on your victories or defeats. Again, nothing even remotely similar seems to be available on the market at the moment.

You must have liked other things because that paragraph describes Planetside 1 and 2.  I know you didn't mean to compare SB to those games but if watching the map change with your victories is a key element of your PvP enjoyment, PS2 will give that to you.

In Shadowbane you didn't have three factions, you had countless ones. There was also a complex sub-infeudation system where guilds could swear loyalty to greater ones. All these guilds had their own logos together with the Nation logo (nations being the greater guilds, so again no limit on the number), and the logos appeared to everyone else on the global map. And the changes didn't happen multiple times a day. They happened over days or weeks, or months. Because conquering a territory was serious business since you even had to pay (so invest resources) to lay a siege. The sense of "belonging" to a nation that you could experience there had been topped only by EVE, in my experience. Although, obviously, in a very different context (spaceships vs. our old beloved medieval crap on foot).

Also yeah, as Merusk points out, Planetsde really had no point. Shadowbane, of all games, really made you feel you were fighting a huge attrition war that could be won through a military effort, but more reasonably through diplomacy, treaties, alliances, backstabs and so on.

(Before you even start, I am not talking of launch-Shadowvbane, nor SB.exe times, OK?)

If anything it baffles me that no one has really tried to introduce the politics element in MMORPGs with PVP since it's clearly so succesful in EVE (and again, that's pretty much the Shadowbane model). Age of Conan had something similar... in theory. But it never really made it into the game. Tera would be the closest (you even have elections for provinces), but the concept is severely underdeveloped as of yet.

[Nebu]

A workable political component would require a playerbase mature enough to appreciate it.  Try, if you will, to imagine the LoL crowd with politics.  The thought is enough to make me quit gaming forever.

[Malakili]

A workable political component would require a playerbase mature enough to appreciate it.  Try, if you will, to imagine the LoL crowd with politics.  The thought is enough to make me quit gaming forever.

Its happens in EVE (as was mentioned), and even happened in Darkfall.  I also understand one is emerging in Age of Wushu.  The people that take part will always be the people who care about such things. 

The problem is that there are a lot of people who are willing to JOIN a faction, but running them is a serious commitment.  I don't know how many times my old EVE CEO got woken up at some ungodly hour to try and avoid war with some good old fashioned diplomacy (at which he was damn good I might add).  Entire factions of good people can fall apart in these games when the leadership has to (or chooses) to quit, and that in turn tanks the enjoyment for potentially hundreds of people.  When the enjoyment of your game by a large percentage of your playerbase rests on the shoulders of just a few, it is a pretty tenuous position from a game design standpoint.

[Dark_MadMax]

If anything it baffles me that no one has really tried to introduce the politics element in MMORPGs with PVP since it's clearly so succesful in EVE (and again, that's pretty much the Shadowbane model). Age of Conan had something similar... in theory. But it never really made it into the game. Tera would be the closest (you even have elections for provinces), but the concept is severely underdeveloped as of yet.

I honestly dunno why there is some illusion of how free faction pvp works. I played a lot of hardcore "territorial control" pvp in top tier guilds- from Asheron Call and  Shadowbane to World of tanks and guild wars 2. And  watched countless more. Every time its exact same scenario in every game - there are certain powerful factions emerge which control 90% of land/resources. After initial period of land grabs/wars status quo emerges , which is periodically shaken when the old superpowers burn out  (and that inevitably happens with almost every single one ), new eager ones take their place , they burn out too and so on and so forth till game is dead( state which most "hardcore" pvp games such as Shadowbane and Darkfall reach very very fast)

The speed of burn out is directly correlated with intensity and "hardcoreness" of competition tier. Guilds in tier1 burn out really fast as its basically 24/7 job for leaders to maintain vast network of mega alliances and managing their mega zerg, combined with the members burn out whose role is relatively simply but still above and beyound what is called "casual play" and consists of logging in day in  and day out for various military/farming events.

If game doesnt die  too fast these alliances basically settle in long term in cold war state. In which they effectively farm on their territory and no one wants to start another fkcing war as everyone is damn tired of it. Newcomers have little room as everything is already divided between the big guys and at best there is "Africa" - no man's low value land where the newcomers can engage in their little warfare games, while big guys just collect the rent .

Politics/wars in MMO are just the same ugly boring thing as in  "Real Life" - just compressed in time. Tons of hard work and day to day menial shit. very little fun.

[shiznitz]

If anything it baffles me that no one has really tried to introduce the politics element in MMORPGs with PVP since it's clearly so succesful in EVE (and again, that's pretty much the Shadowbane model). Age of Conan had something similar... in theory. But it never really made it into the game. Tera would be the closest (you even have elections for provinces), but the concept is severely underdeveloped as of yet.

I honestly dunno why there is some illusion of how free faction pvp works. I played a lot of hardcore "territorial control" pvp in top tier guilds- from Asheron Call and  Shadowbane to World of tanks and guild wars 2. And  watched countless more. Every time its exact same scenario in every game - there are certain powerful faction emerge which control 90% of land/resources. After initial period of land grabs/wars status quo emerges , which is periodically shaken when the old superpowers burn out  (and that inevitably happens with almost every single one ), new eager ones take their place , they burn out too and so on and so forth till game is dead( state which most "hardcore" pvp games such as Shadowbane and Darkfall reach very very fast)

The speed of burn out is directly correlated with intensity and "hardcoreness" of competition tier. Guilds in tier1 burn out really fast as its basically 24/7 job for leaders to maintain vast network of mega alliances and managing their mega zerg, combined with the members burn out whose role is relatively simply but still above and beyound what is called "casual play" and consists of logging in day in  and day out for various military/farming events.

If game doesnt die  too fast those alliance basically settle in long term in cold war state. In which they effectively farm on their territory and no one wants to start another fkcing war as everyone is damn tired of it. Newcomers have little room as everything is already divided between the big guys and at best there is "Africa" - no man's low value land where the newcomers can engage in their little warfare games, while big guys just collect the rent .

Politics/wars in MMO are just the same ugly boring thing as in  "Real Life" - just compressed in time. Tons of hard work and day to day menial shit. very little fun.

Funny how that mirrors real life history, just in fast forward mode.  People will be people.

[Falconeer]

If anything it baffles me that no one has really tried to introduce the politics element in MMORPGs with PVP since it's clearly so succesful in EVE (and again, that's pretty much the Shadowbane model). Age of Conan had something similar... in theory. But it never really made it into the game. Tera would be the closest (you even have elections for provinces), but the concept is severely underdeveloped as of yet.

I honestly dunno why there is some illusion of how free faction pvp works. I played a lot of hardcore "territorial control" pvp in top tier guilds- from Asheron Call and  Shadowbane to World of tanks and guild wars 2. And  watched countless more. Every time its exact same scenario in every game - there are certain powerful faction emerge which control 90% of land/resources. After initial period of land grabs/wars status quo emerges , which is periodically shaken when the old superpowers burn out  (and that inevitably happens with almost every single one ), new eager ones take their place , they burn out too and so on and so forth till game is dead( state which most "hardcore" pvp games such as Shadowbane and Darkfall reach very very fast)

That's OK. What you describe is not bad at all if you ask me. When a "Nation" becomes decadent and starts to crumble a new one takes its place. In the meantime there's intrigue and attempts of different kinds at dethroning it. And usually at least two factions form up, with multiple dwindling appendixes. What's wrong with that? All the drama, and the fighting, before and after and during, are THE PvP Political game. Ask EVE. But ask your experiences too. They will always be niche, for sure, but what you described is a success to me, while for some reason it feels like a failure to you. Fair enough.

EDIT: I disagree on the 90% domination part too, usually it's a little less dominant than that. But even if that was the case, the "succession war" (when the dominating faction starts to fall) is another massive landgrab and chaos ensues and if you are into that kind of drama, it's great stuff.

[Hoax]

Sounds beautiful and fun and I wish it was in every MMO. Why is that illusion?

Let me tell you how every game goes, its new and exciting to explore its systems and hopefully fun, then it gets old, then maybe you stick around for the social connections, then you quit. Does that mean anyone playing games is living under an illusion they won't get sick of the next one and quit it?

Politics/wars in MMO are fun because you get to actually fight them. Heroic shit happens that you are a part of or witness players become famous for xyz and that's super cool to be a part of and witness as well. Its fun to be part of the all powerful winning most of the time evil empire and its tons of fun to be part of the resistance to that hegemony.

I have no idea what point MadMax is making. All of that is much more than area/BG "sport" pvp which is a fucking joke in a MMO. Why? Because if you want sport pvp do yourself a favor and play games that only provide that and do a better job than any MMO has ever come close to. Example: People will play Defiance and they will say they are pvp'ers and arena players. Except why not play TF2 or Tribes or <insert any fucking real fps here> all of those games are better shooters and provide better sport pvp.

[Khaldun]

EVE is very successful at what it is. The question is whether you can create a PvP-centric game that has some kind of world-progression in response to the massed action of players that has a different mood or feeling to it. I fundamentally think it's possible but it will take a very, very different design paradigm that doesn't involve the PvP itself, but instead is about world design. You have to have a responsive, deformable, dynamic world and the AI to sustain that--if the world matters more than the characters, then the conflicts will be about the world more and less about epeen and corpse rape.

[Dark_MadMax]

I have no idea what point MadMax is making. All of that is much more than area/BG "sport" pvp which is a fucking joke in a MMO.

Surely there is "more". But is it fun to average player? I mean when I  first started joining the big war guilds it was all new and exciting. part of "history" ,part of something big!  But there is nothing big really for average member and for leaders its a lot of work. " big" consists of logging in at 4 AM to go to another fucking siege/event/whatever 4th monday in a row. It consists of waiting 6 hours for anything to happen. It consists of getting ppl getting  angry over meaningless pixels in a video game and being  at each other throats  , sometimes some ugly internal and external drama which often ruins friendships.

The  big political/territorial game is not fun. The leadership plays them because they enjoy those sort of things (funny fact - in all my guilds  a lot of  leadership are business owners, former military  and such- they enjoy  power play and being in command) heck you know this guy who was ambassador for goon clan in Eve , killed in lebanon embassy attack (sad part) - I  was not surprised he was diplomat in RL . All those things mirror RL in many ways and well if you enjoy them might as well do it in RL- at least it pays in RL dividends  and not in records in some database.

Why? Because if you want sport pvp do yourself a favor and play games that only provide that and do a better job than any MMO has ever come close to. Example: People will play Defiance and they will say they are pvp'ers and arena players. Except why not play TF2 or Tribes or <insert any fucking real fps here> all of those games are better shooters and provide better sport pvp.

Well exactly lol.  I want pvp for fun and while all this "permanent territory control and epic wars" sounds good on paper - I seen  it already. Its not that great on its own. The fun part was supposed be  during big events - something which you can't experience in FPS, but its usually unplayable  lag/zergfest .So in the end you have to ask yourself really whats the point?

[Ingmar]

A workable political component would require a playerbase mature enough to appreciate it.  Try, if you will, to imagine the LoL crowd with politics.  The thought is enough to make me quit gaming forever.

Yes, this. I have negative a million interest in player-created factions driving PVP. They have to be built in to the game and limited in number for me to want to participate.

[Falconeer]

Nevermind. Redundancy.

[Modern Angel]

It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone who followed the pre-release interviews.

The other thing is that there was a drastic shift in emphasis in GW1 from pvp to pve post-release. I didn't really expect GW2's pvp to be anything but fun for awhile and then kind of taper off into meaninglessness.

[HaemishM]

I still don't understand why anyone pines for DAoC. That game was such an also-ran in pretty much every respect.

Thidranki. I think that's the name of it. It was the level 20 battlground/siege area in DAoC. When they added in that thing that let vet players make a level 20 character instead of having to level for the first 20 levels in shittastic PVE, and everyone had a smurf or new character in Thidranki, that was some of the most fun PVP I've had outside of Shadowbane when it worked. Gear was fairly even, one objective everyone fought over, well-designed map. It was just fun.

Then I leveled out of it and had to endure the PVE again and the DAoC suck was fulfilled.

[Trippy]

- I hate stealth in PvP games as well.  Initiative is impossible to balance correctly.

It's not impossible, just very difficult. PlanetSide had stealth balanced about as good as you can hope for.

[Falconeer]

Tera has no stealth at all, and the CC is more than bearable. Sign that is IS possible to make PvP games like that.

[Nebu]

Another issue that PvP games need to tackle is keeping thier data server side (rather than client side).  WoT has shown that hacks can be all but eliminated by doing this.