http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/05/rvr-unchained-mark-jacobs-returns-to-camelot/

Folks,

   I’m in-between interviews right now so I’ll get to some questions/comments and then get to more later.

@Baemir 5m? That's going to be the most ambitious MMO Kickstarter project so far.

>>>> No worries. The initial ask will not be for 5M. I’ll be posting more details over the next few weeks but I’m certainly not going to ask our backers to put that much up.

@mephster666 So we are getting a DAOC clone ? Well it is a wait and see for me. Seeing is believing in the mmo genre.

>>>> Nope, it will certainly not be a Dark Age of Camelot clone. I wouldn’t go down that path for a lot of reasons, mainly though because I don’t think that simply cloning that game (or simply re-skinning it), will not work in today’s market.

@AmberACurtis I actually teared up a little when I first saw the news. I will most certainly be funding this Kick-starter. I absolutely cannot wait!! @MarkJacobs, if you're in the market for any volunteers for any purpose whatsoever, no matter how big or small, you've got a small army of us waiting in the wings I imagine. :)

>>>> Such kind words, thank you so very much. In terms of volunteers, I will keep that in mind, absolutely!

@SWTOR_GW2 OK after reading this i know this will be the big thing in PvP if they do this right.I never played Camelot but i will play this ! He is beeing very honest something that is cool. BTW this game better have a trinity and progression, there is a reason GW2 pvp is really boring.Also as a Norwegian i guess i'll be going Viking :) Is there a site up yet for this game?

>>>>Thanks! I have always been honest in what I’ve said. I’ve been wrong and I’ll probably be wrong again but I won’t lie to the players. When I’ve had to admit my screw-ups or take the blame for other people’s screw-ups, I’m willing to do so because I was either CEO or GM of the studio that made the game. As to the trinity, well, what I can say is that the idea of a role-playing game is very important to me, especially the letter ‘R’. As to the site, we have the main site off of our webpage. And I’ll be posting a new dev piece there shortly.

Be back later, 

Mark

----

So... what does he mean by saying "Multi-tiered subscription"? Like $5 for the basic features and $10-$15 for premium features?

Originally posted by meddyck
If it's not going be a DAOC clone, then it's probably going to suck just like WAR, GW 2, and other bad games that tried to make RvR for PvErs.

Why would you think this is going to be a game for PvErs in any way? He has already stated that everything in this game revolves around RvR which is PvP. I know hype is usually not accurate, but at least give it a chance before you condemn it.

Originally posted by observer
Multi-tiered business models are always bad.  It just separates the community.  An excluded vs. inclusive population is a terrible approach.

That's entirely how the MMO genre is moving. Excluded vs. inclusive? Sub vs. F2P? Free vs. Premium? Rich vs. poor?

Nothing in life is fair. At least with a subscription-based economy it was closer than what we'll be seeing in the future.

Originally posted by collekt

Originally posted by meddyck
If it's not going be a DAOC clone, then it's probably going to suck just like WAR, GW 2, and other bad games that tried to make RvR for PvErs.

Why would you think this is going to be a game for PvErs in any way? He has already stated that everything in this game revolves around RvR which is PvP. I know hype is usually not accurate, but at least give it a chance before you condemn it.

Because Jacobs was heavily involved in making DAOC more like Everquest by adding PvE/raid oriented expansions and he was involved in making WAR which at release was definitely RvR for PvErs in that it rewarded avoiding fighting other players and just taking undefended keeps to complete daily quests.

The population of players who want to pay a monthly sub to play a pure RvR game is fairly small so there will be a strong tempatation to make CU appeal to players outside of its core audience in order to keep it viable. The most likely player pool for them to target is casuals who will do PvP but only if it rewards them with increasing tiers of gear, it doesn't require a high level of player skill, and it doesn't give hardcore players who play a lot more hours and are a lot better advantages via realm abilities or something similar.

Originally posted by observer
Multi-tiered business models are always bad.  It just separates the community.  An excluded vs. inclusive population is a terrible approach.

Well, we now know who owns the smallest car on your block.

"There's almost no PvE (just a training area, some special events, etc.), and everything we add will always be tied into RvR."

This is pretty discouraging.  Still interested, but part of what made DAoC so great for me was that it had such a rich world supporting the RvR system.

Originally posted by redcapp

"There's almost no PvE (just a training area, some special events, etc.), and everything we add will always be tied into RvR."

 

This is pretty discouraging.  Still interested, but part of what made DAoC so great for me was that it had such a rich world supporting the RvR system.

I'll be honest that was a buzzkill for me. I'm not a pve'er die hard as I find no huge accomplishment from beating predictable AI. My favorite games were daoc, and shadowbane honestly. That being said to have next to no PVE is a drag. That means the world and the lore will be almost non existent. Not having a homeworld/realm to explore and do things in means this game might not be much more than planetside 2 with a fantasy skin.

RVR was the focus of DAOC until the atlantis  debacle but even during the vanilla days with rvr being its focus, there was still pve...

Originally posted by Kyleran
No PVE eh? Well then he really didn't understand what made DAOC such a great game and I hold little hope for this effort.

To me DAOC was a great game because of the RvR system. And I personally am sick of MMO's that try to please everyone. He's focusing on RvR, and I applaud that.

Originally posted by OgreRaper

Originally posted by Kyleran
No PVE eh? Well then he really didn't understand what made DAOC such a great game and I hold little hope for this effort.

 

To me DAOC was a great game because of the RvR system. And I personally am sick of MMO's that try to please everyone. He's focusing on RvR, and I applaud that.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by observer
Multi-tiered business models are always bad.  It just separates the community.  An excluded vs. inclusive population is a terrible approach.

Well, we now know who owns the smallest car on your block.

I like hybrid payment models (TSW or Tera), but multi-tiered subscriptions in a sub-locked pvp oriented game definitely rings warning alarms.

Originally posted by redcapp

"There's almost no PvE (just a training area, some special events, etc.), and everything we add will always be tied into RvR."

 

This is pretty discouraging.  Still interested, but part of what made DAoC so great for me was that it had such a rich world supporting the RvR system.

Well actually, as far as I understand the informations we could gather until now - a rich world supporting the RvR system, as you preferred in DAoC, isn´t something they aren´t shooting for in Camelot Unchained. Mark did explain that everything is tied into RvR. That doesn´t mean you have to go out and actually do RvR the whole time. No, it means that everything you (can) do is somehow involved with the RvR system. And since Mark stated, that they are going to include housing/crafting and a player-driven economy here....I see a rich world supporting RvR.

If you meant the PvE-only part, then maybe you will be disappointed with the direction CU is going, but thus far I would wait for the upcoming infos. Im pretty sure we aren´t just getting an empty world with three factions and an RvR system. No, they are trying to improve the whole RvR feeling with a player-driven economy around it by cutting the PvE and thereby becoming able to focus on RvR.

At this point the market is flooded with games that are trying to cater for every single MMO-gamer out there. And thats why so many games cannot meet their expectations. Taking a step backwards and developing a mostly-needed nichegame might become a much larger succes, than many might except today. At least I see a great future for this game, especially because of the non-pve player-driven three-faction RvR-way they are planning to focus on.

Originally posted by Storm_Fireblade

Originally posted by redcapp

"There's almost no PvE (just a training area, some special events, etc.), and everything we add will always be tied into RvR."

 

This is pretty discouraging.  Still interested, but part of what made DAoC so great for me was that it had such a rich world supporting the RvR system.

 

Well actually, as far as I understand the informations we could gather until now - a rich world supporting the RvR system, as you preferred in DAoC, isn´t something they aren´t shooting for in Camelot Unchained. Mark did explain that everything is tied into RvR. That doesn´t mean you have to go out and actually do RvR the whole time. No, it means that everything you (can) do is somehow involved with the RvR system. And since Mark stated, that they are going to include housing/crafting and a player-driven economy here....I see a rich world supporting RvR.

If you meant the PvE-only part, then maybe you will be disappointed with the direction CU is going, but thus far I would wait for the upcoming infos. Im pretty sure we aren´t just getting an empty world with three factions and an RvR system. No, they are trying to improve the whole RvR feeling with a player-driven economy around it by cutting the PvE and thereby becoming able to focus on RvR.

At this point the market is flooded with games that are trying to cater for every single MMO-gamer out there. And thats why so many games cannot meet their expectations. Taking a step backwards and developing a mostly-needed nichegame might become a much larger succes, than many might except today. At least I see a great future for this game, especially because of the non-pve player-driven three-faction RvR-way they are planning to focus on.

We want DAoC 2 not DAoC-.25

Originally posted by xSyngex

We want DAoC 2 not DAoC-.25

I do realize from your previous posts, that you do have a unique view and obviously some problems with Mark, whatever that might be. But - even though I realize many out there do crave for a DAoC 2, I have to disagree here. I don´t want a DAoC 2 - but a new way of MMO and thats something, like focusing on RvR without traditional PvE, DAoC 2 couldn´t offer without disappointing a big portion of the original playerbase.

So, I have no idea who "we" is from your point of view. But it doesn´t include myself and I know other people more than happy the way CU seems to go.

Besides that - if you want any other comments on your part, I would prefer if you could be more constructive and less offensive in your manner. Critisize Mark, the game as much as you want - thats between you two guys or any mod. But I don´t like my postings getting quoted with a single sentence by someone whos main-reason to post here seems to be to harass, because it isn´t going his way.

My time is better spent anywhere else. So feel free to comment on other postings from me, but lets in general discuss in a construtive manner here and stop the insults.

having no PvE sucks, there wont be such easy kills to be had now...

On the sub model though, yea I would be concerned about how many players a sub based pure PvP game can really get, guess kickstarter will see, but for a lasting community it would want to atleast break into the hundreds of thousands initially.

I do like the sub model though, i hate F2P games how they feel so cheap in that alot of the time you can bypass what players have earnt and that they;re such an obvious dash for cash these days....but i agree in alot of cases, they have kept the games going.