Originally posted by youngkg

Why clone DAOC which had like 500k+ subs in its prime when you can try to clone WOW which had like what?, 7+ million subs?....

 

Thats my take as to why it hasnt been done yet but i think it will eventually when the industry stops aiming for WOW's market...

 

It just wont be mythic.

 

p.s i was crushed when i heard WAR had only 2 factions lol....

 Dark Age of Camelot had nowhere near 500k subs at its prime. It was somewhere around 250k. DaOC is not a very strong brand name.

The REAL reason why no one has done it is simple and comes down to one word.  Scoping.  A lot of MMOs actually start out as 3 or even 4 factions, then producers start to take a look at how production is moving along and say, "Holy Hell, there is no way we are going to be able to complete this game on time and on budget."

So they start cutting things.  Factions ALWAYS go first because lets face it, UI, Combat, Classes, etc. are all more important.  There is a certain level polish that is expected out of MMOs today and 90% of games released can't even hit that.  Imagine trying to tack on a whole other fation with an additional 10+ zones, 3-4 dungeons, 3+ races, 500+ quests, capital cities, etc.

It's just not feasible for any studio to do unless you have a HUGE budget or decide to scope out other features of your game.

Wasn't DAOC listed in TOP 5 PvP games recently by mmorpg.com??

I think DAOC 2 was early in development around the time of WAR and the takeover by EA and clash in projects led to DAOC 2 being replaced by WAR? I forget the story now...

Why do companies not make multi-faction games? It seems to have worked for DAOC? ^The above may be a reason ie budget. I was thinking about this and taking a strange example such as if you had a football (soccer ahem) and you only need 2 players for each team, it's easier to get matches running. Imagine if each team required 11 v 11 ie 1 player per player position ie 1 player goes in goal another as striker and another as eg right-midfield... I think it would become overbearing to arrange people to play, even if it was f*ing awesome! There is F2P Regnum which uses 3 factions but not many.

Maybe this is another reason we do not see eg 3 factions more?

Take WH40K that is coming out and think that is also 2 factions when there are are about 4 human races, eldar, orcs, chaos several, tyrannids, d elder, tau... and the developers don't even talk about this subject of number of factions at all but like politicians completely side-step discussing with the fans their reaons or assumptions for 2 factions. Are they hiding something? It seems to me this IP is ripe for creating factions of players that are motivated to kill the other factions as they love the IP.

However choosing another company as an example of one which likes to discuss things albeit when they are ready to be discussed:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_PvP

Mark Jacobs and EA. Which is why if I ever meet Mark Jacobs I will kick him in the nuts.

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

MMORPG.com:

You talked a lot about camaraderie among players. Many MMOs have lost this on a wide level because of guild groups and smaller factions. How do you see players joining up on a large scale in Guild Wars 2?

Colin:

I think Dynamic Events is the thing that will do that. That is the glue in the bond that brings the players together. I think that will give you recognition when you start to build that sense of community. The other thing that I think is important and this is not a direct answer, but we have World vs. World PvP in Guild Wars 2. I think that will impact PvE as well. Which is your server shard matched up against two other servers in open world PvP. If you like Dark Age of Camelot, this is, in our minds the next evolution of that. It is something that really drove community and you care about what you are doing on a PVE and PvP side. You care about the people on the server. We think we will have those bonds because your server is matched up against two other servers. So it is just that much more important that you become friends and you bond with the players on your server. So the friends you make through PvE and Dynamic Events, those friends will carry over into World vs. World PvP. You may get out of World vs. World PvP and go back to early zones to do events with new people and help encourage them to join you in the fight for your server to take part in battles and beat the other two. We expect large strong communities on each server and I think PvP will end up affecting PvE because people will work together.

This makes me very happy! I wasn't really following GW2 that much due to hype avoidance mode, but I'm going to have to look into this a bit more.

Thanks for the thoughtful posts, Fief5, MumboJumbo, and everyone else.

Originally posted by xBludx

This makes me very happy! I wasn't really following GW2 that much due to hype avoidance mode, but I'm going to have to look into this a bit more.

Thanks for the thoughtful posts, Fief5, MumboJumbo, and everyone else.

Not so strange, the hype have been mostly about PvE. While many of ANETs biggest fans are PvP players it have been very little talk about the PvP aspect of the game. Mostly because ANET have a policy to not discuss things before they are in the game and working fine, PvP tend to be the last thing you get working as it should since it's balancing is the hard work.

I wish Mythic would have done the same thing, they revealed a lot of cool things about WAR but then cancel every single thing I was looking forward to. If they just had been quite about them the game would probably have done better.

I still have some hope that there will be a DaoC 2, but I think even if it will be things will be very different from the first game. Few guys are on the team still, only in some position is Barnett and he is the one I rather had fired and moved to Cryptic or somewherel. Bioware is more or less heading Mythic now so any new DaoC will probably be more Dragon age and mass effect then most fans expect.

Never go back in time. It never works.

And those developpers of GW2 are taking a ridiculous path that can only lead to disaster.

They still load their unborn donkey with extreme 800lbs hype and it is just waiting to fall through its brittle knees.

Just as if that other Mythic monkey (jumping flash Paul) never even existed.

"Open world PvP" can never be seen on cross server realms: because that's a preloaded instance you talk about.

At least when you hype: tell the truth.

Originally posted by xBludx

This makes me very happy! I wasn't really following GW2 that much due to hype avoidance mode, but I'm going to have to look into this a bit more.

Thanks for the thoughtful posts, Fief5, MumboJumbo, and everyone else.

As Loke mentions, PvP is strictly on a "need-to-know" basis ;) Best carry on avoiding hype for another 3/4 months?!!

@ above poster:

"Open World PvP" ~ Darkfall eg

"Faction (RvR) PvP" ~ DAOC, WAR, WvWvW

Is a bit clearer?

Well that was a misnomer about DAoC having done pvp right in a sense that it was good until they got really creative and made the Trials of Atlantis expansion.  Then the only competitive players were those that had completed a long arduous quest chain.

They also had other issues with the game, Too powerful CC, with lilttle counter except lots of pvp play.  Unbalanced classes because they had far too many.  Too powerful stealth with no counter.

In the long run, it was a good game when it came out, that got steadily worse.

I know it doesn't have the 3 factions but Rift is a pretty interesting game. Good PvE, and they have some decent plans for PvP as well. Got a chance to check it out and it seemed pretty polished to me - only major concern I saw people had was the class system and unbalancing issues but that will be ironed out I'm sure.

It's hard to find games we have played and enjoyed in our past, but let me pose a thought: when I played DAoC I wasn't looking for the next EQ, and when I played SWG I wasn't looking for DAoC. Something I've learned recently is we can't expect games to be clones of what we played in the past when they were in their prime otherwise we will be disappointed. We have to accept the new game for what it is: a new game. it may have some similarities to other games on the market but it is not that game. Why did Dark Age drop subscriptions? Because the idea died out - new things came along and replaced it. It's progress - albeit crappy progress at times but still progress. If you want a new experience with decent pvp and pve I suggest you try games like Rift or GW2, two games that look very promising.  

Originally posted by marius1771 Something I've learned recently is we can't expect games to be clones of what we played in the past when they were in their prime otherwise we will be disappointed. We have to accept the new game for what it is: a new game. it may have some similarities to other games on the market but it is not that game. Why did Dark Age drop subscriptions? Because the idea died out - new things came along and replaced it. It's progress - albeit crappy progress at times but still progress. If you want a new experience with decent pvp and pve I suggest you try games like Rift or GW2, two games that look very promising.  

Just a quick comment on what you said.  All I gotta do is point at games such as Warhammer Online, and use it as a prime example of "something new" doesn't always make it better than what has been out for many years already.  WAR was nowhere near the quality of WoW in PvE content, and nowhere near as good as DAOC in RvR.  So there's our progress and we're supposed to accept new games as new & improved?

We'll all be looking at Rift and GW2 closely I'm sure.  But the genre has tried this "new & improved" ideas many times and many games have failed to deliver already.  I think some people are simply saying...well DAOC was popular during its time, only game that was above it back then was EQ1.  So, why not a DAOC 2?

I noticed some cheap shots at DAOC's peak sub # as being "only" 250k.  Um, 250k back then was very good, when the market was smaller.  Fast foward to today, 250k *IS* still good for any games aside from WoW.  Many games on the market today can only wish they have 250k subscribers, many don't even have half that.  So no matter how much people want to say DAOC wasn't popular or how DAOC slowly lost subscribers, it was a popular game, its mechanics have been taken in pieces by other games today, and I do believe it holds the void that we are missing in today's MMO's.

I had fun in WAR for awhile, but I realized I mainly was missing the RvR & castle sieges.  Even then I knew DAOC had a better RvR design, and ask around you'll find a lot of peopel who quit WAR saying they quit because endgame RvR & endgame fort raids were horrible.

I never said that WAR, or any other new game that has released since wow and failed miserably should be accepted as improved or better than my past favorites like DAoC. But perhaps someday a game will come along that will be the next succession to these classic games, and if it does I don't think it will be a rehash of the original. Would I love to see a Dark Age 2? and would I hope they wouldn't have ToA and NF? Yep. But would the servers be populated, would subscribers en masse be satisfied with the same core fundamentals/similar content again... just redone? I don't think so, but I could be wrong - I think this may be why they haven't done it. Also WAR did kinda tank in that department so they probably don't have the resources (daoc devs/ good management and such) anymore anyways. Though this is all speculation. Don't burn me please lol :P. 

What I was trying to get across was that these new games shouldn't try to be those old games. they should try to be themselves, a new idea, a new world w/ successful mechanics that people enjoy; and maybe we will have the next EQ or the next DAoC in these new games some day. If DAoC tried to be EQ or UO we wouldnt have DAoC.

PvP for old farts! Always with you, dear grandpas and grandmas, your DAoC...

Originally posted by marius1771

I never said that WAR, or any other new game that has released since wow and failed miserably should be accepted as improved or better than my past favorites like DAoC. But perhaps someday a game will come along that will be the next succession to these classic games, and if it does I don't think it will be a rehash of the original. Would I love to see a Dark Age 2? and would I hope they wouldn't have ToA and NF? Yep. But would the servers be populated, would subscribers en masse be satisfied with the same core fundamentals/similar content again... just redone? I don't think so, but I could be wrong - I think this may be why they haven't done it. Also WAR did kinda tank in that department so they probably don't have the resources (daoc devs/ good management and such) anymore anyways. Though this is all speculation. Don't burn me please lol :P. 

What I was trying to get across was that these new games shouldn't try to be those old games. they should try to be themselves, a new idea, a new world w/ successful mechanics that people enjoy; and maybe we will have the next EQ or the next DAoC in these new games some day. If DAoC tried to be EQ or UO we wouldnt have DAoC.

I've heard this said in a few dev interviews actually (devs with a strong track-record in fact) about not making a new game for the sake of it or different just to be different. But it has to be different and better and based off the devs conception not aping the competition who are better at making what they already made more so than the dev that tries to copy.

However, the reason ppl always hark back to DAOC and fall-back to DAOC 2 is because there is not a better Faction PvP game out in this fantasy style. It's a niche begging to be filled. One of the answers is to my mind simplicity itself. In fact even if you go on the wikipedia entry of permutations the answer is already textbook:

In mathematics, the notion of permutation is used with several slightly different meanings, all related to the act of permuting (rearranging in an ordered fashion) objects or values. Informally, a permutation of a set of values is an arrangement of those values into a particular order. Thus there are six permutations of the set {1,2,3}, namely [1,2,3], [1,3,2], [2,1,3], [2,3,1], [3,1,2], and [3,2,1].

Effectively you could say with 3 factions, imagine each faction has a group at just 3 locations (eg 3 keeps) on the map then the above permutations of map control are possible from a design from first principles point of view.

In case the point being made is not clear, that (1st principles) is significantly more than 2 factions with 2 ways of ordering. How to keep the game interesting?

/agreed /bump

Please to all developers out there, please, pretty please, can you start thinking about something that resembles, mirrors or reproduces the excellence of DAoC. I have all my hopes resting on Rift. Played the Beta4 and it was terrific. Unfortunately I suspect the end game open PvP will be a disappointment. That being the case, as players hit the level ceiling, and discover Rift is not DAoC 2 end game subscriptions will start to decline. And then .... as with many others, I wait and wait and wait for something to comes even close in quality to DAoC RvR.

Originally posted by marius1771

I know it doesn't have the 3 factions but Rift is a pretty interesting game. Good PvE, and they have some decent plans for PvP as well. Got a chance to check it out and it seemed pretty polished to me - only major concern I saw people had was the class system and unbalancing issues but that will be ironed out I'm sure.

It's hard to find games we have played and enjoyed in our past, but let me pose a thought: when I played DAoC I wasn't looking for the next EQ, and when I played SWG I wasn't looking for DAoC. Something I've learned recently is we can't expect games to be clones of what we played in the past when they were in their prime otherwise we will be disappointed. We have to accept the new game for what it is: a new game. it may have some similarities to other games on the market but it is not that game. Why did Dark Age drop subscriptions? Because the idea died out - new things came along and replaced it. It's progress - albeit crappy progress at times but still progress. If you want a new experience with decent pvp and pve I suggest you try games like Rift or GW2, two games that look very promising.  

 I personally didn't leave for those reasons, they did a major overhaul of the game with the point system, and many viewed the way it was handled as its own nerf of some things....I mainly left due to over a year after it being out they were still majorly nerfing and changing things...Still is my favorite RvR/PvP game.  I just got tired of the changes, if they would of acted quicker, and not done so many changes to the classes, I would of stayed longer (I say longer, since I cant say what happend to it once I left).

If Mythic was allowed to put as much of the old DAoC team together as possible, and if EA agreed to a "hands-off" policy (where they fund the project but let Mythic do the dev), DAoC2 could be a great game.  The biggest problem here is EA would never sign off on the project as I just described it, and the other problem is that they may have a point.  DAoC2, for all of its loyal cult following, may not be able get to the 500k point in subs, which is prolly around where any investor would start calling an MMO a success (yes, the 500k thing is a total guess, I have no idea where the "breaking point" is).  Sure, most games prolly get to profitability earlier, but investors won't get into a project without a high percentage chance that they will get a good profit.

Mostly, our best chance for another great RvR game is for another dev to pick it up and expand on it.  I don't think a DAoC clone with updated graphics and mechanics has a chance in today's MMO market (I would definitely play it, as would quite a few others, but I don't see that as being enough to warrant the development costs).  In other words, they can't just redo 3 faction RvR, I think they need more "innovation" to go with it, if they are going to pull in the necessary numbers.  While I think Mythic did a decent job balancing out their three unique factions, I know things like that add not only to dev time but to time in beta testing. 

Here's to hoping somebody can make this happen, and do it well.

Originally posted by Samkin772

If Mythic was allowed to put as much of the old DAoC team together as possible, and if EA agreed to a "hands-off" policy (where they fund the project but let Mythic do the dev), DAoC2 could be a great game.  The biggest problem here is EA would never sign off on the project as I just described it, and the other problem is that they may have a point.  DAoC2, for all of its loyal cult following, may not be able get to the 500k point in subs, which is prolly around where any investor would start calling an MMO a success (yes, the 500k thing is a total guess, I have no idea where the "breaking point" is).  Sure, most games prolly get to profitability earlier, but investors won't get into a project without a high percentage chance that they will get a good profit.

It depends on how much money you spend on development. The Old Republic has a very large development budget. They will be an utter failure if they only get 500K subs, and lose tons of money.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Samkin772

If Mythic was allowed to put as much of the old DAoC team together as possible, and if EA agreed to a "hands-off" policy (where they fund the project but let Mythic do the dev), DAoC2 could be a great game.  The biggest problem here is EA would never sign off on the project as I just described it, and the other problem is that they may have a point.  DAoC2, for all of its loyal cult following, may not be able get to the 500k point in subs, which is prolly around where any investor would start calling an MMO a success (yes, the 500k thing is a total guess, I have no idea where the "breaking point" is).  Sure, most games prolly get to profitability earlier, but investors won't get into a project without a high percentage chance that they will get a good profit.

 

It depends on how much money you spend on development. The Old Republic has a very large development budget. They will be an utter failure if they only get 500K subs, and lose tons of money.

Yup the success or failure of MMO's isn't based purely on the sub #'s alone.  The reason WAR is a failure is because it was such a huge budget project, around $100mil from what was said.  Now you'd think the game was a success for selling over 800k copies and had over 500k subs shortly after launch.  But that's nothing when you consider how much the game cost to develop & market.  You add in the fact that they closed 63 servers within 6 months of launch, and majority of the subscribers didn't last more than a few months in the game.  All of a sudden the high # of box sales and high initial subscriber rate doesn't sound so hot anymore.

On the flip side, DAOC had peaked around 250k subscribers.  But it was considered a success because the game was much much cheaper to make, and 250k back when the genre was smaller meant DAOC was a top 3 MMO in the U.S. at the time.  Just as EQ is considered a success story because 11 years later, it still has over 14 servers and a decent population.  And you know SOE made their development budget back probably 9-10 years ago.  So it doesn't matter how large or small the population is in EQ today, the game is a success story.

New games coming out with huge budget like SW:TOR will need a lot of subscribers for a good duration of time for it to be a success.  If they get 500k or less, or population shrink too quickly within 6 months of launch,  it'll be considered a failure.

the new old daoc 2 ! id like to see it! only if it was just like daoc with of course with some new whistle and bells like races and such..but ya..id like to see it