I am looking forward to this game but I would much more prefer real open world PvP.

But If PvP has to be zoned, there needs to be way more "contested" zones than safe zones.

I like being in danger while PVE questing, it makes questing more interesting.

Originally posted by Rhoklaw

Here is a simple fact...

DAoC had PvP, it wasn't open world, didn't have full looting and was probably THEE best PvP game ever made. Why? Because it had entertainment value. It wasn't about running around ganking lowbies, it was about strategy, multiple battles in multiple territories all fighting over dominance and relic control.

TESO is following suit...

DAoC had a great community and intense rivalry, until i see any other game come anywhere near the competitive play on a faction level in DAoC i'll reserve judgement on how similar they are.

GW2 has very similar mechanics but was a pointless, directionless zerg fest. I have to wonder, if DAoC was released for the first time today, would it suffer the same fate?

Originally posted by azzamasin

Originally posted by Karteli

To get to any meaningful PVP, doesn't everyone need to suffer through all the funneled themepark PVE content first, then get to endgame and do PVP "in the middle", since every faction is segregated?

 

 

Where is this funneled PvE content you speak of?  If Funnled PvE content equals freedom to explore anywhere and go where ever you want is funneled....then yes PvE is funneled.

Haters , don't mind them. I think they should just make a subsection of game called MMOPVP and that way pvpers don't have to worry about the actual role playing game stuff and can gank to their hearts content just like they were 13 again.  The idea that pvp is zoned makes me want to at least try this game. 

I wouldn't even mind if they figured out how to do a Dark Cloud 2 system where pvp actions (not killing a bunch of people, but actually building a community) effected the real world in some type of statistical or item availablity area. 

PVP takes away the realism of any game. No world has peopel , even of opposite factions, randomly killing folk for no particular reason other than i hate u, u hate me.  The only way I"d ever do open world pvp is if you had to join an army for it, and could only particupate in  organized battles according to a general. This would provide far more realistic impressino for me and force players to actually understand how real war and opposing factions work. 

It will be interesting to see how TESO world pvp turns out when the last 2 big games - GW2 and Planetside 2 had such contrasting results.

I really like the faction region lock as I think that really adds to the rivalries and realm pride that was present in DAOC. I also like the idea of capturing specific objectives to 'win' like DAOC relics as opposed to the scoring system in GW2 which in the end wasn't that interesting and just promoted constant server hopping.

I know a lot of people hate the idea of instancing, but if it prevents queue times like in GW2 and allows people to play with their friends and guild whenever they want then the cost is worth it.

Planetside 2 gives me hope that world pvp can work well.

Originally posted by Nitth

 

---

Originally posted by deakon

---

Originally posted by Caliburn101

---

Originally posted by ShakyMo Caliburn Why would it crash? Planetside 2 has simmilar player numbers per continent and doesn't crash. Daoc & planetside 1 managed perfectly well too.  

---

Let me be as clear as possible then; 2000 people in a zone max. 200 people on your screen max. When the 2000 people come together for the 'final push' in defence or attack to take the throne - FAR MORE than 200 will be crowding your screen... ... crash... ... or do you think 1800 of them will voluntarily leave the last phases of the battle to a select 200?... ... or that the zone will be split into 10 different areas which have objectives which all have to be taken simultaneously to win?... ... no?... ... me neither.

---

Your assuming there is just one big objective in the middle rather than lots spread out around the map

 

 

Its already been said you need to capture and hold multiple keeps etc in order to "win" so there wont be a centralised "push" as it were because if you have your whole team on one keep one of the factions will just break off and capture those you have left alone

 

---

 

Your joking right? Time and time again games have shown human nature in the majority is to ZERG

Indeed it does.

A large zerg will run around and at best I would expect (without strong multi-guild leadership and extremely effective coordination) a few to remain behind the zerg defending objectives which need to be held for the zerg to go for the final objective.

Logic dictates absolutely that there will be a final objective - the capitol city on the island in the center of Cyrodil. It would be ridiculous to assume those in the zone will sit back on the shore while the 'chosen 200' rush to the center.

Culling I would think is the only possible solution, and I hope, with the relevant amount of testing, that it can be programmed to deal with exploitation (large zerg crash-festing to prevent a win) or accidental overload (concentrated fighting over one currently critical location...).

Concentrations of numbers WILL happen - and the server and program WILL have to have an effective way of dealing.

We are many, many years past the assumption that player self-regulation will deal with the issue for us...

... that's just wishful thinking of the most naive kind I think...

Originally posted by Tayah

Originally posted by Toxia

Originally posted by Tayah

I hope it's very much like DAOC RvR areas were. If they do just that, I'll be happy. If it's like GW2, then I'll pass.

Wasn't gw2 wvw made to mimic DaoC? What's different about them? Never got to play DaoC, enlighten me.

GW2 did a S*&^ job of mimicking DAOC's RvR. GW2 is instanced and limits you to too few people. In DAOC Pre-ToA we had massive keep battles between all 3 sides. There were no limits of how many people could be in the RvR area. GW2 also you all you see is server tag of the other team you're fighting. With DAOC you got a message each time a person killed another, using their names. You'd see Briton, Norse, Avalonian, etc as your enemies above their heads, but once they were killed or you were killed you saw a message of the real character names. It was awesome.

The RvR areas were the best coin loot in the game you could get from mobs so we'd go out there to pve at the risk of being ganked. If you saw a message, lets say, "Kevo has just killed Shimmer", you immediately started looking out because there was danger about and you could be ganked at any moment, so you'd be prepared to slay that person if they came your way.

It was great rivalry between all 3 factions, and in those days when someone ganked you, instead of humping you they'd actually bow to you, to let you know, you fought well, and were a worthy opponent. People were more respectful in those days.

the times when people actually bow to their apponent are gone m8....back in the days some people who killed you rezzed you again and where on their way.....THAT was gloryous pvp back then, with respect for the others.

But get used to it that since then mmo's are for kids and not just adults anymore.

Originally posted by wilq
When they fking learn that factions in "open" pvp leads to unbalance. Their will be always one faction which dominates pvp.

 Well I agree ..but..

3 factions (realms) has been a winning concept in DaoC , when one faction is dominating in popularity, the other 2 factions go together and help.

Originally posted by thark

Originally posted by wilq
When they fking learn that factions in "open" pvp leads to unbalance. Their will be always one faction which dominates pvp.

 Well I agree ..but..

3 factions (realms) has been a winning concept in DaoC , when one faction is dominating in popularity, the other 2 factions go together and help.

 

Probably, but since all 3 factions has a popular race (Nord, Elves and Breton) it should balance out pretty well, I think.

Originally posted by cyrana

 

---

Originally posted by Caliburn101

---

Originally posted by ShakyMo Caliburn Why would it crash? Planetside 2 has simmilar player numbers per continent and doesn't crash. Daoc & planetside 1 managed perfectly well too.  

---

Let me be as clear as possible then;

 

2000 people in a zone max.

200 people on your screen max.

When the 2000 people come together for the 'final push' in defence or attack to take the throne - FAR MORE than 200 will be crowding your screen...

... crash...

... or do you think 1800 of them will voluntarily leave the last phases of the battle to a select 200?...

... or that the zone will be split into 10 different areas which have objectives which all have to be taken simultaneously to win?...

... no?...

... me neither.

---

I'd imagine the developers have thought of this - would be pretty naff to make something that just crashes. I think it just means they'll do the culling that GW2 does with tons of invisible people - not that this is so brilliant, either.

 

So, the advertised "premiere" PVP fantasy game translated by the premiere sandbox open SRPG and next to come to our desktops will run on a heavily instanced megaserver and in its core gameplay will get us killed by invisible people.

Jeez....

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by azzamasin

Originally posted by bcbully

Originally posted by azzamasin

Originally posted by bcbully

"Cyrodiil (the PvP map) is open-world..."

 

Marketing talk...

God damnit BC, where the hell do you get off on this?  Why isn't it open?  Why do you think it's marketing talk?  FFS can't you jsut leave these forums, and go back to the Wushu forums?  Why must you consistently continue to churn out negativity for anything that doesnt feature FFA PvP.  FFS, your version of PvP is niche and hardly anyone likes it.  The vast majority of players are PvE anjd if they do like PvP it's consentual.  My heart tells me that a high percentage of ESO's playerbase will never participate in PvP.....me being one of them. 

Whoa whoa. I'm a support here. I can't wait to check it out. I had to be like the 1st 10 people to sign up for the beta. The anologish sword swining, ability to wear any type of armor, 3 true factions. I want to play.

 

Let's be real here though, the Open world pvp he is speaking of is no different that WvW, Illum, Fusang. You can't have Open world pvp, but no pvp in these areas. I'm not gonna be sold that, again...

 

I don't have to swallow hook line and sinker in order to want to play.

 

 

It is open world, in that zone and only that zone.  Its open world with a caveat.  DAoC did it the exact same way as did some other games.

 

Just because there are restrictions doesn't mean its not open world.  I think you're confusing open world with Instanced as so many on these forums do. 

 

Theres 2 words to describe the type of Pvp: Persistence and instanced.  You can have open world in a persistanced zone, you can't have open world in an instance. 

Open world means that the worlds open ala UO, DFO, Skyrim, etc. 

A zone can not be an open world, in the end its simply a very large zone. 

The presence of zones negates the possibility of an open world. 

It's not a bad thing so don't take it as such, but he is right. It's simply marketing spin using the current buzz words. 

I am just a passerby with not much interest in propping up this game.  But you are wrong.  Open world means it is persistent and never-ending.   This area will be running 24-7 and will always be accessible.   A non-open-world zone is like BGs in WOW.. where you cannot fluidily access tham from the main world, and they have limited duraction and énd´ 

And you are wrong about UO.  UO most certainly had zones.. dungeons were their own zones,  trammel-Felucca were different zones, Lost Lands was a different zone, Illshnear.. etc.  Even the main map was ´zoned´.  People abused that fact all the time during pvp.  

Is it accessible and persistent  from the rest of the world 24-7? Can people enter and leave that zone at will?   Yes, then it is open-world by most definitions.  You are using a rather obscure definition that isn´t relevant to gameplay at all.  And really the only difference between DF, UO and WOW is that WOW named their zones and displays it above your map.  UO and DF most certainly have zones, and you can ´feel´ them when you cross them, but nothing shows up on your UI to tell you.

Originally posted by Rthuth434
server hopping was a problem in DAoC as well.

Only when they clustered servers...

I played DAoC since beta, then I played on Guinevere and only when they started clustering servers (like 3 RPs etc) cross realm and server hopping became a problem. Before that each server was an "island".

---

Originally posted by Azrile
I am just a passerby with not much interest in propping up this game.  But you are wrong. Open world means it is persistent and never-ending.   This area will be running 24-7 and will always be accessible.   A non-open-world zone is like BGs in WOW.. where you cannot fluidily access tham from the main world, and they have limited duraction and énd

---

Wow. Theres a whole lot wrong with that statement.
1. Open world can have an end. And don't need to be persistent.
2. World of warcraft bg are triggerable from the world.
3. Campaigns will have an end condition, And will be mirrored.

Originally posted by Toxia

Originally posted by Ghostshadows

PvP siege battle which looks like hundreds or even thousands of soldiers facing off against each other. Is a battle of this magnitude actually possible in the game, made up of human players?

Every one of the figures in that video was a human player. We got all of our devs into the game for a PvP test, and then captured that sequence with them. It was all in-game. Cyrodiil (the PvP map) is open-world and supports up to 2000 players in it at the same time. ESO’s client is designed to be able to handle (on the recommended spec) 200 players on screen at the same time. That particular scene had about 115 players on each side.

 

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Elder-Scrolls-Online-interview---Matt-Firor/tabid/418/articleID/284162/Default.aspx#ixzz2IvayIfpT

WEWT!

...

Wait....what?

 

Color me confused, how can it support 2k players, yet a person can only see 200 at one time.

if it support 200 on screen, and are 3 factions, then itll be 60-70 person per side?

Where does the other 1800 players...play?

propably in another instance

*ducks and hides*