I have been following this not as much as I would like to the past 6 months. I am not sure if this was made clear and I apologize if I missed this, but will it be an open world? For example will there be travel on foot, horse, ship all around the world?
MarkJacobsCEO City State EntertainmentMemberRarePosts: 649
edited January 2016
filmoret said:
DrunkWolf said:
I just hope its not like GW2 where each area sends their giant blob of players to go zerg the other giant blob of players that is zerging some other area trying to kill the 3rd giant blob of zergness.
So you want low populations I can get that. No matter what you do a massive warfare game will end up with blobs if they have a high population. ESO did the best job because you can just sneak and let the blob run past your small group.
----------------
I don't think at has to be that way. Blobs happen for a number of reasons, chief among them is the efficiency of blob/zerg play. If we can offer a better way for people to progress (meaning it will be more rewarding), then I think there will be less blobs.
DrunkWolf said:
I just hope its not like GW2 where each area sends their giant blob of players to go zerg the other giant blob of players that is zerging some other area trying to kill the 3rd giant blob of zergness.
----------------
As per above, I don't think that will be a problem for the game. But as always, time will tell.
JamesGoblin said:
grumpy43 said:
donger56 said:
I was interested in this game early on but as things progressed I started to really wonder if what they are doing makes sense. First off they are going with the old school box fee and monthly sub business model. Big mistake imo. I don't see enough people paying a sub for a PvP only MMORPG. I think buy to play would have been a better option only because I hate F2P with the burning heat of a thousand suns.
MJ has said, this is a niche game, I suspect 25K subs keeps the studio healthy and 50K subs is crazy success for a small studio; this also allows the investors to be paid back.
personal guess-timation:
25K sub x 14.99 = 4.5M a year
50K sub x 14.99 = 9.0M a year
donger56 said:
I think DAOC was a great game that brought a lot to the MMO genre, but Warhammer Online was a complete disaster so which type of game will we get from Jacobs this time? I hope it's another DAOC that brings some new life to a stale genre, but I'm not betting money on it. I'll wait until next year to see what they release.
Warhammer Online had many cooks in the kitchen and I don't believe MJ was the head Chef, you need to spread the blame around for the initial release gameplay. In CU MJ is the head Chef, if we (the collective) don't like this one I'm pretty sure he'll let us throw pie's at him
Speaking of napkin math, CU crossed the 25k backers mark quite some time ago - I believe it's closer to 30k (at this point - in my estimate a year and a half before launch) and will land between 40 and 50k before launch time.
Based on that, those estimates of yours (even the upper one) seem quite pessimistic to me - that is, even with retention included!?
PS Warhammer had lots and lots of good stuff in it, as a rule neglected and forgotten due to it's general tragic fate. And yes, Mark's credibility took a huge hit - ironically, mostly due to an excellent hyping job he and Paul Barnett did before EA launched that early beta...
------------------
True, WAR had a lot of issues but, all in all, we only had a total of 3 years on the game, compared to 5+ years games like SWToR, ESO, WoW, were given etc. and we still managed to create a game that added a lot of new things to the genre, was a lot of fun for a lot of people for a while and lasted until the license expired and received far less support from EA that it deserved (WAR's marketing budget was less than we spent developing Dark Age of Camelot and we only spent 2.5M on Dark Age). Yeah, it was flawed but another year would have made a huge difference in terms of the game's unacceptable amount of bugs at launch. Unfortunately, that was not to be.
I personally like to fight in zergs and have massive battles over realm objectives. I also like for there to be group vs group and 1 vs 1 battles. I hope CU has such a variety of activities and objectives that all play styles have a place in the game.
I think one of the most important things that will determine large scale success (beyond the usual "is it fun") is how will the game feel solo vs group.
To explain:
I played WAR at launch and stuck with it for 6 months. The way the classes and combat was designed, groups just annihilated everyone. There was so much AoE from every class that unless you were in a group, you just got annihilated in every fight. However, if you were in a group, it kicked ass, lots of interdependency meant that a 6man premade was 10x better than 6 randoms.
As a result, all the casuals quit. It became harder and harder to find groups as more and more people quit. In WAR, the game just flat out sucked unless you were running in a 6man premade or 24man raid. You'd occasionally have some roaming fun, but power and class imbalances made that really rare too.
Conversely, LotRO was far more forgiving regarding group size. Sure, not the best PvP ever, but regardless of whether you were solo, duo, grouped or raiding, you could contribute and have fun. Sure, you'd get focused fired every now and again and drop quick, but most classes still had an emergency skill that could save them / help them escape if there were allies nearby. In lotro, I knew I could pvp any time of day in any group size and still have fun, still progress and still contribute overall. I think the biggest factors in lotro for making it accessible was slightly slower combat (1.5s gcd), minimal AoE and generally longer TTK.
I'm hoping CU can combine the accessibility of lotro with the epicness of war. I don't want to ever log in to CU and have to log off again because I can't find a group.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I think one of the most important things that will determine large scale success (beyond the usual "is it fun") is how will the game feel solo vs group.
To explain:
I played WAR at launch and stuck with it for 6 months. The way the classes and combat was designed, groups just annihilated everyone. There was so much AoE from every class that unless you were in a group, you just got annihilated in every fight. However, if you were in a group, it kicked ass, lots of interdependency meant that a 6man premade was 10x better than 6 randoms.
As a result, all the casuals quit. It became harder and harder to find groups as more and more people quit. In WAR, the game just flat out sucked unless you were running in a 6man premade or 24man raid. You'd occasionally have some roaming fun, but power and class imbalances made that really rare too.
Conversely, LotRO was far more forgiving regarding group size. Sure, not the best PvP ever, but regardless of whether you were solo, duo, grouped or raiding, you could contribute and have fun. Sure, you'd get focused fired every now and again and drop quick, but most classes still had an emergency skill that could save them / help them escape if there were allies nearby. In lotro, I knew I could pvp any time of day in any group size and still have fun, still progress and still contribute overall. I think the biggest factors in lotro for making it accessible was slightly slower combat (1.5s gcd), minimal AoE and generally longer TTK.
I'm hoping CU can combine the accessibility of lotro with the epicness of war. I don't want to ever log in to CU and have to log off again because I can't find a group.
@cameltosis You left WAR quite early it seems, anyway I remember having lots of roaming fun (together with scenarios, it made majority of my playtime) good part of which was solo or sometimes PUGs.
That is, I don't remember a single "aw, no group, let's log out" moment - and I played till the very shutdown!?
I don't want hardcore PvP or carebear PvP I want fun PvP.
FINALLY someone that understands gaming ..../bows. Nobody cares about winning or losing if it is just fun to do.
Example the first two wave of big pvp games were Quake and Unreal,i played strictly for FUN,geesh i was one of the last users on 56k while everyone else was on DSL,so yeah i was playing for FUN.Of course it is more fun when winning but if you can die/lose and still feel satisfied then the game has succeeded.
The problem i see is more about the gamer's and not the game itself.Everywhere i watch pvp it is far too serious/anger,i see maybe 1% of the players playing for fun.Most are too worried about what rank they get and start insults when losing and geesh even insults when winning.This is a VERY immature crowd of gamer's we have,nothing new of course but just bothers me because for years all i heard was "we play for FUN"..i call BS on that claim.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I don't want hardcore PvP or carebear PvP I want fun PvP.
... Nobody cares about winning or losing if it is just fun to do.
....
The problem i see is more about the gamer's and not the game itself....This is a VERY immature crowd of gamer's we have,nothing new of course but just bothers me because for years all i heard was "we play for FUN"..i call BS on that claim.
This is a very large part of the problem. Another part is that game designers are designing games for those that play for fun and not designing for the actual mentality of gamers. In any game, assuming gamers will act 'fairly' to keep the game 'fun' is just bad design.
I was wondering ware this article was going at first (good write up BTW). While full loot PvP isn't my thing, I do have the utmost respect for the hardcore PvPer's. It's not that I don't have the nerve for FL PvP. It's more the kind of Gamer who's normally drawn to that style of game play isn't who I enjoy gaming with (either on my team or against me). I'm not the kind of Gamer who can disconnect from myself enough to attack another Player for no reason other then I think I can win and want their stuff (or kill just to get a kill). I don't enjoy bullying the weak and choose not to do so in my games, but I don't hold it against those who do. It is just a game, after all.
In my experience (mostly DAoC), no loot RvR appeals to a different kind of Gamer. The the rules of engagement are quit different for RvR. If I'm a crafter, gathering for my Realm, I wouldn't hold it against anyone who comes to kill me, I'd do the same. Something about doing it for your realm has incredible redeeming qualities IMO, both in justifying my motivations and everyone I'm fighting against. I have things I must protect, land and buildings, yes, but more importantly I must protect my Realm mates. Same with the other guy.
As to if I would consider a CU style game more hardcore than a FL PvP one. IMO no. It just wont have the same slap to the face a FL PvP would have, no matter how emotional invested I might get in my realm. It's just on a different level. Even my worst day of DAoC it was nothing compared to my best FL PvP day (days ware I was killed by other players).
This is the key reason I have little interest in CF, in spite of it being a fairly similar game to CU. Most of the time (no matter what side your on) you'll be fighting for yourself, read to jump ship as soon as the wind changes. Nothing wrong with that, just not my cup of tea. Now there will be other rule set servers of course, but the game as a whole will draw more Gamers who love FL PvP.
Just a random thought but FL PvP isn't as hardcore as it gets. Every one draws the line some ware.
I was wondering ware this article was going at first (good write up BTW). While full loot PvP isn't my thing, I do have the utmost respect for the hardcore PvPer's. It's not that I don't have the nerve for FL PvP. It's more the kind of Gamer who's normally drawn to that style of game play isn't who I enjoy gaming with (either on my team or against me). I'm not the kind of Gamer who can disconnect from myself enough to attack another Player for no reason other then I think I can win and want their stuff (or kill just to get a kill). I don't enjoy bullying the weak and choose not to do so in my games, but I don't hold it against those who do. It is just a game, after all.
In my experience (mostly DAoC), no loot RvR appeals to a different kind of Gamer. The the rules of engagement are quit different for RvR. If I'm a crafter, gathering for my Realm, I wouldn't hold it against anyone who comes to kill me, I'd do the same. Something about doing it for your realm has incredible redeeming qualities IMO, both in justifying my motivations and everyone I'm fighting against. I have things I must protect, land and buildings, yes, but more importantly I must protect my Realm mates. Same with the other guy.
As to if I would consider a CU style game more hardcore than a FL PvP one. IMO no. It just wont have the same slap to the face a FL PvP would have, no matter how emotional invested I might get in my realm. It's just on a different level. Even my worst day of DAoC it was nothing compared to my best FL PvP day (days ware I was killed by other players).
This is the key reason I have little interest in CF, in spite of it being a fairly similar game to CU. Most of the time (no matter what side your on) you'll be fighting for yourself, read to jump ship as soon as the wind changes. Nothing wrong with that, just not my cup of tea. Now there will be other rule set servers of course, but the game as a whole will draw more Gamers who love FL PvP.
Just a random thought but FL PvP isn't as hardcore as it gets. Every one draws the line some ware.
@zotelf Interesting read, I mostly agree - just couple remarks.
Speaking of hardcore, you might want to read some of the first page posts here - it's far from clear what is "hardcorer", especially if we compare CU's hinted FFA servers with classical FFA FL.
Speaking of CF vs CU, I believe that the overlapping and cannibalizing between these will be much stronger than many seem to think - for at least two reasons (there is much more, but these two are rarely mentioned; also, the following assumes that both games will manage to successfully jump over couple tricky hurdles on their way to launch):
CF is not FFA FL game (!) It will have some such rulesets, but servers will be formed "on demand" and, based on history, it can easily happen that people either leave or it all boils down to only a couple of hardcore servers, with more than 90% of playerbase in, say, RvRvR or something "soft". Not that I would like that to happen, but there are some historical tendencies... :P
Lots of people are unaware of all the things one will be able to lose in CU, and how much it might hurt (one's pocket or ego - FFA servers aside); Unlike popular opinion, CU is simply notDAoC 2, and some parallels - often made on autopilot - might be misleading.
Also, folks fighting "for themselves" in CF will likely leave the game rather quickly . That would be like fighting for oneself in, say, EvE; Furthermore, due to horizontal leveling, CU folks will be able to change their realm/server relatively quickly, and due to the inevitable imbalance - lots of them will likely be doing so (we are talking Realm vs Alliance / Guild / Corp loyalty).
I'm not saying there isn't important difference between the two, just IMO there is much less than one might think - especially on some somewhat "unexpected" places.
I think one of the most important things that will determine large scale success (beyond the usual "is it fun") is how will the game feel solo vs group.
To explain:
I played WAR at launch and stuck with it for 6 months. The way the classes and combat was designed, groups just annihilated everyone. There was so much AoE from every class that unless you were in a group, you just got annihilated in every fight. However, if you were in a group, it kicked ass, lots of interdependency meant that a 6man premade was 10x better than 6 randoms.
As a result, all the casuals quit. It became harder and harder to find groups as more and more people quit. In WAR, the game just flat out sucked unless you were running in a 6man premade or 24man raid. You'd occasionally have some roaming fun, but power and class imbalances made that really rare too.
Conversely, LotRO was far more forgiving regarding group size. Sure, not the best PvP ever, but regardless of whether you were solo, duo, grouped or raiding, you could contribute and have fun. Sure, you'd get focused fired every now and again and drop quick, but most classes still had an emergency skill that could save them / help them escape if there were allies nearby. In lotro, I knew I could pvp any time of day in any group size and still have fun, still progress and still contribute overall. I think the biggest factors in lotro for making it accessible was slightly slower combat (1.5s gcd), minimal AoE and generally longer TTK.
I'm hoping CU can combine the accessibility of lotro with the epicness of war. I don't want to ever log in to CU and have to log off again because I can't find a group.
@cameltosis You left WAR quite early it seems, anyway I remember having lots of roaming fun (together with scenarios, it made majority of my playtime) good part of which was solo or sometimes PUGs.
That is, I don't remember a single "aw, no group, let's log out" moment - and I played till the very shutdown!?
The point at which I left, about 80% of the people who I'd started with had left the game and we'd already gone through a round or two of server merges.
The main problem was just the massive power gap between premades and randoms. For example, in a scenario, if we had our 6man premade plus 6 randoms versus 12 randoms, we'd win 95% of the time. In the proper world pvp, you needed a decent sized group to do anything of importance (i.e. take keeps, cut off resupply routes), otherwise you were relegated to roaming or clinging to the zerg. Roaming could be fun if you had the right class, but for myself (blorc) it mostly sucked.
Admittedly, I came back to WAR for a few months much later on and things had changed. When I returned (about 15months after release iirc) almost all of the hardcore guilds had quit and there were hardly any large guilds left. They'd also trivialised getting gear and ranking up to 70 which reduced the power gap a lot, so when I came back the solo vs group thing was a lot less of an issue.
Never-the-less, it was a big issue at launch, both for me personally and for a lot of my friends.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Predetermined faction PvP just isn't my thing, because it doesn't really open itself to politics and backstabbing, which is for me a huge part of large-scale PvP.
Because of that I've backed Crowfall instead of Camelot. Crowfall also seems to dodge the biggest problem with player faction PvP games - stagnation after one faction dominates all others.
Game changes, players get different stuff, the political landscape and battle for Power always changes.
Game changes???You really think this is going to be a game that has changes?
Different stuff??Like what that you can't already do in every mmorpg in existence?
Political power,fighting for power.:Well i think seems obvious but remember Warhammer had such a system and the 3 RvR ideas and it failed badly.We really should learn from ideas that nobody seems to care about.
Is this really what people want which is to generate a world and jot down a few assets that players flag for pvp and fight over?I mean i see that thousands still play H1Z1 and all they do is play a one dimensional game over and over but i just don't see it in a long term game like a mmorpg.
All i see are these Banes and Boons ,so some stats nothing you will see in game.I looked them over and i see a lot of meaningless stats.More importantly will this affect weather guilds or Realms are going to pvp,i don't think it will have much impact at all.
I have played a game VERY similar to this that was a 2D game and a very costly cash shop.Although the game was setup for really just pvp and owning various artifacts ,players really for the most part just wanted PVE.
We look back at Warhammer,they even tried to fill vacancies with npc's because that is a downfall of this type design and it still did not pan out.So i really fail to see how this game is going to pull off what has already been tried and not only failed but was simply not very popular.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
50k :Well if that is his aim ,then that is a reasonable goal.
PVE-Still not sure if he is saying there will be content PVE or just PVE in terms of crafting.
Pve is always a touchy area,no leveling that doesn't really say much either.We need to know the depth and scope of PVE or is it just a superficial cover of the game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Evening all, Long time skulker on MMOrpg and dont post much but had to on this topic.
I have played multiple accounts and games since 97 with UO. Like a lot of people on here the amount of compiled information in my head is astronomical. However only a few games have stuck out in my head.
UO- for building houses and creating a business (for being first) EQ for the just free to run and go so many places SWG by far the best and original crafting /housing and size.. DAOC by far was the best for pvp/rvr Later crafting addition later was cool adding to armor (with gems and all) housing was never great but decent..
This all said I wanted to express what DAOC was truly about to me and others for those who never saw it. DAOC was very much like eq in pVe and had a decent size world split in 3 areas. It was not ground breaking, alot of quest go kill 5 and return .... Decent dungeons and equal graphics.. But the huge advantage to others was not seen till you hit 45ish or more and went to the open realms..
In one of your 3 areas you were safe from all and only died if you pulled to much you wanted to kill, however in the open areas you could die to other players.. with 3 areas and each had castles and were controlled by one of the 3 realms. Now if you held the majority of castles you got access to a shared dungeon that had the best loot in the game (mostly) and was the farming spot. This might not sound like much and was just the core what made it awesome as as follows....
A zerg of 100 people run to realms to get castles.. You could follow the zerg and it was tough to take a castle if just 10% of players defending. But worse still if the 3rd team came behind you and wiped out your entire force. It was very social and organized. ---- So if you like social and want to be with 100 people zerg you could do it.
But while this is happening a team of 6 (good players) or ever 12-18 decent could sneak behind the lines and take a castle undefended in 10 minutes. ---- This is for the PVP lovers. You can have small groups and it was very fast paced action
Also if you were a stealth class you could take on even 3 if you knew what you doing --- want true solo PVP it was very possible.
ALL in all DAOC was a very great game and if CU does anything like this and keeps balance between realms it will be a success. I will follow with high hopes...
@zotelf Interesting read, I mostly agree - just couple remarks.
Speaking of hardcore, you might want to read some of the first page posts here - it's far from clear what is "hardcorer", especially if we compare CU's hinted FFA servers with classical FFA FL.
Speaking of CF vs CU, I believe that the overlapping and cannibalizing between these will be much stronger than many seem to think - for at least two reasons (there is much more, but these two are rarely mentioned; also, the following assumes that both games will manage to successfully jump over couple tricky hurdles on their way to launch):
CF is not FFA FL game (!) It will have some such rulesets, but servers will be formed "on demand" and, based on history, it can easily happen that people either leave or it all boils down to only a couple of hardcore servers, with more than 90% of playerbase in, say, RvRvR or something "soft". Not that I would like that to happen, but there are some historical tendencies... :P
Lots of people are unaware of all the things one will be able to lose in CU, and how much it might hurt (one's pocket or ego - FFA servers aside); Unlike popular opinion, CU is simply notDAoC 2, and some parallels - often made on autopilot - might be misleading.
Also, folks fighting "for themselves" in CF will likely leave the game rather quickly . That would be like fighting for oneself in, say, EvE; Furthermore, due to horizontal leveling, CU folks will be able to change their realm/server relatively quickly, and due to the inevitable imbalance - lots of them will likely be doing so (we are talking Realm vs Alliance / Guild / Corp loyalty).
I'm not saying there isn't important difference between the two, just IMO there is much less than one might think - especially on some somewhat "unexpected" places.
JamesGoblin Thanks. You have some interesting points here yourself. You may very well be right, but I see some things differently.
Forgive me if I get this wrong, but I'm guessing you didn't play DAoC, or not during it's heyday? In CU players will not be able to change realms on the same server, unless they're willing to delete every toon they have. I can't speak for every one but I played solely on one server with one realm for 8 years. Of those I did play with I knew no one who bounced around like your describing (not of the people I got to know that is). DAoC you be came vary invested in your realm/server and to switch servers was rather unappealing. Camelot Unchained will be the same way. When we did get transient players (there was always some) they were never the important or powerful players.
When I said "for themselves", I meant those who put there own self interest first, not Gamer's who refuse to work with others. Those with self interest in mind always join guilds, but they will jump ship as soon as they feel the winds shift. Backstabbing your Realm because the chips are down (as a guild or individual) isn't the sort of game I want to be part of. My Realm in DAoC was the underdog Realm on my server, and I wouldn't have want it any other way. We had a saying on that Midgard server, "when you help your Realm, you help yourself'.
Pretty much every Gamer in every game I've ever meet or played with always had their own self interest in mind (myself included). I mean, why wouldn't you? Then I came across DAoC...it left me speechless. I've never found anything like it, random people would pitch good gear to me just because my class could use it. Standing around crafting people would give me money, saying things like 'the realm needs more crafters'. In DAoC I put the realm first, and so did all most all of those around me.
I can't wait for a game were I'm not always putting myself first. I'm sold CU will be that kind of game. Yes, this isn't DAoC 2...IMO it's going to be better. One thing that CU will have in common with DAoC is the focus on Realm, and the pride that comes with it. Hell, that's a major part of their Foundational Principle #10. Realm server pride would mean nothing if it was advantages to change sides.
I'm a 'one game' kind of Gamer, and was sold on CU long before CF launch there KS. I've not been following anything about CF since their KS funded, but what I saw during it told me full loot player vs player was their target customer. This is the first I've heard any body think the full loot PvP server's well be the exception, rather than the rule. I'm not look for a game that rewards fair weather Gamers.
@zotelf Interesting read, I mostly agree - just couple remarks.
Speaking of hardcore, you might want to read some of the first page posts here - it's far from clear what is "hardcorer", especially if we compare CU's hinted FFA servers with classical FFA FL.
Speaking of CF vs CU, I believe that the overlapping and cannibalizing between these will be much stronger than many seem to think - for at least two reasons (there is much more, but these two are rarely mentioned; also, the following assumes that both games will manage to successfully jump over couple tricky hurdles on their way to launch):
CF is not FFA FL game (!) It will have some such rulesets, but servers will be formed "on demand" and, based on history, it can easily happen that people either leave or it all boils down to only a couple of hardcore servers, with more than 90% of playerbase in, say, RvRvR or something "soft". Not that I would like that to happen, but there are some historical tendencies... :P
Lots of people are unaware of all the things one will be able to lose in CU, and how much it might hurt (one's pocket or ego - FFA servers aside); Unlike popular opinion, CU is simply notDAoC 2, and some parallels - often made on autopilot - might be misleading.
Also, folks fighting "for themselves" in CF will likely leave the game rather quickly . That would be like fighting for oneself in, say, EvE; Furthermore, due to horizontal leveling, CU folks will be able to change their realm/server relatively quickly, and due to the inevitable imbalance - lots of them will likely be doing so (we are talking Realm vs Alliance / Guild / Corp loyalty).
I'm not saying there isn't important difference between the two, just IMO there is much less than one might think - especially on some somewhat "unexpected" places.
JamesGoblin Thanks. You have some interesting points here yourself. You may very well be right, but I see some things differently.
Forgive me if I get this wrong, but I'm guessing you didn't play DAoC, or not during it's heyday? In CU players will not be able to change realms on the same server, unless they're willing to delete every toon they have. I can't speak for every one but I played solely on one server with one realm for 8 years. Of those I did play with I knew no one who bounced around like your describing (not of the people I got to know that is). DAoC you be came vary invested in your realm/server and to switch servers was rather unappealing. Camelot Unchained will be the same way. When we did get transient players (there was always some) they were never the important or powerful players.
When I said "for themselves", I meant those who put there own self interest first, not Gamer's who refuse to work with others. Those with self interest in mind always join guilds, but they will jump ship as soon as they feel the winds shift. Backstabbing your Realm because the chips are down (as a guild or individual) isn't the sort of game I want to be part of. My Realm in DAoC was the underdog Realm on my server, and I wouldn't have want it any other way. We had a saying on that Midgard server, "when you help your Realm, you help yourself'.
Pretty much every Gamer in every game I've ever meet or played with always had their own self interest in mind (myself included). I mean, why wouldn't you? Then I came across DAoC...it left me speechless. I've never found anything like it, random people would pitch good gear to me just because my class could use it. Standing around crafting people would give me money, saying things like 'the realm needs more crafters'. In DAoC I put the realm first, and so did all most all of those around me.
I can't wait for a game were I'm not always putting myself first. I'm sold CU will be that kind of game. Yes, this isn't DAoC 2...IMO it's going to be better. One thing that CU will have in common with DAoC is the focus on Realm, and the pride that comes with it. Hell, that's a major part of their Foundational Principle #10. Realm server pride would mean nothing if it was advantages to change sides.
@zotelf No matter the faction lock, deleting characters and swapping servers (or just moving to another server) will be quite frequent in the beginning (this is not DAOC leveling). If all goes well - ex-DAoC folks will be only a smaller part of launch population (furthermore - I guess you have somewhat rosy and romantic image of their dedication in general ).
Also, for the "fresh blood" - it might take some time before they develop pride and invest enough to become tied to one server / faction, unless they leave that is. By the way, you can find out more about Realm pride here.
Speaking of Crowfall, the way we perceive advertisement and the (honest!) intentions of it's devs won't necessarily project into reality. And the same goes for CU and their principles, needless to say.
Was just having a conversation with a buddy of mine last night about this very thing. He (being a gamer who never experienced Daoc) doesn't understand realm pride or the comment I made to him about cross realmers being run off the server. Its very hard to understand the level of pride most Daoc players had unless you were one.. Its equally difficult to explain why Daoc players had this loyalty. If CU is anything like Daoc. Which its undoubtedly shaping up to be. There will be fervent realm pride. Will there be players who can't quite decide which faction they want to play? Yes. Does that mean that many people will pick a faction and hop ship based on their realms progress or lack of it.. Doubtful..I also imagine that MJ will have a system in place that not only will you be unable to do such a thing, but it will be extremely costly. So if its extremely costly for one to hop ship, whats the point and who cares? What is the realm going to benefit from having someone of that mindset with them? One last note.. Look at the Realm ranking system in Daoc.. horizontal leveling? yes...But.. I can promise that a Rr10+ mid isn't going to delete his toon to roll a filthy hib or alb.
after all this year i still play warhammer i know gear make diference i know leveling make diference i know gem and stats make diference but guess what? i love and love more compare gw2/eso together
Comments
Hardcore: Letting bullied social misfits feel important since 1992.
~~ postlarval ~~
DrunkWolf said:
I just hope its not like GW2 where each area sends their giant blob of players to go zerg the other giant blob of players that is zerging some other area trying to kill the 3rd giant blob of zergness.
So you want low populations I can get that. No matter what you do a massive warfare game will end up with blobs if they have a high population. ESO did the best job because you can just sneak and let the blob run past your small group.
---------------- I don't think at has to be that way. Blobs happen for a number of reasons, chief among them is the efficiency of blob/zerg play. If we can offer a better way for people to progress (meaning it will be more rewarding), then I think there will be less blobs.
DrunkWolf said:
I just hope its not like GW2 where each area sends their giant blob of players to go zerg the other giant blob of players that is zerging some other area trying to kill the 3rd giant blob of zergness.
---------------- As per above, I don't think that will be a problem for the game. But as always, time will tell.
JamesGoblin said:
grumpy43 said:
donger56 said:
I was interested in this game early on but as things progressed I started to really wonder if what they are doing makes sense. First off they are going with the old school box fee and monthly sub business model. Big mistake imo. I don't see enough people paying a sub for a PvP only MMORPG. I think buy to play would have been a better option only because I hate F2P with the burning heat of a thousand suns.
MJ has said, this is a niche game, I suspect 25K subs keeps the studio healthy and 50K subs is crazy success for a small studio; this also allows the investors to be paid back.
personal guess-timation:
25K sub x 14.99 = 4.5M a year
50K sub x 14.99 = 9.0M a year
donger56 said:
I think DAOC was a great game that brought a lot to the MMO genre, but Warhammer Online was a complete disaster so which type of game will we get from Jacobs this time? I hope it's another DAOC that brings some new life to a stale genre, but I'm not betting money on it. I'll wait until next year to see what they release.
Warhammer Online had many cooks in the kitchen and I don't believe MJ was the head Chef, you need to spread the blame around for the initial release gameplay. In CU MJ is the head Chef, if we (the collective) don't like this one I'm pretty sure he'll let us throw pie's at him
Speaking of napkin math, CU crossed the 25k backers mark quite some time ago - I believe it's closer to 30k (at this point - in my estimate a year and a half before launch) and will land between 40 and 50k before launch time.
Based on that, those estimates of yours (even the upper one) seem quite pessimistic to me - that is, even with retention included!?
PS Warhammer had lots and lots of good stuff in it, as a rule neglected and forgotten due to it's general tragic fate. And yes, Mark's credibility took a huge hit - ironically, mostly due to an excellent hyping job he and Paul Barnett did before EA launched that early beta...
------------------ True, WAR had a lot of issues but, all in all, we only had a total of 3 years on the game, compared to 5+ years games like SWToR, ESO, WoW, were given etc. and we still managed to create a game that added a lot of new things to the genre, was a lot of fun for a lot of people for a while and lasted until the license expired and received far less support from EA that it deserved (WAR's marketing budget was less than we spent developing Dark Age of Camelot and we only spent 2.5M on Dark Age). Yeah, it was flawed but another year would have made a huge difference in terms of the game's unacceptable amount of bugs at launch. Unfortunately, that was not to be.
Mark Jacobs
CEO, City State Entertainment
To explain:
I played WAR at launch and stuck with it for 6 months. The way the classes and combat was designed, groups just annihilated everyone. There was so much AoE from every class that unless you were in a group, you just got annihilated in every fight. However, if you were in a group, it kicked ass, lots of interdependency meant that a 6man premade was 10x better than 6 randoms.
As a result, all the casuals quit. It became harder and harder to find groups as more and more people quit. In WAR, the game just flat out sucked unless you were running in a 6man premade or 24man raid. You'd occasionally have some roaming fun, but power and class imbalances made that really rare too.
Conversely, LotRO was far more forgiving regarding group size. Sure, not the best PvP ever, but regardless of whether you were solo, duo, grouped or raiding, you could contribute and have fun. Sure, you'd get focused fired every now and again and drop quick, but most classes still had an emergency skill that could save them / help them escape if there were allies nearby. In lotro, I knew I could pvp any time of day in any group size and still have fun, still progress and still contribute overall. I think the biggest factors in lotro for making it accessible was slightly slower combat (1.5s gcd), minimal AoE and generally longer TTK.
I'm hoping CU can combine the accessibility of lotro with the epicness of war. I don't want to ever log in to CU and have to log off again because I can't find a group.
That is, I don't remember a single "aw, no group, let's log out" moment - and I played till the very shutdown!?
Nobody cares about winning or losing if it is just fun to do.
Example the first two wave of big pvp games were Quake and Unreal,i played strictly for FUN,geesh i was one of the last users on 56k while everyone else was on DSL,so yeah i was playing for FUN.Of course it is more fun when winning but if you can die/lose and still feel satisfied then the game has succeeded.
The problem i see is more about the gamer's and not the game itself.Everywhere i watch pvp it is far too serious/anger,i see maybe 1% of the players playing for fun.Most are too worried about what rank they get and start insults when losing and geesh even insults when winning.This is a VERY immature crowd of gamer's we have,nothing new of course but just bothers me because for years all i heard was "we play for FUN"..i call BS on that claim.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
In my experience (mostly DAoC), no loot RvR appeals to a different kind of Gamer. The the rules of engagement are quit different for RvR. If I'm a crafter, gathering for my Realm, I wouldn't hold it against anyone who comes to kill me, I'd do the same. Something about doing it for your realm has incredible redeeming qualities IMO, both in justifying my motivations and everyone I'm fighting against. I have things I must protect, land and buildings, yes, but more importantly I must protect my Realm mates. Same with the other guy.
As to if I would consider a CU style game more hardcore than a FL PvP one. IMO no. It just wont have the same slap to the face a FL PvP would have, no matter how emotional invested I might get in my realm. It's just on a different level. Even my worst day of DAoC it was nothing compared to my best FL PvP day (days ware I was killed by other players).
This is the key reason I have little interest in CF, in spite of it being a fairly similar game to CU. Most of the time (no matter what side your on) you'll be fighting for yourself, read to jump ship as soon as the wind changes. Nothing wrong with that, just not my cup of tea. Now there will be other rule set servers of course, but the game as a whole will draw more Gamers who love FL PvP.
Just a random thought but FL PvP isn't as hardcore as it gets. Every one draws the line some ware.
Speaking of hardcore, you might want to read some of the first page posts here - it's far from clear what is "hardcorer", especially if we compare CU's hinted FFA servers with classical FFA FL.
Speaking of CF vs CU, I believe that the overlapping and cannibalizing between these will be much stronger than many seem to think - for at least two reasons (there is much more, but these two are rarely mentioned; also, the following assumes that both games will manage to successfully jump over couple tricky hurdles on their way to launch):
- CF is not FFA FL game (!) It will have some such rulesets, but servers will be formed "on demand" and, based on history, it can easily happen that people either leave or it all boils down to only a couple of hardcore servers, with more than 90% of playerbase in, say, RvRvR or something "soft". Not that I would like that to happen, but there are some historical tendencies... :P
- Lots of people are unaware of all the things one will be able to lose in CU, and how much it might hurt (one's pocket or ego - FFA servers aside); Unlike popular opinion, CU is simply not DAoC 2, and some parallels - often made on autopilot - might be misleading.
Also, folks fighting "for themselves" in CF will likely leave the game rather quickly . That would be like fighting for oneself in, say, EvE; Furthermore, due to horizontal leveling, CU folks will be able to change their realm/server relatively quickly, and due to the inevitable imbalance - lots of them will likely be doing so (we are talking Realm vs Alliance / Guild / Corp loyalty).I'm not saying there isn't important difference between the two, just IMO there is much less than one might think - especially on some somewhat "unexpected" places.
2. An organized "hardcore" pvp group will select a server.
3. That group will dominate
4. Everyone rerolls to that winning side.
5. Stagnation begins 2-3 months after release.
The main problem was just the massive power gap between premades and randoms. For example, in a scenario, if we had our 6man premade plus 6 randoms versus 12 randoms, we'd win 95% of the time. In the proper world pvp, you needed a decent sized group to do anything of importance (i.e. take keeps, cut off resupply routes), otherwise you were relegated to roaming or clinging to the zerg. Roaming could be fun if you had the right class, but for myself (blorc) it mostly sucked.
Admittedly, I came back to WAR for a few months much later on and things had changed. When I returned (about 15months after release iirc) almost all of the hardcore guilds had quit and there were hardly any large guilds left. They'd also trivialised getting gear and ranking up to 70 which reduced the power gap a lot, so when I came back the solo vs group thing was a lot less of an issue.
Never-the-less, it was a big issue at launch, both for me personally and for a lot of my friends.
Because of that I've backed Crowfall instead of Camelot. Crowfall also seems to dodge the biggest problem with player faction PvP games - stagnation after one faction dominates all others.
Hardcore PVP = Evolution.
Game changes, players get different stuff, the political landscape and battle for Power always changes.
Game changes???You really think this is going to be a game that has changes?
Different stuff??Like what that you can't already do in every mmorpg in existence?
Political power,fighting for power.:Well i think seems obvious but remember Warhammer had such a system and the 3 RvR ideas and it failed badly.We really should learn from ideas that nobody seems to care about.
Is this really what people want which is to generate a world and jot down a few assets that players flag for pvp and fight over?I mean i see that thousands still play H1Z1 and all they do is play a one dimensional game over and over but i just don't see it in a long term game like a mmorpg.
All i see are these Banes and Boons ,so some stats nothing you will see in game.I looked them over and i see a lot of meaningless stats.More importantly will this affect weather guilds or Realms are going to pvp,i don't think it will have much impact at all.
I have played a game VERY similar to this that was a 2D game and a very costly cash shop.Although the game was setup for really just pvp and owning various artifacts ,players really for the most part just wanted PVE.
We look back at Warhammer,they even tried to fill vacancies with npc's because that is a downfall of this type design and it still did not pan out.So i really fail to see how this game is going to pull off what has already been tried and not only failed but was simply not very popular.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
50k :Well if that is his aim ,then that is a reasonable goal.
PVE-Still not sure if he is saying there will be content PVE or just PVE in terms of crafting.
Pve is always a touchy area,no leveling that doesn't really say much either.We need to know the depth and scope of PVE or is it just a superficial cover of the game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Long time skulker on MMOrpg and dont post much but had to on this topic.
I have played multiple accounts and games since 97 with UO. Like a lot of people on here the amount of compiled information in my head is astronomical. However only a few games have stuck out in my head.
UO- for building houses and creating a business (for being first)
EQ for the just free to run and go so many places
SWG by far the best and original crafting /housing and size..
DAOC by far was the best for pvp/rvr
Later crafting addition later was cool adding to armor (with gems and all) housing was never great but decent..
This all said I wanted to express what DAOC was truly about to me and others for those who never saw it.
DAOC was very much like eq in pVe and had a decent size world split in 3 areas. It was not ground breaking, alot of quest go kill 5 and return .... Decent dungeons and equal graphics.. But the huge advantage to others was not seen till you hit 45ish or more and went to the open realms..
In one of your 3 areas you were safe from all and only died if you pulled to much you wanted to kill, however in the open areas you could die to other players.. with 3 areas and each had castles and were controlled by one of the 3 realms. Now if you held the majority of castles you got access to a shared dungeon that had the best loot in the game (mostly) and was the farming spot. This might not sound like much and was just the core what made it awesome as as follows....
A zerg of 100 people run to realms to get castles.. You could follow the zerg and it was tough to take a castle if just 10% of players defending. But worse still if the 3rd team came behind you and wiped out your entire force. It was very social and organized.
---- So if you like social and want to be with 100 people zerg you could do it.
But while this is happening a team of 6 (good players) or ever 12-18 decent could sneak behind the lines and take a castle undefended in 10 minutes.
---- This is for the PVP lovers. You can have small groups and it was very fast paced action
Also if you were a stealth class you could take on even 3 if you knew what you doing
--- want true solo PVP it was very possible.
ALL in all DAOC was a very great game and if CU does anything like this and keeps balance between realms it will be a success.
I will follow with high hopes...
Peace
JamesGoblin Thanks. You have some interesting points here yourself. You may very well be right, but I see some things differently.
Forgive me if I get this wrong, but I'm guessing you didn't play DAoC, or not during it's heyday? In CU players will not be able to change realms on the same server, unless they're willing to delete every toon they have. I can't speak for every one but I played solely on one server with one realm for 8 years. Of those I did play with I knew no one who bounced around like your describing (not of the people I got to know that is). DAoC you be came vary invested in your realm/server and to switch servers was rather unappealing. Camelot Unchained will be the same way. When we did get transient players (there was always some) they were never the important or powerful players.
When I said "for themselves", I meant those who put there own self interest first, not Gamer's who refuse to work with others. Those with self interest in mind always join guilds, but they will jump ship as soon as they feel the winds shift. Backstabbing your Realm because the chips are down (as a guild or individual) isn't the sort of game I want to be part of. My Realm in DAoC was the underdog Realm on my server, and I wouldn't have want it any other way. We had a saying on that Midgard server, "when you help your Realm, you help yourself'.
Pretty much every Gamer in every game I've ever meet or played with always had their own self interest in mind (myself included). I mean, why wouldn't you? Then I came across DAoC...it left me speechless. I've never found anything like it, random people would pitch good gear to me just because my class could use it. Standing around crafting people would give me money, saying things like 'the realm needs more crafters'. In DAoC I put the realm first, and so did all most all of those around me.
I can't wait for a game were I'm not always putting myself first. I'm sold CU will be that kind of game. Yes, this isn't DAoC 2...IMO it's going to be better. One thing that CU will have in common with DAoC is the focus on Realm, and the pride that comes with it. Hell, that's a major part of their Foundational Principle #10. Realm server pride would mean nothing if it was advantages to change sides.
I'm a 'one game' kind of Gamer, and was sold on CU long before CF launch there KS. I've not been following anything about CF since their KS funded, but what I saw during it told me full loot player vs player was their target customer. This is the first I've heard any body think the full loot PvP server's well be the exception, rather than the rule. I'm not look for a game that rewards fair weather Gamers.
Also, for the "fresh blood" - it might take some time before they develop pride and invest enough to become tied to one server / faction, unless they leave that is. By the way, you can find out more about Realm pride here.
Speaking of Crowfall, the way we perceive advertisement and the (honest!) intentions of it's devs won't necessarily project into reality. And the same goes for CU and their principles, needless to say.
i know gear make diference
i know leveling make diference
i know gem and stats make diference
but guess what? i love
and love more compare gw2/eso together