Yes i like it that every class is equally effective in pvp. all tank and dps, etc.
Sorry iif i like dps classes, support classes, tank classes, cc classes. and you don't. Every mmorpg that have good pvp had clearly defined roles and weakness and had 1v1 imbalaence but were balanced as a faction.
We know for sure that 2 faction open zone/area pvp is fail and always will be fail.
So the only way a troll was being spanked in this situation is if you two were spanking yourselves.
sheesh how can anyone honestly make such a baseless claim? how many mmos have pvp? how many mmos with two sides have shown such a silly argument to be true?
off the top of my head? 3, yes three. wow,aion, and WAR.
out of all of those only two fail badly because the devs developed the pvp poorly or tacked it on at the last min. one of 2 was poorly done because of pressure from the publisher and it wasn't wow.
how can you even know if two faction open zone/area pvp fails if the people that make the game impliment it poorly? how can the idea be bad if the only examples you have are from games designed by idiots or people with little time on their hands to do it?
WAR was bad because mythic didn't impliment a system to counterbalance an unbalanced server pop, namely the dogs of war.
blizzard doesn't care, i believe aion has a balancing system.
how can you draw the conclusion that 2 sided pvp is bad?
I would also call WoW PVP a terrible failure precisely becuase it was tacked on literally last minute and it wasnt even fully supported until half way through the games post-release development. And dont even get me started about the horrible, horrible theme breaking of a "flag" system. "hey look there is horde! I cant attack my "mortal enemy" becase he isnt flagged for PVP... wow.... really? Fortunately for them thier PVE game was very solid and very addictive, allbeit a grindfest. Just not my type of game i guess.
Yes i like it that every class is equally effective in pvp. all tank and dps, etc.
Sorry iif i like dps classes, support classes, tank classes, cc classes. and you don't. Every mmorpg that have good pvp had clearly defined roles and weakness and had 1v1 imbalaence but were balanced as a faction.
We know for sure that 2 faction open zone/area pvp is fail and always will be fail.
So the only way a troll was being spanked in this situation is if you two were spanking yourselves.
sheesh how can anyone honestly make such a baseless claim? how many mmos have pvp? how many mmos with two sides have shown such a silly argument to be true?
off the top of my head? 3, yes three. wow,aion, and WAR.
out of all of those only two fail badly because the devs developed the pvp poorly or tacked it on at the last min. one of 2 was poorly done because of pressure from the publisher and it wasn't wow.
how can you even know if two faction open zone/area pvp fails if the people that make the game impliment it poorly? how can the idea be bad if the only examples you have are from games designed by idiots or people with little time on their hands to do it?
WAR was bad because mythic didn't impliment a system to counterbalance an unbalanced server pop, namely the dogs of war.
blizzard doesn't care, i believe aion has a balancing system.
how can you draw the conclusion that 2 sided pvp is bad?
I would also call WoW PVP a terrible failure precisely becuase it was tacked on literally last minute and it wasnt even full supported until half way through the games post release development. and dont even get me started about te horrible horrible theme breaking of a "flag" system. "hey look there is horde! I cant atack my "mortal enemy" becase he isnt flagged for PVP... wow.... really? Fortunately for them thier PVE game was very solid and very addictive allbeit a grindfest. Just not my type of game i guess.
true, i wasn't really trying to imply that wow pvp was good. what i really meant is that the statement "2 faction pvp sucks and will always suck.. because it is two factions" is not only unsupported but also completely silly when we have very few games with good 2 faction pvp.
it isn't the two faction pvp idea that is bad, but how the companies decided to implement it. WAR's was terrible, wows was terrible aions maybe terrible, how do you draw the conclusion two faction pvp is terrible? you can't, it doesn't make sense to with only a few games out that try it.
pvp in general is terrible anyway,trying to pin it on having two sides is silly when we have very few good examples anyway.
Yes i like it that every class is equally effective in pvp. all tank and dps, etc.
Sorry iif i like dps classes, support classes, tank classes, cc classes. and you don't. Every mmorpg that have good pvp had clearly defined roles and weakness and had 1v1 imbalaence but were balanced as a faction.
We know for sure that 2 faction open zone/area pvp is fail and always will be fail.
So the only way a troll was being spanked in this situation is if you two were spanking yourselves.
sheesh how can anyone honestly make such a baseless claim? how many mmos have pvp? how many mmos with two sides have shown such a silly argument to be true?
off the top of my head? 3, yes three. wow,aion, and WAR.
out of all of those only two fail badly because the devs developed the pvp poorly or tacked it on at the last min. one of 2 was poorly done because of pressure from the publisher and it wasn't wow.
how can you even know if two faction open zone/area pvp fails if the people that make the game impliment it poorly? how can the idea be bad if the only examples you have are from games designed by idiots or people with little time on their hands to do it?
WAR was bad because mythic didn't impliment a system to counterbalance an unbalanced server pop, namely the dogs of war.
blizzard doesn't care, i believe aion has a balancing system.
how can you draw the conclusion that 2 sided pvp is bad?
I would also call WoW PVP a terrible failure precisely becuase it was tacked on literally last minute and it wasnt even full supported until half way through the games post release development. and dont even get me started about te horrible horrible theme breaking of a "flag" system. "hey look there is horde! I cant atack my "mortal enemy" becase he isnt flagged for PVP... wow.... really? Fortunately for them thier PVE game was very solid and very addictive allbeit a grindfest. Just not my type of game i guess.
true, i wasn't really trying to imply that wow pvp was good. what i really meant is that the statement "2 faction pvp sucks and will always suck.. because it is two factions" is not only unsupported but also completely silly when we have very few games with good 2 faction pvp.
it isn't the two faction pvp idea that is bad, but how the companies decided to implement it. WAR's was terrible, wows was terrible aions maybe terrible, how do you draw the conclusion two faction pvp is terrible? you can't, it doesn't make sense to with only a few games out that try it.
pvp in general is terrible anyway,trying to pin it on having two sides is silly when we have very few good examples anyway.
Yeah I agree 100% on that. I am looking forward to seeing what solutions they offer and I hope its better than instance capping and otherwise denying service in he name of balancing.
I personally hope that, as I have mentioned in other threads, the underpopulated side has a way to sabotage the icey truce of thier competitors through PVE quests cuasing a temporary pvp status to occur between allied races. Then the underpop side would have a chance to move in for the kill... NPC backups would be great as well in battlegrounds. (a la dogs of war that never happened)
How about this ill wait 3-4 year , whatever, then say told ya so.
PS not havinga "tank" was my point, mmos should have "tanks" IMHO. If you cannot handle my opinion sorry.
Still thats not my real consern. Which is, the fact that another WARHAMMER game is 2 factioned. Its liek crazy world i acctually like the IP and have played it for a long time, 2 factions in the war universe si lame and a cop out and there are many many more mmos with 2 faction pvp, and all of it is lame. cox, aion, ill toss any form of game in there.
Lets just list a few of the best pvp mmos and see how many factions they had (if not player made). Do that. PS, DAoc, eve, etc. 2 faction game = lame pvp . How about this name a good open world/zone 2 faction game that has good pvp.
So yeah maybe i state it with little knowledge of what will be ... but i also know they will not be an epic open world 1 v 1 v 1 + faction battle don't I.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
How about this ill wait 3-4 year , whatever, then say told ya so.
PS not havinga "tank" was my point, mmos should have "tanks" IMHO. If you cannot handle my opinion sorry.
Still thats not my real consern. Which is, the fact that another WARHAMMER game is 2 factioned. Its liek crazy world i acctually like the IP and have played it for a long time, 2 factions in the war universe si lame and a cop out and there are many many more mmos with 2 faction pvp, and all of it is lame. cox, aion, ill toss any form of game in there.
Lets just list a few of the best pvp mmos and see how many factions they had (if not player made). Do that. PS, DAoc, eve, etc. 2 faction game = lame pvp . How about this name a good open world/zone 2 faction game that has good pvp.
So yeah maybe i state it with little knowledge of what will be ... but i also know they will not be an epic open world 1 v 1 v 1 + faction battle don't I.
You say you dont want wow clone but pretty much what you DO want (the tank dps heal tired 12 year old fomula) is an exact wow clone and what you are complaining about and postulating is 'wow clone 'is totally different than WOW (classes that dont fit the tired paradigms.. but the model you want with tanks dps healers etc IS wow and thats what you say you want.... again thats all tireed WOW mechanics. Just becuase there is a tired and outdated formula of 'tank healer DPS' doesnt man that ALL games must or even should have it... One of the best MMOS I have played, UO didnt contain anything like it.
Also, you are not saying your opinion, you are attempting to say ridiculous things like 2 factions will fail, no exceptions.
WAR was 2 factions and was great and engaging in early levels. It had excellent PVP in tier1. in fact it was the best pvp I had played SINCE dark age of camelot... BUT since EA threw it out the door early the game was miserable in later tiers. PLUS all the mechanics they had to fix the proposed imbalances in population (like the dogs of WAR etc) were dropped to force the game out the door... and PVP was the good part of the game... the game failed becuase PVE was so terrible and underdeveloped that the game was 1 dimensional.
IM not sure what top tier MMO has good PVP regarless of faction numbers... I cant think of a single MMO that I have played (other than DAoC and WAR) that had anything even remotely approaching good pvp
I deal with opinions just fine, its sweeping statements that are completely baseless that crack me up. So when the game is released please tell you you told me so. Cant wait to hear it.. I will most likely be busy playing it of course but ill check here occasionally.
It really doesnt sound like you have read much about the game at all so I ask you.. you do know its going to be much more action oriented and wont even have an action bar right?
WAR was 2 factions and was great and engaging in early levels. It had excellent PVP in tier1. in fact it was the best pvp I had played SINCE dark age of camelot... BUT since EA threw it out the door early the game was miserable in later tiers. PLUS all the mechanics they had to fix the proposed imbalances in population (like the dogs of WAR etc) were dropped to force the game out the door...
*Exactly, WAR had great Tier 1 PvP. Know why? There were no keeps.
Keeps only work if you have more than 2 factions in a game. Just having 1 side siege and 1 side defend leads nowhere and in the end thousands of people left the game because it was a boring PvE-Keep swapping game past tier 1.
You should feel lucky we got the game we did. When I joined beta there was no open-world PvP... at all. Everything was done through scenarios, the entire PvP game was based around an arcade game.... I knew then Mythic had lost touch with it's players.
If Mythic had done one of the following 2 things they could have made their game much more successful.
1. Add a 3rd faction. This would have completely solved the keep-swapping crap that happened after tier 1.
2. Completely redesign the tier 2-4 gameplay so that there could never be a situation where both sides continually avoid each other to just farm PvP marks.
*Disclaimer: I played WAR in beta and then about a month after release, not since then.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
WAR was 2 factions and was great and engaging in early levels. It had excellent PVP in tier1. in fact it was the best pvp I had played SINCE dark age of camelot... BUT since EA threw it out the door early the game was miserable in later tiers. PLUS all the mechanics they had to fix the proposed imbalances in population (like the dogs of WAR etc) were dropped to force the game out the door...
*Exactly, WAR had great Tier 1 PvP. Know why? There were no keeps.
Keeps only work if you have more than 2 factions in a game. Just having 1 side siege and 1 side defend leads nowhere and in the end thousands of people left the game because it was a boring PvE-Keep swapping game past tier 1.
You should feel lucky we got the game we did. When I joined beta there was no open-world PvP... at all. Everything was done through scenarios, the entire PvP game was based around an arcade game.... I knew then Mythic had lost touch with it's players.
If Mythic had done one of the following 2 things they could have made their game much more successful.
1. Add a 3rd faction. This would have completely solved the keep-swapping crap that happened after tier 1.
2. Completely redesign the tier 2-4 gameplay so that there could never be a situation where both sides continually avoid each other to just farm PvP marks.
*Disclaimer: I played WAR in beta and then about a month after release, not since then.
I agree with some points you made and WAR beta sounded horrible.
I really dont think you need 3 factions for keep control at all though that is certainly one solution, it isnt the only one.
Another is to give participants something to do BESIDES zerging the keep itself but remain within the PVP zone. Missions to do things like cut off supply lines/ caravans in the pvp area, controling mines that give the defender bonuses, fullfill objectives to call in air strikes. Sabotage defenses by dealing with NPCs who will join you etc... The towers themselves in ANY and every game I have played became lame zergs regardless of the amount of factions available. this is both in DAoC and WAR aa well as with WOW (though WOW pvp is hardly even worth mentioning in a pvp conversation.)
Another solution is to slightly alter the power levels of the participants based upon how outnumbered they are in a particular open zone or instance. many games including GW2 are working with such concepts and I think its a decent solution if used in conjunction with other solutions like I have mentioned above and in other threads. Such as NPC allies for outnumbered factions, airstrikes pve quests to level the playing field etc. Allowing smaller groups to meaningfully contribute to the war effort rather than megazerg is a HUGE step in the right direction. Especially when you consider that smaller groups will also be attempting to defends these objectives.
Thousands of people left WAR becuase they realized how insanely 1 dimensional the entirety of that game was from a development standpoint. They put all thier eggs in one basket and assumed people would be satisfied with PVP all the time. They were very very wrong. I am a pvper at heart and I tire of it every play session. The reality is, there was nothing fun or meaningful to do in WAR otherwise. Again, PVP is fun but if it isnt backed up with top quality PVE people will leave in droves.. Not to mention that there were literally no decent non combat activities in that game. Again, it was WARS shockingly inadequate content and PVE that made the game a failure.
Finally and respectfully, I will say this... the notion that 3-faction systems self regulate is a total and complete myth and anyone who played a lot of DAoC knows it. I played DAoC endgame on 2 different servers and on both of them hibernia was always down, while midgard and Albion were duking it out on both those servers... The myth suggests that if one side is dominating, the other 2 factions would gang up and attack the winning faction... This NEVER... EVER happened at all in the 3 years I played that game on 2 different servers. What did happen is that Albion and Midgard (go middies!) would use the weaker hibernian frontier as our stomping grounds and beat the tar out of any hibernians we saw just as a way to pass time while we were waiting for the real war (Midgard, Albion) Hibernia never won, and this was the case on any server I had played or even heard of. There was also plenty of keep swapping in that game too even with its 3 factions. 3 factions does nothing to stop players from exploiting an exploitable system. The game was Middies v Albion with an occasional hibernian distraction that was pretty meaningless. Most anecdotal evidence I have heard regarding this myth that the game self-regulated and helped out the little guy is people being nostalgic about a great game (it was great despite its flaws) and forgetting how this simply didnt happen though it may have been designed to happen.
Thats odd you should say that cuase WAR didnt feel like WoW-like to me at all. It felt about as WoW-like as the original Everquest did really. Did Everquest feel like a wow ripoff to you as as well? Or DAoC for that matter (the game i would say WAR most closely represents.)
Suffice to say that WoW and WAR were the same based upon the same IP, but you got confused as to who ripped off who.
The look and play of the game in the first tier was fantastic IMO, where the game fell short had nothing to do with similarities to WoW and everything to do with lack of PVE content and the fact that it was totally underdesigned especially in the higher tiers. As a matter of fact, the game was lacking in most everything outside of PvP
Warhammers PvP was also seriously lacking and mythic is still trying to revamp it to make it more engaging. Everything about warhammer was troubled at release and some things were beyond fixing without a major overhaul of the entire game.
Regardless of the lore, warhammer the mmo felt very much like playing Wow the mmo. Again, not due to story, lore or art direction, but in large part to mechanics, systems and overall gameplay. Still it had a lot of potential.
Thats odd you should say that cuase WAR didnt feel like WoW-like to me at all. It felt about as WoW-like as the original Everquest did really. Did Everquest feel like a wow ripoff to you as as well? Or DAoC for that matter (the game i would say WAR most closely represents.)
Suffice to say that WoW and WAR were the same based upon the same IP, but you got confused as to who ripped off who.
The look and play of the game in the first tier was fantastic IMO, where the game fell short had nothing to do with similarities to WoW and everything to do with lack of PVE content and the fact that it was totally underdesigned especially in the higher tiers. As a matter of fact, the game was lacking in most everything outside of PvP
Warhammers PvP was also seriously lacking and mythic is still trying to revamp it to make it more engaging. Everything about warhammer was troubled at release and some things were beyond fixing without a major overhaul of the entire game.
Regardless of the lore, warhammer the mmo felt very much like playing Wow the mmo. Again, not due to story, lore or art direction, but in large part to mechanics, systems and overall gameplay. Still it had a lot of potential.
again, I guess there are different views here becuase I thought WAR was much more similar to DAoC or even everyquest than WOW. What it had similar to WOW is that it was a fantasy based traditional style MMO and thats it.
It was a refreshing read to finally hear a developer talk about quests that way.Weather or not they deliver on their talk is another story,but at least imo the producer is heading in the right direction.
My problem is that the warhammer ,cartoony look just does not appeal tome ,the way Wow does not appeal to me.The players look ok in that mechanical looking armour,i am ok with that,but the creatures look a little too off for me.I aslo beleive we wil lnot see a developer yet pull off a pve and pvp universe in the same game,it takes way too much thought and design.I expect the transition will take several years of developers/producers tweaking pve+pvp in the same game,we are just not ready to see it done right yet.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Warhammers PvP was also seriously lacking and mythic is still trying to revamp it to make it more engaging. Everything about warhammer was troubled at release and some things were beyond fixing without a major overhaul of the entire game.
Regardless of the lore, warhammer the mmo felt very much like playing Wow the mmo. Again, not due to story, lore or art direction, but in large part to mechanics, systems and overall gameplay. Still it had a lot of potential.
again, I guess there are different views here becuase I thought WAR was much more similar to DAoC or even everyquest than WOW. What it had similar to WOW is that it was a fantasy based traditional style MMO and thats it.
Nah, I felt it too. My heart sank shortly after logging into WAR for the first time. The game really felt very WoWish which is a real shame.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Warhammers PvP was also seriously lacking and mythic is still trying to revamp it to make it more engaging. Everything about warhammer was troubled at release and some things were beyond fixing without a major overhaul of the entire game.
Regardless of the lore, warhammer the mmo felt very much like playing Wow the mmo. Again, not due to story, lore or art direction, but in large part to mechanics, systems and overall gameplay. Still it had a lot of potential.
again, I guess there are different views here becuase I thought WAR was much more similar to DAoC or even everyquest than WOW. What it had similar to WOW is that it was a fantasy based traditional style MMO and thats it.
Nah, I felt it too. My heart sank shortly after logging into WAR for the first time. The game really felt very WoWish which is a real shame.
I think thats a very common thing to say considering any and every tradtional fantasy based MMO will be judged on WoW. did you ever play DAoC?
Wait a minute, I thought DMO was gonna be a WoW clone! I mean, is that not what all of the MMO experts who frequent these boards claimed? They even had an article with a developer quoting that he thought WoW was great (even though it was not a developer, it was a marketing guy, but that is a minor detail, right!?).
Then again, most people say they will not imitate WoW but end up doing so anyways. Vigil is gonna have to break that nasty trend.
Wait a minute, I thought DMO was gonna be a WoW clone! I mean, is that not what all of the MMO experts who frequent these boards claimed? They even had an article with a developer quoting that he thought WoW was great (even though it was not a developer, it was a marketing guy, but that is a minor detail, right!?).
Then again, most people say they will not imitate WoW but end up doing so anyways. Vigil is gonna have to break that nasty trend.
again, I guess there are different views here becuase I thought WAR was much more similar to DAoC or even everyquest than WOW. What it had similar to WOW is that it was a fantasy based traditional style MMO and thats it.
There were certainly similarities to daoc as well, but not enough and not in a good way I would say. That was a shame imho, but thats a different topic.
Never did I get the feeling that I was doing anything similar to everquest.
Hopefully DMO will be something new. I'm excited about the rumors that it might have some sort of manual aiming system, but that is just rumor right now.
Honestly I didn't like what they did with DOW2, I thought the origional DOW was much better. However the MMO is still quite a ways off...so I'm reserving judgement until I hear alot more.....done right it could be awesome... but as with any other offering...fameous IP or no, there is always massive potential to screw things up if thier not carefull.
again, I guess there are different views here becuase I thought WAR was much more similar to DAoC or even everyquest than WOW. What it had similar to WOW is that it was a fantasy based traditional style MMO and thats it.
There were certainly similarities to daoc as well, but not enough and not in a good way I would say. That was a shame imho, but thats a different topic.
Never did I get the feeling that I was doing anything similar to everquest.
Hopefully DMO will be something new. I'm excited about the rumors that it might have some sort of manual aiming system, but that is just rumor right now.
DAoC was an excellent game for the time but was VERY choppy and often broken. Nostalgia I think has made it better than it was in many eyes, including My own. That being said, it was my favorite MMO to date. If WAR was able to carry the feel and fun of tier 1 PVE and PVP through the rest of the game, it would have been a success. Personally, I think thier over reliance on battlegrounds also contributed to the demise of the game but not nearly as much as the fact that it was just horribly underdeveloped upon release. Thank EA for that.
But for the last few posts I realized too that we are discussing stuff that is pretty irrelavent to DMO so thanks for bringing it back on track.
I to am encouraged by the little information we have. Especially with an emphasis on a more action based gameplay. With what they have said how combat will work I am relatively certain that this game will not play like a traditional MMO at all in its basic gameplay and combat. Where it will share similarities is in the overall architecture of the game; quests, dungeons, battlegrounds etc. The one thing I am VERY concerned about is that I hope they move away from the static mob/ roaming patrol pve formula that got tired back in generation 1 but is still used 12 years later, for no good reason other than its the easiest approach.
Moving on, the models in the game look like they came right off the 40k table top, which is also very cool. I think the next faction they will release will be orks, but whatever it is i look forward to it.
Of course they could drop the ball on it, but I think they are on the right track design wise. As always, I will remain cautiously optimistic and look forward to more news.
Mythic did, and they failed horribly for doing so... The 40k genre is a bit different, and from what has been talked about early on by Vigil, if they back up their words; this game could be epic.
u got it wrong
It was more acceptable in WAR than it would ever be in a 40k MMO
With Thq by there side, publishing dawn of war series, with the upcoming Retribution and Space marine. 40k universe has not failed yet.
Warcraft use to be a rts before it became a mmo. Same with 40k. just diffrent maker with 1 console triple AAA game. With a publisher who has 2 Triple A games.
With Thq by there side, publishing dawn of war series, with the upcoming Retribution and Space marine. 40k universe has not failed yet.
Warcraft use to be a rts before it became a mmo. Same with 40k. just diffrent maker with 1 console triple AAA game. With a publisher who has 2 Triple A games.
Thats the thing, I agree here with the positive thigns that Vigil and THQ have done. Blizzard had zero MMO experience when they produced WOW and some would say thats an excellent MMO (myself included, to a point.) I think THQ is the right company to be seeing this out given thier success with the 40k liscense but only time will tell.
DAoC was an excellent game for the time but was VERY choppy and often broken. Nostalgia I think has made it better than it was in many eyes, including My own. That being said, it was my favorite MMO to date. If WAR was able to carry the feel and fun of tier 1 PVE and PVP through the rest of the game, it would have been a success. Personally, I think thier over reliance on battlegrounds also contributed to the demise of the game but not nearly as much as the fact that it was just horribly underdeveloped upon release. Thank EA for that.
I know this is off topic, but I love how people always blame EA for WARs failure. You guys are so right Mythic and Mark Jacobs should of never approached EA and just released the game when they ran out of money. So take off a years worth of development, from the additional funding that EA brought into the picture, from WAR and see how great of game it would of been. I am sure that game would of just rocked our worlds, and we would be playing it now. Mythic is responsible for what they did with WAR not EA!
Well they did force them to release early, drop planned features etc. Mythic is responsible for thier product, absolutely and they released a subpar product that was drastically underdeveloped. But EA played a part in all of that as well.
Back on topic, As far as what effect that has on DMO, the answer of course is none. And granted that they have given themselves a long development cycle, I am wary, but optimistic that THQ wont fall into the same pitfalls.
Comments
I would also call WoW PVP a terrible failure precisely becuase it was tacked on literally last minute and it wasnt even fully supported until half way through the games post-release development. And dont even get me started about the horrible, horrible theme breaking of a "flag" system. "hey look there is horde! I cant attack my "mortal enemy" becase he isnt flagged for PVP... wow.... really? Fortunately for them thier PVE game was very solid and very addictive, allbeit a grindfest. Just not my type of game i guess.
true, i wasn't really trying to imply that wow pvp was good. what i really meant is that the statement "2 faction pvp sucks and will always suck.. because it is two factions" is not only unsupported but also completely silly when we have very few games with good 2 faction pvp.
it isn't the two faction pvp idea that is bad, but how the companies decided to implement it. WAR's was terrible, wows was terrible aions maybe terrible, how do you draw the conclusion two faction pvp is terrible? you can't, it doesn't make sense to with only a few games out that try it.
pvp in general is terrible anyway,trying to pin it on having two sides is silly when we have very few good examples anyway.
Yeah I agree 100% on that. I am looking forward to seeing what solutions they offer and I hope its better than instance capping and otherwise denying service in he name of balancing.
I personally hope that, as I have mentioned in other threads, the underpopulated side has a way to sabotage the icey truce of thier competitors through PVE quests cuasing a temporary pvp status to occur between allied races. Then the underpop side would have a chance to move in for the kill... NPC backups would be great as well in battlegrounds. (a la dogs of war that never happened)
How about this ill wait 3-4 year , whatever, then say told ya so.
PS not havinga "tank" was my point, mmos should have "tanks" IMHO. If you cannot handle my opinion sorry.
Still thats not my real consern. Which is, the fact that another WARHAMMER game is 2 factioned. Its liek crazy world i acctually like the IP and have played it for a long time, 2 factions in the war universe si lame and a cop out and there are many many more mmos with 2 faction pvp, and all of it is lame. cox, aion, ill toss any form of game in there.
Lets just list a few of the best pvp mmos and see how many factions they had (if not player made). Do that. PS, DAoc, eve, etc. 2 faction game = lame pvp . How about this name a good open world/zone 2 faction game that has good pvp.
So yeah maybe i state it with little knowledge of what will be ... but i also know they will not be an epic open world 1 v 1 v 1 + faction battle don't I.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
You say you dont want wow clone but pretty much what you DO want (the tank dps heal tired 12 year old fomula) is an exact wow clone and what you are complaining about and postulating is 'wow clone 'is totally different than WOW (classes that dont fit the tired paradigms.. but the model you want with tanks dps healers etc IS wow and thats what you say you want.... again thats all tireed WOW mechanics. Just becuase there is a tired and outdated formula of 'tank healer DPS' doesnt man that ALL games must or even should have it... One of the best MMOS I have played, UO didnt contain anything like it.
Also, you are not saying your opinion, you are attempting to say ridiculous things like 2 factions will fail, no exceptions.
WAR was 2 factions and was great and engaging in early levels. It had excellent PVP in tier1. in fact it was the best pvp I had played SINCE dark age of camelot... BUT since EA threw it out the door early the game was miserable in later tiers. PLUS all the mechanics they had to fix the proposed imbalances in population (like the dogs of WAR etc) were dropped to force the game out the door... and PVP was the good part of the game... the game failed becuase PVE was so terrible and underdeveloped that the game was 1 dimensional.
IM not sure what top tier MMO has good PVP regarless of faction numbers... I cant think of a single MMO that I have played (other than DAoC and WAR) that had anything even remotely approaching good pvp
I deal with opinions just fine, its sweeping statements that are completely baseless that crack me up. So when the game is released please tell you you told me so. Cant wait to hear it.. I will most likely be busy playing it of course but ill check here occasionally.
It really doesnt sound like you have read much about the game at all so I ask you.. you do know its going to be much more action oriented and wont even have an action bar right?
I read this a few days ago. So much good info. And it sounds like they want to make it right the first time. I can only hope.
*Exactly, WAR had great Tier 1 PvP. Know why? There were no keeps.
Keeps only work if you have more than 2 factions in a game. Just having 1 side siege and 1 side defend leads nowhere and in the end thousands of people left the game because it was a boring PvE-Keep swapping game past tier 1.
You should feel lucky we got the game we did. When I joined beta there was no open-world PvP... at all. Everything was done through scenarios, the entire PvP game was based around an arcade game.... I knew then Mythic had lost touch with it's players.
If Mythic had done one of the following 2 things they could have made their game much more successful.
1. Add a 3rd faction. This would have completely solved the keep-swapping crap that happened after tier 1.
2. Completely redesign the tier 2-4 gameplay so that there could never be a situation where both sides continually avoid each other to just farm PvP marks.
*Disclaimer: I played WAR in beta and then about a month after release, not since then.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
I agree with some points you made and WAR beta sounded horrible.
I really dont think you need 3 factions for keep control at all though that is certainly one solution, it isnt the only one.
Another is to give participants something to do BESIDES zerging the keep itself but remain within the PVP zone. Missions to do things like cut off supply lines/ caravans in the pvp area, controling mines that give the defender bonuses, fullfill objectives to call in air strikes. Sabotage defenses by dealing with NPCs who will join you etc... The towers themselves in ANY and every game I have played became lame zergs regardless of the amount of factions available. this is both in DAoC and WAR aa well as with WOW (though WOW pvp is hardly even worth mentioning in a pvp conversation.)
Another solution is to slightly alter the power levels of the participants based upon how outnumbered they are in a particular open zone or instance. many games including GW2 are working with such concepts and I think its a decent solution if used in conjunction with other solutions like I have mentioned above and in other threads. Such as NPC allies for outnumbered factions, airstrikes pve quests to level the playing field etc. Allowing smaller groups to meaningfully contribute to the war effort rather than megazerg is a HUGE step in the right direction. Especially when you consider that smaller groups will also be attempting to defends these objectives.
Thousands of people left WAR becuase they realized how insanely 1 dimensional the entirety of that game was from a development standpoint. They put all thier eggs in one basket and assumed people would be satisfied with PVP all the time. They were very very wrong. I am a pvper at heart and I tire of it every play session. The reality is, there was nothing fun or meaningful to do in WAR otherwise. Again, PVP is fun but if it isnt backed up with top quality PVE people will leave in droves.. Not to mention that there were literally no decent non combat activities in that game. Again, it was WARS shockingly inadequate content and PVE that made the game a failure.
Finally and respectfully, I will say this... the notion that 3-faction systems self regulate is a total and complete myth and anyone who played a lot of DAoC knows it. I played DAoC endgame on 2 different servers and on both of them hibernia was always down, while midgard and Albion were duking it out on both those servers... The myth suggests that if one side is dominating, the other 2 factions would gang up and attack the winning faction... This NEVER... EVER happened at all in the 3 years I played that game on 2 different servers. What did happen is that Albion and Midgard (go middies!) would use the weaker hibernian frontier as our stomping grounds and beat the tar out of any hibernians we saw just as a way to pass time while we were waiting for the real war (Midgard, Albion) Hibernia never won, and this was the case on any server I had played or even heard of. There was also plenty of keep swapping in that game too even with its 3 factions. 3 factions does nothing to stop players from exploiting an exploitable system. The game was Middies v Albion with an occasional hibernian distraction that was pretty meaningless. Most anecdotal evidence I have heard regarding this myth that the game self-regulated and helped out the little guy is people being nostalgic about a great game (it was great despite its flaws) and forgetting how this simply didnt happen though it may have been designed to happen.
Warhammers PvP was also seriously lacking and mythic is still trying to revamp it to make it more engaging. Everything about warhammer was troubled at release and some things were beyond fixing without a major overhaul of the entire game.
Regardless of the lore, warhammer the mmo felt very much like playing Wow the mmo. Again, not due to story, lore or art direction, but in large part to mechanics, systems and overall gameplay. Still it had a lot of potential.
I really really really hope there won't be any unicorns in this warhammer game
again, I guess there are different views here becuase I thought WAR was much more similar to DAoC or even everyquest than WOW. What it had similar to WOW is that it was a fantasy based traditional style MMO and thats it.
It was a refreshing read to finally hear a developer talk about quests that way.Weather or not they deliver on their talk is another story,but at least imo the producer is heading in the right direction.
My problem is that the warhammer ,cartoony look just does not appeal tome ,the way Wow does not appeal to me.The players look ok in that mechanical looking armour,i am ok with that,but the creatures look a little too off for me.I aslo beleive we wil lnot see a developer yet pull off a pve and pvp universe in the same game,it takes way too much thought and design.I expect the transition will take several years of developers/producers tweaking pve+pvp in the same game,we are just not ready to see it done right yet.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Nah, I felt it too. My heart sank shortly after logging into WAR for the first time. The game really felt very WoWish which is a real shame.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I think thats a very common thing to say considering any and every tradtional fantasy based MMO will be judged on WoW. did you ever play DAoC?
Wait a minute, I thought DMO was gonna be a WoW clone! I mean, is that not what all of the MMO experts who frequent these boards claimed? They even had an article with a developer quoting that he thought WoW was great (even though it was not a developer, it was a marketing guy, but that is a minor detail, right!?).
Then again, most people say they will not imitate WoW but end up doing so anyways. Vigil is gonna have to break that nasty trend.
You know how haters are.
There were certainly similarities to daoc as well, but not enough and not in a good way I would say. That was a shame imho, but thats a different topic.
Never did I get the feeling that I was doing anything similar to everquest.
Hopefully DMO will be something new. I'm excited about the rumors that it might have some sort of manual aiming system, but that is just rumor right now.
Honestly I didn't like what they did with DOW2, I thought the origional DOW was much better. However the MMO is still quite a ways off...so I'm reserving judgement until I hear alot more.....done right it could be awesome... but as with any other offering...fameous IP or no, there is always massive potential to screw things up if thier not carefull.
DAoC was an excellent game for the time but was VERY choppy and often broken. Nostalgia I think has made it better than it was in many eyes, including My own. That being said, it was my favorite MMO to date. If WAR was able to carry the feel and fun of tier 1 PVE and PVP through the rest of the game, it would have been a success. Personally, I think thier over reliance on battlegrounds also contributed to the demise of the game but not nearly as much as the fact that it was just horribly underdeveloped upon release. Thank EA for that.
But for the last few posts I realized too that we are discussing stuff that is pretty irrelavent to DMO so thanks for bringing it back on track.
I to am encouraged by the little information we have. Especially with an emphasis on a more action based gameplay. With what they have said how combat will work I am relatively certain that this game will not play like a traditional MMO at all in its basic gameplay and combat. Where it will share similarities is in the overall architecture of the game; quests, dungeons, battlegrounds etc. The one thing I am VERY concerned about is that I hope they move away from the static mob/ roaming patrol pve formula that got tired back in generation 1 but is still used 12 years later, for no good reason other than its the easiest approach.
Moving on, the models in the game look like they came right off the 40k table top, which is also very cool. I think the next faction they will release will be orks, but whatever it is i look forward to it.
Of course they could drop the ball on it, but I think they are on the right track design wise. As always, I will remain cautiously optimistic and look forward to more news.
Nice article~! Cant wait to try it out in a couple years.
u got it wrong
It was more acceptable in WAR than it would ever be in a 40k MMO
Remember this is warhammer 40k:dark millennium online not warhammer:age of reckoning.
Diffrence between the two
warhammer- fantasy, swords,mounts, 1 earth your on, made by "MYTHIC"
warhammer 40k- Sci-fi, Guns, power swords, Veichles, millions of planets. Made by "VIGIL"
There diffrent companies. I would trust vigil because I played darksiders, it was a fun game.
There using the darksiders engine for DMO. So it will play out more like that. Ill put a video of darksiders gameplay on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N9d1Mf8WMI
With Thq by there side, publishing dawn of war series, with the upcoming Retribution and Space marine. 40k universe has not failed yet.
Warcraft use to be a rts before it became a mmo. Same with 40k. just diffrent maker with 1 console triple AAA game. With a publisher who has 2 Triple A games.
Thats the thing, I agree here with the positive thigns that Vigil and THQ have done. Blizzard had zero MMO experience when they produced WOW and some would say thats an excellent MMO (myself included, to a point.) I think THQ is the right company to be seeing this out given thier success with the 40k liscense but only time will tell.
I know this is off topic, but I love how people always blame EA for WARs failure. You guys are so right Mythic and Mark Jacobs should of never approached EA and just released the game when they ran out of money. So take off a years worth of development, from the additional funding that EA brought into the picture, from WAR and see how great of game it would of been. I am sure that game would of just rocked our worlds, and we would be playing it now. Mythic is responsible for what they did with WAR not EA!
Well they did force them to release early, drop planned features etc. Mythic is responsible for thier product, absolutely and they released a subpar product that was drastically underdeveloped. But EA played a part in all of that as well.
Back on topic, As far as what effect that has on DMO, the answer of course is none. And granted that they have given themselves a long development cycle, I am wary, but optimistic that THQ wont fall into the same pitfalls.