Will the game be fun if your on the loosing side ?

delete5230

I asked before, I don't think anyone gave an answer.

After all less nodes and less quest if your on the loosing side. 


Can you keep deleting your character and making new ones until your on a winning side ?
1) I want to win.
2) I want all the quest and content.
3) I hope I didn't break the game before it even started.

Call me selfish

BeansnBread

This is an opinion, but you seem to be a coward. 

Have you considered this before?

Ungood

I think this depends. I mean, if you have the right people around you, winning or losing become less an issue than just enjoying a game together.

Wizardry

It is nearly impossible to understand a game without knowing wtf the the devs are thinking,in this case Steven.

Has anyone ever asked him WHY he wanted pvp in the game?He talked about using BR to test combat,well has he EVER mentioned anything about the testing affecting PVE combat?

This is what low budget games do,they aim for pvp because it is way easier to do than pve.So yeah this reminds me a LOT of early The New World.
PVP should be the END game,you need a robust game full of content and ideas and systems before you do anything with pvp.

If as a dev your main focus is pvp then why make a rpg,why not just make a pvp shooter or a pvp tcg or some moba or BR etc etc.Your not doing the rpg genre any favors with pvp and it never works unless you segregate the two sides but then what is the point?

delete5230

BeansnBread said:

This is an opinion, but you seem to be a coward. 

Have you considered this before?

A coward in a video game.  Lets explore that. 

That's as bad as someone wins a PvP match and thinks their tough-guy in real life. Or some fat Guy that has a New England Patriots Sweat pants on with mustard and hot wing sauce rubbed into it  

Have you ever met one of them people at the corner 7/11 mini-mart ?.... they usually smell. 

But hay, their ALL MAN
 

Scot

You can only have characters in one faction or is it guild based? That's the best way to do it, if you are losing Delete you can always try harder.

delete5230

Scot said:

You can only have characters in one faction or is it guild based? That's the best way to do it, if you are losing Delete you can always try harder.

Well switch servers.

Try harder ?..... I would guess the winning side will get even more stronger. 

You can try harder, but what happens when all your people run away.


Think about it. All mmorpgs you pay to have ALL THE CONTENT, but this one you have to earn the content you pay for.  50% will be on the loosing side.  That's 50% are not getting the content they pay for. 

Lot's of holes..... just think about the exploits people will find.


And the game, just think of the memory that the servers will have to keep in their database for each server.



Sounds to me as if this game will be a big "bug festival".... and were all invited    

Hyperpsycrow

The content changes each period of a given time, so i guess its just having better luck next round. So it will be different each time..eventualy you will win. But you cant win every game everytime or else there would be no game

Nanfoodle

I have been on the losing side of a faction of more then one war. In DAoC and ESO. There is more then one way to advance your side while not winning the war. Along the way you can win battles by changing tactics. Even on the losing side, I have had a bucket loads of fun. 

jondifool

There will properly always be places in the world (nodes) that will attract a zerg of players that have the goal of being on the winning side. That would be easy to find. But in the long run you would have to socialise with the biggest guilds to stay a reasonable time  on the winning side. Because this is a game where every thing that  builds up well will become a target to take down. 

BrotherMaynard

Well, you can always conspire with other co-losing sides and gang up on the winning side, no?

I mean, it worked in 1917, why wouldn't it work now?

Amathe

I don't mind losing when the fight started on a level playing field and I at least had a chance. I do mind losing when I find I have joined a fight where my side has already been clobbered and we are just doomed. 

Theocritus

I don't care if I win or lose in a video game...It doesn't change a thing.

Kyleran

Nanfoodle said:

I have been on the losing side of a faction of more then one war. In DAoC and ESO. There is more then one way to advance your side while not winning the war. Along the way you can win battles by changing tactics. Even on the losing side, I have had a bucket loads of fun. 

Those were games where PVP is largely pointless, no real consequencefor winning or losing, your attitude would like be different if you were defending a node you and your mates had worked for weeks or months to build up to a high level only to have it swept aside by a Zerg guild.

Kyleran

Theocritus said:

I don't care if I win or lose in a video game...It doesn't change a thing.

Ridiculous assertion, do you even lift bro?

cheyane

Unless they keep killing you everywhere and they occupy your cities... happened in WoW on one server where Horde just overrun every alliance hold. Alliance left.

Sovrath

Theocritus said:

I don't care if I win or lose in a video game...It doesn't change a thing.

I agree.

I don't "in general" care if I win or lose but I'd like to win a few times.

delete5230

Kyleran said:

Theocritus said:

I don't care if I win or lose in a video game...It doesn't change a thing.

Ridiculous assertion, do you even lift bro?

I think as long as its FREE for him, he wins 

Sovrath

delete5230 said:

Think about it. All mmorpgs you pay to have ALL THE CONTENT, but this one you have to earn the content you pay for.  50% will be on the loosing side.  That's 50% are not getting the content they pay for. 

Lot's of holes..... just think about the exploits people will find.

I think that's the way it should be.

That's like saying "I play a game I "should" win.

you pay to have the chance to access content. How you "play" the game decides what you can access.

If one isn't good enough or if one doesn't take the opportunity to do certain things, I think it's fine not to have access to the content until you do what is needed.

delete5230

Sovrath said:

delete5230 said:

Think about it. All mmorpgs you pay to have ALL THE CONTENT, but this one you have to earn the content you pay for.  50% will be on the loosing side.  That's 50% are not getting the content they pay for. 

Lot's of holes..... just think about the exploits people will find.

I think that's the way it should be.

That's like saying "I play a game I "should" win.

you pay to have the chance to access content. How you "play" the game decides what you can access.

If one isn't good enough or if one doesn't take the opportunity to do certain things, I think it's fine not to have access to the content until you do what is needed.

What happens if your good and you side is not.... you loose out.

Ponzini

What are you guys even talking about. You are not locked into a "faction". This isn't WoW. Also they can only grow so large and there are like 4 other kingdoms that will keep any 1 kingdom in check. 

Anyone crying about PvP shouldn't be here. This is not a theme park MMO. 

Iselin

There always have been and always will be players in every game who think like that and they usually make themselves irrelevant and unwanted flip-flopping around.

Cryomatrix

The best balance in a game is where you sre challenged enough that a win is meaningful and it isnt uselessly too hard to not be fun.

As a different genre, in starcraft 2, an RTS.

I generally have fun even when i lose, except if i hate their playstyle or it is Terran vs Terran.

With Terran vs Zerg, it is always fun whether i win or lose, in TvT, it is never fun even if i win, and in TvP, it is fun when i win and slightly not fun when i lose.

timeraider

Wizardry said:

It is nearly impossible to understand a game without knowing wtf the the devs are thinking,in this case Steven.

Has anyone ever asked him WHY he wanted pvp in the game?He talked about using BR to test combat,well has he EVER mentioned anything about the testing affecting PVE combat?

This is what low budget games do,they aim for pvp because it is way easier to do than pve.So yeah this reminds me a LOT of early The New World.
PVP should be the END game,you need a robust game full of content and ideas and systems before you do anything with pvp.

If as a dev your main focus is pvp then why make a rpg,why not just make a pvp shooter or a pvp tcg or some moba or BR etc etc.Your not doing the rpg genre any favors with pvp and it never works unless you segregate the two sides but then what is the point?

Then dont play MMOs that are advertised as PvP-focussed MMO's?

cheyane

timeraider said:

Wizardry said:

It is nearly impossible to understand a game without knowing wtf the the devs are thinking,in this case Steven.

Has anyone ever asked him WHY he wanted pvp in the game?He talked about using BR to test combat,well has he EVER mentioned anything about the testing affecting PVE combat?

This is what low budget games do,they aim for pvp because it is way easier to do than pve.So yeah this reminds me a LOT of early The New World.
PVP should be the END game,you need a robust game full of content and ideas and systems before you do anything with pvp.

If as a dev your main focus is pvp then why make a rpg,why not just make a pvp shooter or a pvp tcg or some moba or BR etc etc.Your not doing the rpg genre any favors with pvp and it never works unless you segregate the two sides but then what is the point?

Then dont play MMOs that are advertised as PvP-focussed MMO's?

Are they though? Is this advertised as PvP focused or just that it has PvP? There is a difference. If you can play a game having as little to do with PvP as possible and still advance and my understanding of this game is that it is that, then you wouldn't call it PvP focused, would you.

Nanfoodle

Kyleran said:

Nanfoodle said:

I have been on the losing side of a faction of more then one war. In DAoC and ESO. There is more then one way to advance your side while not winning the war. Along the way you can win battles by changing tactics. Even on the losing side, I have had a bucket loads of fun. 

Those were games where PVP is largely pointless, no real consequencefor winning or losing, your attitude would like be different if you were defending a node you and your mates had worked for weeks or months to build up to a high level only to have it swept aside by a Zerg guild.

Sure different game, different risks. Again tactics will matter. You have to realize that larger cities will be wanting to defend more then attack. Nodes will be blocked from progressing once 4 of the many nodes get higher than the rest of the cities. So again, being on a losing node mean you will be at odds with many other nodes in the same situation. So dont look at taking out the big boys, look at leveling the playing field. Go after nodes that are ramping up to take you out. Bust them up before they do. Again, being a smaller fish in a pond does not mean you cant have fun. Look at what you can do to have fun and win battles not the war. Being the underdog can still be loads of fun. I suggested one way to win battles for a different tactic then winning a war and I am sure there will be many more people come up with.