It seems there won't be real pvp in this game... that stiffles my expectations.

I think COH was a great game but COV came too late and wasn't working well for me when I finally tried it..

I want real pvp ... all over, all the time ... with consequences!

Originally posted by Draccan

 

It seems there won't be real pvp in this game... that stiffles my expectations.

I think COH was a great game but COV came too late and wasn't working well for me when I finally tried it..

I want real pvp ... all over, all the time ... with consequences!

i think the game only mentions being heroes, i didn't notice anything about being villains.  they may not be intending pvp at all?

Originally posted by Draccan

 

It seems there won't be real pvp in this game... that stiffles my expectations.

I think COH was a great game but COV came too late and wasn't working well for me when I finally tried it..

I want real pvp ... all over, all the time ... with consequences!

They said there would be PvP, but it's not going to be like the kind you want probably.

Originally posted by damian7

 

Originally posted by Draccan

 

It seems there won't be real pvp in this game... that stiffles my expectations.

I think COH was a great game but COV came too late and wasn't working well for me when I finally tried it..

I want real pvp ... all over, all the time ... with consequences!

 

i think the game only mentions being heroes, i didn't notice anything about being villains.  they may not be intending pvp at all?

History will repeat itself in this case -- villains will be available in an expansion according to the website.

  Jack say that they havent decided on Villains , and Heretic is pushing hard for PVP.  In fact Heretic is the one working on the PVP , more than likely its be arena based. This game is geared to Teen rating, generally families dont like open pvp , or duel spam.

   I think the arena system is going to be like Marvel's Wrestling thing that Ben Grimm was involved with. Where you can advance through the game with it.

      Personally I dont think Villains should be put in at all. I think Villains require more depth than CoV gave them , and require a GTA type setting so they pull off crimes , work in stories which require them to be evil. I dont think that is gonna happen with a teen rating.

        Even if PVP just the arena , there are plenty of Korean clones , Aion , WAR , and Conan to get your pvp fix , get your pve fix from Co.

Originally posted by Draccan

 I want real pvp ... all over, all the time ... with consequences!

Let me point you to a myriad of korean grinders that are right up your alley. Apparently Koreans love punishing themselves in their entertainment so you'll find plenty of games you'll like. 

That model doesn't  translate to the states as most of us have limited time to play and don't want to spend it either destroying someone's progress or being penalized by our recreational diversions.

Actually most Koreans are casual PVPers.  I wouldn't call Lineage II a hardcore PVP game.  It is more like a hardcore PVE game.  You have to be able to PVE to PVP in that game.

I really hope they consider adding PVP in CO becuase there aren't that many non-medievalish PVP MMORPG's floating around.

And no adding elements of PVP doesn't change the rating of the game (lol?).

 As for hardcore PVP consequences?  No thanks and I am a long time PVP player.

The idiots namely (Jack Emmert) just will never learn, we begged  and pleaded with them when COH was being developed to include some meaningfull PVP from the jump.. His repsonse? We just do not want PVP in this MMO or some crap like that.

A year later when their subs are dropping guess what?... they bring in PVP....

Now once agian History is repeting itself and Jack "Carebear" Emmert is making the same stupid choices he did in the past... If he thinks this game will survive without some type of legitimate PVP then he is just as crazy as he was back in 04.

Am I saying I want this to be a FFA gankfest PVP game? No, not at all.  But I am saying that in todays world of MMO's (not yesturdays world of EQ1) your PVP needs to be on par with your PVE... Well rounded games prosper, the rest just sputter and/or die.

Now im starting to see why Microsoft pulled the plug on this crap, they saw the writing on the wall.

Good superhero pvp should be like playing cops and robbers.

Villians commit crimes.

Heroes have to stop them.

PvP isn't the only thing that makes MMO's more fun. You also have to inspire people to fight, which usually requires something other then fighting each other for no reason at all. PvP has it's uses, but if it isn't designed properly, it becomes a stagnant game mechanism. World of Warcraft is a prime example of this flawed approach.

You need worldwide domination or atleast the ability to fight for control of a majority of the game world. Planetside, Eve Online and Dark Age of Camelot all offer this type of PvP. Funny how the games that have some of the best PvP / PvE combo have little to no subscribers though, lol.

I highly doubt they're going to leave Villains or meaningful PvP out at launch. What's the point in admitting repeatedly that it was a mistake tacking both on as an expansion later in City of Heroes, only to do the same crap again? 

That aside, Cryptic has to be paying attention to the big three MMO releases of this year. Age of Conan, Warhammer Online and Wrath of the Lich King: all with heavy server-encompassing PvP elements. 

At the same time they must be observing releases like Lord of the Rings Online and Tabula Rasa, the first of which doing more than decent I think but still showing the growing pains of trying to pitch a gimmicky PvP mechanic as something worthwhile. 

If I were Cryptic, I wouldn't even use the term Arena since it defines their original gimmick of what PvP is. 

Hopefully they take the time to implement Villains and an avenue of PvP between them and Heroes. No real reason to quicken the release by slimming plans only to launch a PvP-less MMO within the first year running of this year's juggernauts.

I think it would be pointless releasing a no-PvP MMORPG these days (other than something like Hello, Kitty). 

For me, the main reason I stopped playing LOTRO was because of the no/bad-PvP.  I really wanted to like it but it all seemed pointless.

PvE is boring without having PvP to work/look forward to (even if you rarely actually pvp).

CoH did a bad job with PvP (couldn't be added later because they didn't build the game correctly from the start).  It's a shame because CoH did so many things right.

Wargames like capture the flag and the arenas/ladders are a lot of quick fun.  Sieges for control of areas or for specific events are awesome.  It is -always- more fun/challenging to fight other players than it is to fight computer generated no-AI blips (unless you always lose). 

And let's face it... Hello Kitty would be so much better with hardcore PvP rules.

Originally posted by sepher

I highly doubt they're going to leave Villains or meaningful PvP out at launch. What's the point in admitting repeatedly that it was a mistake tacking both on as an expansion later in City of Heroes, only to do the same crap again? 

That aside, Cryptic has to be paying attention to the big three MMO releases of this year. Age of Conan, Warhammer Online and Wrath of the Lich King: all with heavy server-encompassing PvP elements. 

At the same time they must be observing releases like Lord of the Rings Online and Tabula Rasa, the first of which doing more than decent I think but still showing the growing pains of trying to pitch a gimmicky PvP mechanic as something worthwhile. 

If I were Cryptic, I wouldn't even use the term Arena since it defines their original gimmick of what PvP is. 

Hopefully they take the time to implement Villains and an avenue of PvP between them and Heroes. No real reason to quicken the release by slimming plans only to launch a PvP-less MMO within the first year running of this year's juggernauts.

Actually I think the LOTRO model of PVP or some other non-traditional approach to PVP would work very well for Champions Online.  Personally I like PVP, but I don't think that it's impossible to make a great, successful MMO without it.  If you're going to build your MMO from scratch with PVP in mind (in terms of pvp content, class balance, and overall relevance of PVP), then great.  You can certainly make a successful MMO with that strategy, but I think building a PVE focused game is also viable.  Where you get in trouble is trying to tack on PVP to a PVE game in a way that detracts heavily from the PVE game.   That's where COX messed up. 

IMO LOTRO was able to successfully implement PVP in a PVE focused game at launch without detracting from the PVE game, and Champions Online would do well to emulate their strategy.  You can call it gimmicky, but I call it innovative.  One of the main reasons that lotro's pvp works well in a pve focused game is that they avoided having symmetric factions such as you see in WOW with the Horde and the Alliance.  This lets them focus on one side for the main game (PVE).  They don't have to split development resources between the factions and there's a lot more freedom to develop compelling stories.  Seriously how many times can you go to the "oh, we're enemies but lets join together to fight a common threat" well?  Anyway, while the main game is just for one side, you have a PVP faction that is specifically created for PVP. 

They don't need to copy LOTRO's approach exactly, but I do think that they would be much better off by doing something other than making a WOW/Warhammer Online style faction based PVP game.  For example, what if instead of making a complete game for Villains, you will eventually get the choice to have your character turn evil or perhaps even neutral.  I'd much rather have them think outside the box than make it a WOW clone with superheroes. 

Originally posted by Fennris

I think it would be pointless releasing a no-PvP MMORPG these days (other than something like Hello, Kitty). 

For me, the main reason I stopped playing LOTRO was because of the no/bad-PvP.  I really wanted to like it but it all seemed pointless.

PvE is boring without having PvP to work/look forward to (even if you rarely actually pvp).

CoH did a bad job with PvP (couldn't be added later because they didn't build the game correctly from the start).  It's a shame because CoH did so many things right.

You're comments here are very ego-centric.  Not everyone feels the same way.  It may be pointless to do an MMO without making PVP the focus TO YOU.  But it's not pointless overall, because a lot of people enjoy PVE for its own sake.  

Well while I am sure they can get the lotro crowd with a non pvp mmo, all I can say is that the worst thing about COH was that everyone was waiting for COV and it took them years to complete, so I for one was very dissappointed... And so has many others said..

A non pvp mmo is boring to me... not a real mmo

<< IMO LOTRO was able to successfully implement PVP in a PVE focused game at launch without detracting from the PVE game, and Champions Online would do well to emulate their strategy.  You can call it gimmicky, but I call it innovative.  >>

LOTRO's pvp isn't gimmicky, it's crap.  I applaud new ideas and Turbine certainly likes to try new things, but ultimately most of the people interested in pvp are not going to bother with monster play or LOTRO.  Forcing people to play pseudo characters in special zones only is not my idea of pvp.

If there was going to be a big, next gen pve game, D&D or LOTRO would have been it.  While they aren't bad games and LOTRO isn't a failure, they aren't particularly close to the most successful either.   I think MMOs are going to require pvp henceforth unless they completely redesign the gaming model from the ground up (but even then, they should include pvp or many will not be interested).  Too many gamers have tasted how fun it can be at this point.

Cryptic has proven that they can do great and innovative things (they gave MMOs travel powers, costume creation, good group-finding mechanics and random instances - which shouldn't have replaced -all- content but were still a good addition).  I think they can put a real dent in WoW if they focus on balance and PvP (and add in other things like vehicles and more environment interaction - and oh yeah: weapon sheaths/holsters) .

Originally posted by Fennris

<< IMO LOTRO was able to successfully implement PVP in a PVE focused game at launch without detracting from the PVE game, and Champions Online would do well to emulate their strategy.  You can call it gimmicky, but I call it innovative.  >>

LOTRO's pvp isn't gimmicky, it's crap.  I applaud new ideas and Turbine certainly likes to try new things, but ultimately most of the people interested in pvp are not going to bother with monster play or LOTRO.  Forcing people to play pseudo characters in special zones only is not my idea of pvp.

If there was going to be a big, next gen pve game, D&D or LOTRO would have been it.  While they aren't bad games and LOTRO isn't a failure, they aren't particularly close to the most successful either.   I think MMOs are going to require pvp henceforth unless they completely redesign the gaming model from the ground up (but even then, they should include pvp or many will not be interested).  Too many gamers have tasted how fun it can be at this point.

Cryptic has proven that they can do great and innovative things (they gave MMOs travel powers, costume creation, good group-finding mechanics and random instances - which shouldn't have replaced -all- content but were still a good addition).  I think they can put a real dent in WoW if they focus on balance and PvP (and add in other things like vehicles and more environment interaction - and oh yeah: weapon sheaths/holsters) .

First off all, I think your expectations for D&DO & LOTRO are overblown.  Sure, D&D is a well known IP, but it was set in Ebberon (ugh) AND it wasn't really designed like an MMO.  It's designed to appeal to people that play the actual D&D board games, so this doesn't exactly scream "mainstream hit" to me.  LOTR is a very popular IP as well, but I think it is a very difficult one to translate into an MMO.  To be true to the lore, the game has to shun a lot of things that make MMO's popular.  As much as the extensive lore for LOTR is a resource, it also doesn't give the team a lot of flexibility.  Personally I like what Turbine did with it, and I think they are doing very well to have the success that they have had.  Do they compete with WOW?  Hell no, not even in the same ballpark.  But who else does?  Nobody as of yet. 

"LOTRO's pvp isn't gimmicky, it's crap."

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.  I think you're reasoning is pretty weak though.  If you object to special zones, what do you think Battlegrounds are?  Monster play was never designed to be the focal point of the game, and your main complaint seems to be that monster play isn't the focal point of the game.  Well, duh.  Rather than judging it on it's own merits, you're dismissing it because it doesn't fit your idea of what it should be.

Anyway I think you need to separate your analysis of the scope of Monster Play from the model.  There's absolutely no reason that you couldn't use the model of monster play for PVP that is of much larger scope.  The essence of the monster play system is that you have PVP characters that can exist outside of the PVE game.  The type of PVP characters that you can make, the zones and activities that they can participate are all questions of scope.  I'm all for Champions Online having PVP as a much bigger part of the game than what it is in LOTRO, but I think using the Monster Play system would be the best way to incorporate that PVP. 

Originally posted by Rhoklaw

atleast the ability to fight for control of a majority of the game world. Planetside, Eve Online and Dark Age of Camelot all offer this type of PvP. Funny how the games that have some of the best PvP / PvE combo have little to no subscribers though, lol.

EVE is a niche MMO with 300k subs paying 15$ a month and Dark age of Camelot is just way too old.

Originally posted by Azure77

  Jack say that they havent decided on Villains , and Heretic is pushing hard for PVP.  In fact Heretic is the one working on the PVP , more than likely its be arena based. This game is geared to Teen rating, generally families dont like open pvp , or duel spam.

   I think the arena system is going to be like Marvel's Wrestling thing that Ben Grimm was involved with. Where you can advance through the game with it.

      Personally I dont think Villains should be put in at all. I think Villains require more depth than CoV gave them , and require a GTA type setting so they pull off crimes , work in stories which require them to be evil. I dont think that is gonna happen with a teen rating.

        Even if PVP just the arena , there are plenty of Korean clones , Aion , WAR , and Conan to get your pvp fix , get your pve fix from Co.

90% of korean games more PvE than even WoW.

They just focus on leveling more than gear.  So its a bit different.  And teen rating... go look at WC3, things explode when killed by cats and mortars.  And the water gets filled with blood if they die in water. 

And that game has a Teen raiting... i think you dont know what your talking about.

I agree with one of the former posters; I hope Champions Online has some type of PvP diversity (Capture enemy Base, etc) or something of that nature. In CoV it got sorta repetitive defeating the opposing side over and over again. (which I LOVE CoV btw.)

But about Villians in Champions Online; I read in one of Game Informer's recent issues that a Villains part of CO was in the works as well, like seperate of the Heroes side. They may have changed it since then, but that's what I read. :/