has the daoc community become elitist and gated? it didn't used to be, but then again, I haven't kept in touch with it since ToA, when I left the game.
Prime has a very nice community actually. Come by one of the live streams they do, and you can see for yourself. Not sure what the other guy is talking about
has the daoc community become elitist and gated? it didn't used to be, but then again, I haven't kept in touch with it since ToA, when I left the game.
from what I recall in other games I played, yep. they usually value people having played DAOC with them, being in recognizable guilds and such.the rest apparently are from easy mode games for retards, unworthy of inhabiting the same virtual world as them and pretend to be PvPers when actually they are not.
I played DAOC and I can tell you, there is nothing that annoys me more than finding and exDAOC in the game I play, for some reason I'll never understand most of them have developed an unbearably elitist attitude that is almost tangible thru the tubes...
I've run into probably hundreds of former DAoC players, some from huge guilds... what I've run into is an idealized view of DAoC's pvp, but I guess I've been lucky not to run into anyone who looks down on players who didn't play DAoC, since most of my friends never got the chance.
The way I see it, WoD will probably be released even later than Titan or Defiance, considering its pre-production stage, the far smaller team and resource pool that CCP has compared to a Blizzard, and the rate of development that CCP has shown so far over the years, with announced new features appearing years later than was announced or expected.
I have removed WoD from my personal list of upcoming MMO's for 2012-2013. It'll see launch at the earliest in 2014 and probably even later. Believing anything else, that it'll arrive in 2013 or so, is wishful thinking.
Compared to Titan I still think it will launch earlier. CCP have worked longer on it and Blizzard is famous for delaying games.
Heck, they remade Diablo 2 from scratch 3 times and Diablo 3 was in working alpha state 2004.
While I fear 2013-2014 might be true for WoDO there is no way Titan releases before 2016, unless Activision fires Morhaime and replaces him with one of their corp guys.
I've run into probably hundreds of former DAoC players, some from huge guilds... what I've run into is an idealized view of DAoC's pvp, but I guess I've been lucky not to run into anyone who looks down on players who didn't play DAoC, since most of my friends never got the chance.
Well, so long after people tend to forget the bad stuff about anything.
But DaoC did some things really right and I wish Mythic actually learned from it.
I think there is a huge potential in RvR but you need to get it just right for it to work. The old "side A wins because they are cooler so more players play them" wont really work.
RvR should involve both strategy and good hard fights. I would love it if they used a similar strategical system to the marines in "Natural selection".
Anyways, no person really have the right to look down on someone that missed a game. And if you really want it there are actually some free vanilla DaoC servers (I am actually pretty sure they are legal unlike the vanilla Wow servers) so you could actually get a few friends and play it a little to see what you missed.
I hope not. Nothing marginalizes skill and decisions like PVP that's won by having more players online.
Yeah let's hope for fuck all variety out there in the mmo genre. That mmos aimed at bringing together masses of people don't try and use that for conflict and instead keep pushing out really, really, really shit versions of the kind of team pvp you can find in other games which specifically cater to that kind of thing....
I mean you would have to be some kind of frigging lunatic to want mass scale pvp in a game centred on bringing masses of people together amirite?
Mass players can be done *without* "more players wins".
See: Planetside.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yeah, I know it has been done before: DAoC, EVE Online, DF, L1 and L2, all games where you can find RvR or strategic PvP with persistent impact like territory and base control in the open world.
Those games are FFA, not RvR.. If anything GvG (Guild VS Guild). EVE, DF, L1, L2
FFA is good.
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
Yet it wasn't seen that much at all in most AAA MMO's of the past 5-6 years.
EVERY MMO in the past few years was RvR - WAR, Aion, WoW, you name it.
I've run into probably hundreds of former DAoC players, some from huge guilds... what I've run into is an idealized view of DAoC's pvp
You'll find that's extraordinarily common in any Old Game.
I was there, was playing, and now listen to modern descriptions of beautiful, perfect games that never happened.
Man, I wish the games I played were even half as good as the nostalgia-backlit pictures of the games I played.
That being said, I think Prime is the most likely of all of the games listed upthread to produce something fairly similar to olde-tyme DAoC-style RvRvR.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Yet it wasn't seen that much at all in most AAA MMO's of the past 5-6 years.
EVERY MMO in the past few years was RvR - WAR, Aion, WoW, you name it.
(2 Realm)RvR sucks balls.
While WAR and Aion fit the bill of RVR, WoW most certainly does not... the closest thing to RVR in WoW was Wintergrasp (at least until Cata)... while it has an element of what makes RVR great, I think it was too limited for me to really say WoW had RVR
I hope not. Nothing marginalizes skill and decisions like PVP that's won by having more players online.
Yeah let's hope for fuck all variety out there in the mmo genre. That mmos aimed at bringing together masses of people don't try and use that for conflict and instead keep pushing out really, really, really shit versions of the kind of team pvp you can find in other games which specifically cater to that kind of thing....
I mean you would have to be some kind of frigging lunatic to want mass scale pvp in a game centred on bringing masses of people together amirite?
Mass players can be done *without* "more players wins".
See: Planetside.
Not all mmo games are set up to be twitch skill based, they have progression/rpg elements. They are also meant to be living worlds and more than a combat box like Planetside... an mmofps game.
I prefer twitch but then when I play team pvp games I tend not to play dumbed down mmo badlefields.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I hope not. Nothing marginalizes skill and decisions like PVP that's won by having more players online.
Yeah let's hope for fuck all variety out there in the mmo genre. That mmos aimed at bringing together masses of people don't try and use that for conflict and instead keep pushing out really, really, really shit versions of the kind of team pvp you can find in other games which specifically cater to that kind of thing....
I mean you would have to be some kind of frigging lunatic to want mass scale pvp in a game centred on bringing masses of people together amirite?
Mass players can be done *without* "more players wins".
See: Planetside.
Not all mmo games are set up to be twitch skill based, they have progression/rpg elements. They are also meant to be living worlds and more than a combat box like Planetside... an mmofps game.
I prefer twitch but then when I play team pvp games I tend not to play dumbed down mmo badlefields.
Way to focus on the twitch, and not the game mechanics which cause PS to NOT be about "more players wins".
You've officially missed the point.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Way to focus on the twitch, and not the game mechanics which cause PS to NOT be about "more players wins".
You've officially missed the point.
You used an mmofps as an example, a poor example.
There is not much of a point to miss, you are doing your usual moan about games which give some kind of advantage to the side with greater numbers. I hate to break this to you but sometimes it makes perfect sense that a side with greater numbers has the upper hand.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Originally posted by Squiggie Of those listed, I think only TSW has a chance to make a significant splash in this area. If done right, it could be the next big PvP MMO. SW:TOR has a slim chance, but I don't think Bioware will pursue it heavily enough.
I wouldn't be that pessimistic. Mythic is basically handling the PvP side of the game, while Bioware focuses on the PvE / Story progression. If you liked PvP in WAR, it's looking to be very similar, but hopefully done a bit better.
The one thing I don't like about the direction rvr generally goes in is the usual 2 faction systems, like in WAR. TSW with it's 3 factions is going in the right direction in my opinion, like daoc and planetside (yea yea, persistent fps.. same deal).
I really don't see TOR being known for it's pvp, it just doesn't seem like something that genre would focus on.. We'll see.
As for WAR, it was quite sad that the people who made doac failed to re-create that pvp experience.. ah well
There is not much of a point to miss, you are doing your usual moan about games which give some kind of advantage to the side with greater numbers. I hate to break this to you but sometimes it makes perfect sense that a side with greater numbers has the upper hand.
Hate to break it to you, but most people see through the shallowness of "I brought more friends" as a way to win competitive games.
The overwhelming majority of PVP/competitive games we play are testament to that. Football would be retarded if one team could bring in twice the players to overwhelm the opposing team. So would Chess, all RTSes, all FPSes, just about every conceivable game mankind has ever created except for MMORPGs.
The reason for the inherent unpopularity of "I brought more friends"-style PVP is that it's really shallow.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
There is not much of a point to miss, you are doing your usual moan about games which give some kind of advantage to the side with greater numbers. I hate to break this to you but sometimes it makes perfect sense that a side with greater numbers has the upper hand.
Hate to break it to you, but most people see through the shallowness of "I brought more friends" as a way to win competitive games.
The overwhelming majority of PVP/competitive games we play are testament to that. Football would be retarded if one team could bring in twice the players to overwhelm the opposing team. So would Chess, all RTSes, all FPSes, just about every conceivable game mankind has ever created except for MMORPGs.
The reason for the inherent unpopularity of "I brought more friends"-style PVP is that it's really shallow.
And when you step out of the mindset of viewing every single fucking mmorpg at it's root as a "competitive e-sport" you will realise why you are wrong.
Chess and Football would indeed be stupid if you could bring more players, but then last time I checked they were sports and not world/battle simulators.
Personally I love equal team, skill driven, e-sport pvp. But I love it in games and environs built explicitly for that. Far more importantly I realise that there are other types of games and other types of pvp, that are not about "equality" all the time, that are not about "fairness" all the time. Variety can be fun you know.
Some mmos are meant to simulate worlds, they are not meant to simulate sports.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
And when you step out of the mindset of viewing every single fucking mmorpg at it's root as a "competitive e-sport" you will realise why you are wrong.
Chess and Football would indeed be stupid if you could bring more players, but then last time I checked they were sports and not world/battle simulators.
Personally I love equal team, skill driven, e-sport pvp. But I love it in games and environs built explicitly for that. Far more importantly I realise that there are other types of games and other types of pvp, that are not about "equality" all the time, that are not about "fairness" all the time. Variety can be fun you know.
Some mmos are meant to simulate worlds, they are not meant to simulate sports.
I view MMORPGs as they are -- then for the ones which dilute their PVP with non-skill elements I point out that they'd be much more successful, popular, and fun if they didn't allow non-skill elements to destroy the experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I view MMORPGs as they are -- then for the ones which dilute their PVP with non-skill elements I point out that they'd be much more successful, popular, and fun if they didn't allow non-skill elements to destroy the experience.
Point is not all games should be about same. About creating e-sport same numbers feeling. There are LOTS of games liek that and good I like to play them. I just wonder why you try to force an idea ALL games should be like that.
Not to mention than in well made RvR game skill matter greatly as well. It is you who view slap non-skill on everything you do not like.
Try to accept diversity, it really helps genre as whole. Creativeness and diversity can bring new nice things. + you have loads e-sport arena type games to play and to be released.
edit:
One question to you Axehilt. Just because arena type pvp is more popular atm , games with RvR /teritorial control and non-equal numbers pvp should NOT be made?
There is not much of a point to miss, you are doing your usual moan about games which give some kind of advantage to the side with greater numbers. I hate to break this to you but sometimes it makes perfect sense that a side with greater numbers has the upper hand.
Hate to break it to you, but most people see through the shallowness of "I brought more friends" as a way to win competitive games.
The overwhelming majority of PVP/competitive games we play are testament to that. Football would be retarded if one team could bring in twice the players to overwhelm the opposing team. So would Chess, all RTSes, all FPSes, just about every conceivable game mankind has ever created except for MMORPGs.
The reason for the inherent unpopularity of "I brought more friends"-style PVP is that it's really shallow.
It doesn't seem fair to compare warfare games to e-sports. One is individual static matches with individual victory conditions, and the other is a persistent state engagement comprises of hundreds or even thousands of matches.
The goal in a sport is to get a higher score than the next guy/team. The goal in a wargame is to deplete the enemy's resources before they can deplete yours. In the former, you often need a level playing field for each battle. In the latter, if you're on a level playing field in a battle, both sides are doing something wrong.
The two are designed very differently in many other regards, as well, but the point is that 'shallow' has nothing to do with it. Your agument about what would make a game 'retarded' applies to sports and team-based matches, however in a wargame or warfare sim - whether it's Civilization, RISK or EVE Online - bringing the biggest guns or the largest army to the individual battles is usually a legitimate and wise decision.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'm looking forward to the pvp in GW2 and TSW, I trust both dev teams will deal appropriately with the zerg potential, i.e., I trust they'll make damn sure it isn't the deciding factor in pvp. I brought more friends, therefore I win is perfectly appropriate from a realistic standpoint, but not for MMOs, due to time constraints, the tendency of players to flock to winning guilds and winning factions, and the fact that, franky, real life sucks, and we'd all skip out on its crappier content and just enjoy the good stuff if we could.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
And when you step out of the mindset of viewing every single fucking mmorpg at it's root as a "competitive e-sport" you will realise why you are wrong.
Chess and Football would indeed be stupid if you could bring more players, but then last time I checked they were sports and not world/battle simulators.
Personally I love equal team, skill driven, e-sport pvp. But I love it in games and environs built explicitly for that. Far more importantly I realise that there are other types of games and other types of pvp, that are not about "equality" all the time, that are not about "fairness" all the time. Variety can be fun you know.
Some mmos are meant to simulate worlds, they are not meant to simulate sports.
I view MMORPGs as they are -- then for the ones which dilute their PVP with non-skill elements I point out that they'd be much more successful, popular, and fun if they didn't allow non-skill elements to destroy the experience.
Still can't look at things from a non e-sport mode I see. Ah well nevermind eh, luckily enough not everyone shares that blinkered viewpoint.
It is funny that you mention the word "dilute" though, what with the fact that 99.99% of all mmorpg instanced/e-sport pvp is diluted shite predominantly played by casuals. Why in Gods name an e-sport advocate would be looking at progression/gear grind based games, often with poor server tech is a strange one, given there are dedicated e-sport games out there and all.
Still I am capable of thinking, what the hell, some people like it so fair play to them.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
It is funny that you mention the word "dilute" though, what with the fact that 99.99% of all mmorpg instanced/e-sport pvp is diluted shite predominantly played by casuals. Why in Gods name an e-sport advocate would be looking at progression/gear grind based games, often with poor server tech is a strange one, given there are dedicated e-sport games out there and all.
Still I am capable of thinking, what the hell, some people like it so fair play to them.
You clearly identify that they're not great PVP, so why wouldn't I point out ways they could be better?
I get my PVP from undiluted games, and simply point out how MMORPGs could be better if they were also undiluted.
If we're talking "casuals", nothing is as casual as winning via non-skill factors. Open world PVP MMORPGs are actually quite casual in that skill isn't actually all that important (just find a few friends or grind longer and you'll have significant advantages over players who might otherwise beat you.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Prime has a very nice community actually. Come by one of the live streams they do, and you can see for yourself. Not sure what the other guy is talking about
are all the live streams friday at 3 pm EST? in work at that time
Ya unfortunately, (i watch from work lol), but they're all recorded so people can watch later, just don't have the benefit of seeing the chat.
from what I recall in other games I played, yep. they usually value people having played DAOC with them, being in recognizable guilds and such.the rest apparently are from easy mode games for retards, unworthy of inhabiting the same virtual world as them and pretend to be PvPers when actually they are not.
I played DAOC and I can tell you, there is nothing that annoys me more than finding and exDAOC in the game I play, for some reason I'll never understand most of them have developed an unbearably elitist attitude that is almost tangible thru the tubes...
I've run into probably hundreds of former DAoC players, some from huge guilds... what I've run into is an idealized view of DAoC's pvp, but I guess I've been lucky not to run into anyone who looks down on players who didn't play DAoC, since most of my friends never got the chance.
Compared to Titan I still think it will launch earlier. CCP have worked longer on it and Blizzard is famous for delaying games.
Heck, they remade Diablo 2 from scratch 3 times and Diablo 3 was in working alpha state 2004.
While I fear 2013-2014 might be true for WoDO there is no way Titan releases before 2016, unless Activision fires Morhaime and replaces him with one of their corp guys.
Well, so long after people tend to forget the bad stuff about anything.
But DaoC did some things really right and I wish Mythic actually learned from it.
I think there is a huge potential in RvR but you need to get it just right for it to work. The old "side A wins because they are cooler so more players play them" wont really work.
RvR should involve both strategy and good hard fights. I would love it if they used a similar strategical system to the marines in "Natural selection".
Anyways, no person really have the right to look down on someone that missed a game. And if you really want it there are actually some free vanilla DaoC servers (I am actually pretty sure they are legal unlike the vanilla Wow servers) so you could actually get a few friends and play it a little to see what you missed.
Mass players can be done *without* "more players wins".
See: Planetside.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think Planetside 2 will be another one. It is pretty much what the game is based around.
Those games are FFA, not RvR.. If anything GvG (Guild VS Guild). EVE, DF, L1, L2
FFA is good.
EVERY MMO in the past few years was RvR - WAR, Aion, WoW, you name it.
(2 Realm)RvR sucks balls.
You'll find that's extraordinarily common in any Old Game.
I was there, was playing, and now listen to modern descriptions of beautiful, perfect games that never happened.
Man, I wish the games I played were even half as good as the nostalgia-backlit pictures of the games I played.
That being said, I think Prime is the most likely of all of the games listed upthread to produce something fairly similar to olde-tyme DAoC-style RvRvR.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
nostalgia is a powerful drug
While WAR and Aion fit the bill of RVR, WoW most certainly does not... the closest thing to RVR in WoW was Wintergrasp (at least until Cata)... while it has an element of what makes RVR great, I think it was too limited for me to really say WoW had RVR
Not all mmo games are set up to be twitch skill based, they have progression/rpg elements. They are also meant to be living worlds and more than a combat box like Planetside... an mmofps game.
I prefer twitch but then when I play team pvp games I tend not to play dumbed down mmo badlefields.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Way to focus on the twitch, and not the game mechanics which cause PS to NOT be about "more players wins".
You've officially missed the point.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You used an mmofps as an example, a poor example.
There is not much of a point to miss, you are doing your usual moan about games which give some kind of advantage to the side with greater numbers. I hate to break this to you but sometimes it makes perfect sense that a side with greater numbers has the upper hand.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The one thing I don't like about the direction rvr generally goes in is the usual 2 faction systems, like in WAR. TSW with it's 3 factions is going in the right direction in my opinion, like daoc and planetside (yea yea, persistent fps.. same deal).
I really don't see TOR being known for it's pvp, it just doesn't seem like something that genre would focus on.. We'll see.
As for WAR, it was quite sad that the people who made doac failed to re-create that pvp experience.. ah well
Hate to break it to you, but most people see through the shallowness of "I brought more friends" as a way to win competitive games.
The overwhelming majority of PVP/competitive games we play are testament to that. Football would be retarded if one team could bring in twice the players to overwhelm the opposing team. So would Chess, all RTSes, all FPSes, just about every conceivable game mankind has ever created except for MMORPGs.
The reason for the inherent unpopularity of "I brought more friends"-style PVP is that it's really shallow.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And when you step out of the mindset of viewing every single fucking mmorpg at it's root as a "competitive e-sport" you will realise why you are wrong.
Chess and Football would indeed be stupid if you could bring more players, but then last time I checked they were sports and not world/battle simulators.
Personally I love equal team, skill driven, e-sport pvp. But I love it in games and environs built explicitly for that. Far more importantly I realise that there are other types of games and other types of pvp, that are not about "equality" all the time, that are not about "fairness" all the time. Variety can be fun you know.
Some mmos are meant to simulate worlds, they are not meant to simulate sports.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I view MMORPGs as they are -- then for the ones which dilute their PVP with non-skill elements I point out that they'd be much more successful, popular, and fun if they didn't allow non-skill elements to destroy the experience.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Point is not all games should be about same. About creating e-sport same numbers feeling. There are LOTS of games liek that and good I like to play them. I just wonder why you try to force an idea ALL games should be like that.
Not to mention than in well made RvR game skill matter greatly as well. It is you who view slap non-skill on everything you do not like.
Try to accept diversity, it really helps genre as whole. Creativeness and diversity can bring new nice things. + you have loads e-sport arena type games to play and to be released.
edit:
One question to you Axehilt. Just because arena type pvp is more popular atm , games with RvR /teritorial control and non-equal numbers pvp should NOT be made?
It doesn't seem fair to compare warfare games to e-sports. One is individual static matches with individual victory conditions, and the other is a persistent state engagement comprises of hundreds or even thousands of matches.
The goal in a sport is to get a higher score than the next guy/team. The goal in a wargame is to deplete the enemy's resources before they can deplete yours. In the former, you often need a level playing field for each battle. In the latter, if you're on a level playing field in a battle, both sides are doing something wrong.
The two are designed very differently in many other regards, as well, but the point is that 'shallow' has nothing to do with it. Your agument about what would make a game 'retarded' applies to sports and team-based matches, however in a wargame or warfare sim - whether it's Civilization, RISK or EVE Online - bringing the biggest guns or the largest army to the individual battles is usually a legitimate and wise decision.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'm looking forward to the pvp in GW2 and TSW, I trust both dev teams will deal appropriately with the zerg potential, i.e., I trust they'll make damn sure it isn't the deciding factor in pvp. I brought more friends, therefore I win is perfectly appropriate from a realistic standpoint, but not for MMOs, due to time constraints, the tendency of players to flock to winning guilds and winning factions, and the fact that, franky, real life sucks, and we'd all skip out on its crappier content and just enjoy the good stuff if we could.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Still can't look at things from a non e-sport mode I see. Ah well nevermind eh, luckily enough not everyone shares that blinkered viewpoint.
It is funny that you mention the word "dilute" though, what with the fact that 99.99% of all mmorpg instanced/e-sport pvp is diluted shite predominantly played by casuals. Why in Gods name an e-sport advocate would be looking at progression/gear grind based games, often with poor server tech is a strange one, given there are dedicated e-sport games out there and all.
Still I am capable of thinking, what the hell, some people like it so fair play to them.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
You clearly identify that they're not great PVP, so why wouldn't I point out ways they could be better?
I get my PVP from undiluted games, and simply point out how MMORPGs could be better if they were also undiluted.
If we're talking "casuals", nothing is as casual as winning via non-skill factors. Open world PVP MMORPGs are actually quite casual in that skill isn't actually all that important (just find a few friends or grind longer and you'll have significant advantages over players who might otherwise beat you.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver