Originally posted by zeusypoofs well i know this is a little to early to talk about end game, but i dont want to do the same old fighting for keeps when i cap. im just saying i would like more options for PvP.
Most MMOs have that. This one doesn't...should all of them be the same?
Some people (raises hand) think that scenario PVP with its quick duration, small maps and instant scoreboards are boring as all hell. Been there...done that. Don't want to do that ever again.
The PVP in this one--where you succeed by working together in a very large group through good leadership and coordination--is the thinking man's PVP... I like it. I can do this for one hell of a lot longer than either scenario PVP or repetitive expert dungeons or raids. There are plenty of other games that cater to that. I'm very happy this one doesn't. It's a big plus as far as I'm concerned.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
You haven't said anything that I didn't know already.
My point is that the game SHOULD have been designed as a PvE game, because the PvP will inevitably unbalance the PvE for the reason I stated in my previous post.
Also just because there is war in Tamriel that doesn't mean that automatically the game should include PvP, you can easily fight wars against NPCs..............after all you do that in the single player games.
PvP don't add anything to the game and will attract the E-gamers that inevitably will ruin the immersion and the "magic" of Tamriel.
I am convinced that this game will have a mediocre PvE, and a Mediocre PvP, like most of the MMO who share the same philosophy...................PvP and PvE don't go well together, WoW was a one off on this subject (like for everything else).
And you shouldn't be sorry for me, but with Zenimax, because they will be terribly disappointed by the poor player retention.
Because I am sure they will sell millions of copies (I will buy one regardless), but I am sure they won't retain many of those players after 1-2 months.
What a great attitude and false assumptions that you make.
Designing yet another PvE game is not the answer. Companies have been trying that method for years and it still has not worked. Look at every major MMO that has been released in the last 10 years. The have all failed to unseat WoW, which is the king of PvE. Granted, its a very weary king, but its still the king. Many of these so called "WoW killers" are now reduced to free to play status.
PvE is far more easy to balance than PvP ever will be. Why? Because PvE is a static environment. A strategy is figured out for doing an encounter, and it remains a constant unless the devs openly change the encounter. Its been that way for years, all the way back to Ultima Online and EverQuest.
PvP games will always be harder to balance because the player is an ever evolving entity. When one strategy is figured out, another is devised to counter that strategy. There is never one master strategy that tops all the others.
As far as PvP balance messing up the PvE balance, does it really matter? You can design encounters (PvE) around players, but not the other way around. Players will gravitate to the most effective builds and gear. Its entirely up the devs to keep the players in check. Everyone wants to faceroll with the easiest best build? Good, make the encounter directly counter those builds. Or better yet, take the old school route, where encounters are really hard, requiring 100+ players all working together to get something done.
WoW was never a good PvP game. Its faceroll, timer dump and gear score at it finest. A bad player in good gear could beat a good player in average gear. At least that is the meaning Im drawing from your post.
I honestly hope they get some good player retention and can maintain a million paying subs. If they can do that, they can do something no developer has been able to do in quite a few years.
Originally posted by zeusypoofs well i know this is a little to early to talk about end game, but i dont want to do the same old fighting for keeps when i cap. im just saying i would like more options for PvP.
Most MMOs have that. This one doesn't...should all of them be the same?
Some people (raises hand) think that scenario PVP with its quick duration, small maps and instant scoreboards are boring as all hell. Been there...done that. Don't want to do that ever again.
The PVP in this one--where you succeed by working together in a very large group through good leadership and coordination--is the thinking man's PVP... I like it. I can do this for one hell of a lot longer than either scenario PVP or repetitive expert dungeons or raids. There are plenty of other games that cater to that. I'm very happy this one doesn't. It's a big plus as far as I'm concerned.
I see your point, but why couldn't they have both. im not saying one or the other. this way woundly everyone be happy?
Some people (raises hand) think that scenario PVP with its quick duration, small maps and instant scoreboards are boring as all hell. Been there...done that. Don't want to do that ever again.
The PVP in this one--where you succeed by working together in a very large group through good leadership and coordination--is the thinking man's PVP... I like it. I can do this for one hell of a lot longer than either scenario PVP or repetitive expert dungeons or raids. There are plenty of other games that cater to that. I'm very happy this one doesn't. It's a big plus as far as I'm concerned.
You should have played DAOC back in its glory days....
Hopefully the devs can pull some of that back into this game. 100v100v100 fights are truly epic in scale. But DAOC also supported many other styles of play, 8 man for the heavy team guys, small group for the people just looking for a fight, solo for those that just want to lone wolf it, and battlegrounds where lower level players can just go fight each other in the same ways the top level guys did, but without the worry of being ganked by people far out of your level range.
You haven't said anything that I didn't know already.
My point is that the game SHOULD have been designed as a PvE game, because the PvP will inevitably unbalance the PvE for the reason I stated in my previous post.
Also just because there is war in Tamriel that doesn't mean that automatically the game should include PvP, you can easily fight wars against NPCs..............after all you do that in the single player games.
PvP don't add anything to the game and will attract the E-gamers that inevitably will ruin the immersion and the "magic" of Tamriel.
I am convinced that this game will have a mediocre PvE, and a Mediocre PvP, like most of the MMO who share the same philosophy...................PvP and PvE don't go well together, WoW was a one off on this subject (like for everything else).
And you shouldn't be sorry for me, but with Zenimax, because they will be terribly disappointed by the poor player retention.
Because I am sure they will sell millions of copies (I will buy one regardless), but I am sure they won't retain many of those players after 1-2 months.
What a great attitude and false assumptions that you make.
Designing yet another PvE game is not the answer. Companies have been trying that method for years and it still has not worked. Look at every major MMO that has been released in the last 10 years. The have all failed to unseat WoW, which is the king of PvE. Granted, its a very weary king, but its still the king. Many of these so called "WoW killers" are now reduced to free to play status.
PvE is far more easy to balance than PvP ever will be. Why? Because PvE is a static environment. A strategy is figured out for doing an encounter, and it remains a constant unless the devs openly change the encounter. Its been that way for years, all the way back to Ultima Online and EverQuest.
PvP games will always be harder to balance because the player is an ever evolving entity. When one strategy is figured out, another is devised to counter that strategy. There is never one master strategy that tops all the others.
As far as PvP balance messing up the PvE balance, does it really matter? You can design encounters (PvE) around players, but not the other way around. Players will gravitate to the most effective builds and gear. Its entirely up the devs to keep the players in check. Everyone wants to faceroll with the easiest best build? Good, make the encounter directly counter those builds. Or better yet, take the old school route, where encounters are really hard, requiring 100+ players all working together to get something done.
WoW was never a good PvP game. Its faceroll, timer dump and gear score at it finest. A bad player in good gear could beat a good player in average gear. At least that is the meaning Im drawing from your post.
I honestly hope they get some good player retention and can maintain a million paying subs. If they can do that, they can do something no developer has been able to do in quite a few years.
i play wow, i have a 460 ilvl, which is quite bad, and partnered up with a guy with 480. we went 9-5 which is good cause people we have played against had full tyrannical which i think is 498 ilvl, so no its not all about the gear.
I see your point, but why couldn't they have both. im not saying one or the other. this way woundly everyone be happy?
Why do they need to do something everyone else is doing?
Im not against battlegrounds type warfare, but it gets stale over time. Its been done to death a million times already.
What they are doing with pvp has been done already too. i dont think a game has ever had them both together before. and one faction dominating isn't going to be that enjoyable.
i play wow, i have a 460 ilvl, which is quite bad, and partnered up with a guy with 480. we went 9-5 which is good cause people we have played against had full tyrannical which i think is 498 ilvl, so no its not all about the gear.
No but if the gear levels were equal, you would simply crushed them all 14-0 if you were a good enough player.
Forcing people on a gear treadmill is not a fun endgame for people that truly enjoy PvP.
Some people (raises hand) think that scenario PVP with its quick duration, small maps and instant scoreboards are boring as all hell. Been there...done that. Don't want to do that ever again.
The PVP in this one--where you succeed by working together in a very large group through good leadership and coordination--is the thinking man's PVP... I like it. I can do this for one hell of a lot longer than either scenario PVP or repetitive expert dungeons or raids. There are plenty of other games that cater to that. I'm very happy this one doesn't. It's a big plus as far as I'm concerned.
You should have played DAOC back in its glory days....
Hopefully the devs can pull some of that back into this game. 100v100v100 fights are truly epic in scale. But DAOC also supported many other styles of play, 8 man for the heavy team guys, small group for the people just looking for a fight, solo for those that just want to lone wolf it, and battlegrounds where lower level players can just go fight each other in the same ways the top level guys did, but without the worry of being ganked by people far out of your level range.
Oh, but I did Albion in Guinevere mostly. From release and for 2 years after that. The best PVP I've ever played...warts and all.
BGs were a later addition once there was a large population at 50 to give the low level players somewhere to PVP without getting wiped in 3 seconds. But even those were much better than any of the standard scenario PVP as we've come to know them these days. I still cringe when I think of Hutball.
The beauty of the frontiers was that anything could be going on there at any given time: from small to huge. The most fun for me was planning and executing large relic raids with various small groups performing faints and delaying actions and solo stealthers scouting while the main group went for the relic. There was something to do for everyone.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
i play wow, i have a 460 ilvl, which is quite bad, and partnered up with a guy with 480. we went 9-5 which is good cause people we have played against had full tyrannical which i think is 498 ilvl, so no its not all about the gear.
No but if the gear levels were equal, you would simply crushed them all 14-0 if you were a good enough player.
Forcing people on a gear treadmill is not a fun endgame for people that truly enjoy PvP.
i would crush them because i am the better player, which would make them try to get better. forcing one style of pvp on people will not be enjoyable for people who like smaller pvp groups
Some people (raises hand) think that scenario PVP with its quick duration, small maps and instant scoreboards are boring as all hell. Been there...done that. Don't want to do that ever again.
The PVP in this one--where you succeed by working together in a very large group through good leadership and coordination--is the thinking man's PVP... I like it. I can do this for one hell of a lot longer than either scenario PVP or repetitive expert dungeons or raids. There are plenty of other games that cater to that. I'm very happy this one doesn't. It's a big plus as far as I'm concerned.
You should have played DAOC back in its glory days....
Hopefully the devs can pull some of that back into this game. 100v100v100 fights are truly epic in scale. But DAOC also supported many other styles of play, 8 man for the heavy team guys, small group for the people just looking for a fight, solo for those that just want to lone wolf it, and battlegrounds where lower level players can just go fight each other in the same ways the top level guys did, but without the worry of being ganked by people far out of your level range.
Oh, but I did Albion in Guinevere mostly. From release and for 2 years after that. The best PVP I've ever played...warts and all.
BGs were a later addition once there was a large population at 50 to give the low level players somewhere to PVP without getting wiped in 3 seconds. But even those were much better than any of the standard scenario PVP as we've come to know them these days. I still cringe when I think of Hutball.
The beauty of the frontiers was that anything could be going on there at any given time: from small to huge. The most fun for me was planning and executing large relic raids with various small groups performing faints and delaying actions and solo stealthers scouting while the main group went for the relic. There was something to do for everyone.
DAoC was the last time I even remotely enjoyed pvp. The battlegrounds for low levels were ok but I really enjoyed keep battles. Though it was also fun to take my hunter out and solo hunt people. For me the two biggest issues in DAoC was Trials of Atlantis and buffbots.
Oh, but I did Albion in Guinevere mostly. From release and for 2 years after that. The best PVP I've ever played...warts and all.
BGs were a later addition once there was a large population at 50 to give the low level players somewhere to PVP without getting wiped in 3 seconds. But even those were much better than any of the standard scenario PVP as we've come to know them these days. I still cringe when I think of Hutball.
The beauty of the frontiers was that anything could be going on there at any given time: from small to huge. The most fun for me was planning and executing large relic raids with various small groups performing faints and delaying actions and solo stealthers scouting while the main group went for the relic. There was something to do for everyone.
9 years between Alb Tristan and Mid Galahad with a little dabbling in Hib after Ywain started. Lots of wasted times, but lots of good memories and friends I still talk to, and have even met alot of them in person.
I remember playing the original BGs back then. Good times. The game was wicked hard. You had to have people help you, and you had to work together to get anywhere. No MMO has that anymore.
I see your point, but why couldn't they have both. im not saying one or the other. this way woundly everyone be happy?
Why do they need to do something everyone else is doing?
Im not against battlegrounds type warfare, but it gets stale over time. Its been done to death a million times already.
What they are doing with pvp has been done already too. i dont think a game has ever had them both together before. and one faction dominating isn't going to be that enjoyable.
The beauty of a true 3 realm system where the sides are unequal is that the overpowered side, should get teamed up on the 2 lesser sides. A truly open world supports many styles of play as I pointed out before, providing the world is big and diverse enough. GW2 did 3 faction, but it was poorly done. Long waits to get in, all 3 sides were limited to approximately the same sized force, and the land mass was too small.
Battlegrounds at top level only do one thing, pull people away from open world PvP. WoW had decent open world PvP at release, then BGs were put in, and people just ground it out there because it was easier. Rift had the same problem. True PvP servers, but everyone played the BGs because it was easier to grind there, and the open world areas really stunk for PvP (small, too many mobs). And as much as I despised the WAR endgame, the BGs and open field PvP were alot of fun on the way to 40. I hope ESO chooses open world only, and if possible, BGs for the lower level folks to have fun in.
I see your point, but why couldn't they have both. im not saying one or the other. this way woundly everyone be happy?
Why do they need to do something everyone else is doing?
Im not against battlegrounds type warfare, but it gets stale over time. Its been done to death a million times already.
What they are doing with pvp has been done already too. i dont think a game has ever had them both together before. and one faction dominating isn't going to be that enjoyable.
The beauty of a true 3 realm system where the sides are unequal is that the overpowered side, should get teamed up on the 2 lesser sides. A truly open world supports many styles of play as I pointed out before, providing the world is big and diverse enough. GW2 did 3 faction, but it was poorly done. Long waits to get in, all 3 sides were limited to approximately the same sized force, and the land mass was too small.
Battlegrounds at top level only do one thing, pull people away from open world PvP. WoW had decent open world PvP at release, then BGs were put in, and people just ground it out there because it was easier. Rift had the same problem. True PvP servers, but everyone played the BGs because it was easier to grind there, and the open world areas really stunk for PvP (small, too many mobs). And as much as I despised the WAR endgame, the BGs and open field PvP were alot of fun on the way to 40. I hope ESO chooses open world only, and if possible, BGs for the lower level folks to have fun in.
Run your 2 man group in open world. Even more fun as your not facing a static arena with only a pair of opponents. Beating an opponent with larger numbers, as a pair, is probably one the funnest times Ive ever had in an MMO. Of course this can swing the other way. Your duo might get beat down by 3 or more people as well.
Are they going to implement any for of leaderboard or something for pvp?
i want to be known for my greatness lol.
Yes. From the sounds of it, it will be very similar to The Camelot Herald that DAOC used to have: Guild stats and individual stats broken down by time periods (day, week, all-time, etc.) class, overall, for each "campaign (i.e. what they're calling the permanent server you PVP in--the "megaserver" is a PVE thing. The AVA happens in separate, persistent campaigns) and overall.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Are they going to implement any for of leaderboard or something for pvp?
i want to be known for my greatness lol.
Yes. From the sounds of it, it will be very similar to The Camelot Herald that DAOC used to have: Guild stats and individual stats broken down by time periods (day, week, all-time, etc.) class, overall, for each "campaign (i.e. what they're calling the permanent server you PVP in--the "megaserver" is a PVE thing. The AVA happens in separate, persistent campaigns) and overall.
Yep, they definitely are.
The devs are making a point of stressing it in all the PvP-focused interviews.
In my opinion, this is one of the big threats to GW2 WvW, where players are pretty much anonymous.
Rithwis, Righteous Golem of Camelot | Skritha, Orc Archer of Tamriel | Bloodwod, Sawbones of Auraxis | Thrumdi, Blue Norn of Tyria | Gwidwod, Spider of the Ettenmoors | Gideon Slack, Hunter of Alsius
Is pvp only going to be massive battles for keeps or will there be 10v10 capture the flag and other gametypes?
I would really like to see 2v2, and 3v3!
Theys tate in future if people will want we will have battle grounds and arenas.
pve plaeyrs hate pvp players to have manya ctivity and many will dont want for use to have battle grounds or arenas but many will just want to participate in pvp but in small scaled battles ,fast pvp with some kind of fast rewards in ranks or items and not staying 2 hours untill a masssive battle end.
I think is a must to have battle grounds and arenas
Comments
Most MMOs have that. This one doesn't...should all of them be the same?
Some people (raises hand) think that scenario PVP with its quick duration, small maps and instant scoreboards are boring as all hell. Been there...done that. Don't want to do that ever again.
The PVP in this one--where you succeed by working together in a very large group through good leadership and coordination--is the thinking man's PVP... I like it. I can do this for one hell of a lot longer than either scenario PVP or repetitive expert dungeons or raids. There are plenty of other games that cater to that. I'm very happy this one doesn't. It's a big plus as far as I'm concerned.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
What a great attitude and false assumptions that you make.
Designing yet another PvE game is not the answer. Companies have been trying that method for years and it still has not worked. Look at every major MMO that has been released in the last 10 years. The have all failed to unseat WoW, which is the king of PvE. Granted, its a very weary king, but its still the king. Many of these so called "WoW killers" are now reduced to free to play status.
PvE is far more easy to balance than PvP ever will be. Why? Because PvE is a static environment. A strategy is figured out for doing an encounter, and it remains a constant unless the devs openly change the encounter. Its been that way for years, all the way back to Ultima Online and EverQuest.
PvP games will always be harder to balance because the player is an ever evolving entity. When one strategy is figured out, another is devised to counter that strategy. There is never one master strategy that tops all the others.
As far as PvP balance messing up the PvE balance, does it really matter? You can design encounters (PvE) around players, but not the other way around. Players will gravitate to the most effective builds and gear. Its entirely up the devs to keep the players in check. Everyone wants to faceroll with the easiest best build? Good, make the encounter directly counter those builds. Or better yet, take the old school route, where encounters are really hard, requiring 100+ players all working together to get something done.
WoW was never a good PvP game. Its faceroll, timer dump and gear score at it finest. A bad player in good gear could beat a good player in average gear. At least that is the meaning Im drawing from your post.
I honestly hope they get some good player retention and can maintain a million paying subs. If they can do that, they can do something no developer has been able to do in quite a few years.
You cant fix stupid - Ron White
I see your point, but why couldn't they have both. im not saying one or the other. this way woundly everyone be happy?
You should have played DAOC back in its glory days....
Hopefully the devs can pull some of that back into this game. 100v100v100 fights are truly epic in scale. But DAOC also supported many other styles of play, 8 man for the heavy team guys, small group for the people just looking for a fight, solo for those that just want to lone wolf it, and battlegrounds where lower level players can just go fight each other in the same ways the top level guys did, but without the worry of being ganked by people far out of your level range.
You cant fix stupid - Ron White
Why do they need to do something everyone else is doing?
Im not against battlegrounds type warfare, but it gets stale over time. Its been done to death a million times already.
You cant fix stupid - Ron White
i play wow, i have a 460 ilvl, which is quite bad, and partnered up with a guy with 480. we went 9-5 which is good cause people we have played against had full tyrannical which i think is 498 ilvl, so no its not all about the gear.
What they are doing with pvp has been done already too. i dont think a game has ever had them both together before. and one faction dominating isn't going to be that enjoyable.
No but if the gear levels were equal, you would simply crushed them all 14-0 if you were a good enough player.
Forcing people on a gear treadmill is not a fun endgame for people that truly enjoy PvP.
You cant fix stupid - Ron White
Oh, but I did
Albion in Guinevere mostly. From release and for 2 years after that. The best PVP I've ever played...warts and all.
BGs were a later addition once there was a large population at 50 to give the low level players somewhere to PVP without getting wiped in 3 seconds. But even those were much better than any of the standard scenario PVP as we've come to know them these days. I still cringe when I think of Hutball.
The beauty of the frontiers was that anything could be going on there at any given time: from small to huge. The most fun for me was planning and executing large relic raids with various small groups performing faints and delaying actions and solo stealthers scouting while the main group went for the relic. There was something to do for everyone.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
i would crush them because i am the better player, which would make them try to get better. forcing one style of pvp on people will not be enjoyable for people who like smaller pvp groups
DAoC was the last time I even remotely enjoyed pvp. The battlegrounds for low levels were ok but I really enjoyed keep battles. Though it was also fun to take my hunter out and solo hunt people. For me the two biggest issues in DAoC was Trials of Atlantis and buffbots.
9 years between Alb Tristan and Mid Galahad with a little dabbling in Hib after Ywain started.
Lots of wasted times, but lots of good memories and friends I still talk to, and have even met alot of them in person.
I remember playing the original BGs back then. Good times. The game was wicked hard. You had to have people help you, and you had to work together to get anywhere. No MMO has that anymore.
You cant fix stupid - Ron White
The beauty of a true 3 realm system where the sides are unequal is that the overpowered side, should get teamed up on the 2 lesser sides. A truly open world supports many styles of play as I pointed out before, providing the world is big and diverse enough. GW2 did 3 faction, but it was poorly done. Long waits to get in, all 3 sides were limited to approximately the same sized force, and the land mass was too small.
Battlegrounds at top level only do one thing, pull people away from open world PvP. WoW had decent open world PvP at release, then BGs were put in, and people just ground it out there because it was easier. Rift had the same problem. True PvP servers, but everyone played the BGs because it was easier to grind there, and the open world areas really stunk for PvP (small, too many mobs). And as much as I despised the WAR endgame, the BGs and open field PvP were alot of fun on the way to 40. I hope ESO chooses open world only, and if possible, BGs for the lower level folks to have fun in.
You cant fix stupid - Ron White
Yea but i just love my 2v2s
Run your 2 man group in open world. Even more fun as your not facing a static arena with only a pair of opponents. Beating an opponent with larger numbers, as a pair, is probably one the funnest times Ive ever had in an MMO. Of course this can swing the other way. Your duo might get beat down by 3 or more people as well.
You cant fix stupid - Ron White
Are they going to implement any for of leaderboard or something for pvp?
i want to be known for my greatness lol.
Time will tell. With the focus on PvP, I would think so.
You cant fix stupid - Ron White
Yes. From the sounds of it, it will be very similar to The Camelot Herald that DAOC used to have: Guild stats and individual stats broken down by time periods (day, week, all-time, etc.) class, overall, for each "campaign (i.e. what they're calling the permanent server you PVP in--the "megaserver" is a PVE thing. The AVA happens in separate, persistent campaigns) and overall.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Yep, they definitely are.
The devs are making a point of stressing it in all the PvP-focused interviews.
In my opinion, this is one of the big threats to GW2 WvW, where players are pretty much anonymous.
Rithwis, Righteous Golem of Camelot | Skritha, Orc Archer of Tamriel | Bloodwod, Sawbones of Auraxis | Thrumdi, Blue Norn of Tyria | Gwidwod, Spider of the Ettenmoors | Gideon Slack, Hunter of Alsius
Theys tate in future if people will want we will have battle grounds and arenas.
pve plaeyrs hate pvp players to have manya ctivity and many will dont want for use to have battle grounds or arenas but many will just want to participate in pvp but in small scaled battles ,fast pvp with some kind of fast rewards in ranks or items and not staying 2 hours untill a masssive battle end.
I think is a must to have battle grounds and arenas
No BGS
No Arena
I hate to say it, but I think I will be bored with ESO PvP in about a week.
There will be World PvP but nothing else yea it sounds like it sucks but we'll never know until we play it