| 157 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
2/18/13 5:21:56 PM#121
Originally posted by Iselin
Full vid for those interested. It shows Iselin conquering a hill. |
|
|
2/18/13 5:39:00 PM#122
Originally posted by Maephisto Ah yes. I remember that fight well. I won |
|
|
2/21/13 11:44:58 AM#123
Originally posted by BadSpock
That doesn't work in an MMORPG. Just look at the graveyard of PVE focused MMOs that were popular for a month, then died off due to lack of content or no 'endgame'. Players want something that is interesting to do with their friends and characters once they are max level, and the only game that has managed to keep them interested with PVE is WoW because it has the sub numbers to pay for it. As you stated world pvp is one of the few ways to create interesting content without astronomical costs. Zenimax thinks that using some of the ideas from DAOC will make the 'endless king of the hill' interesting for players. The sense I get from a lot of posters here is that all they want is another 30 days and done game that is somehow going to continually produce infinite pve content with 1% of WoW's budget. Investors and devs aren't spending years and hundreds of millions to create an MMO that people will only pay a box price for and then leave. RvR is the most effective solution which is why every game tries to do it. |
|
|
2/21/13 11:51:39 AM#124
Originally posted by Margulis Its honestly for two reason, one you'll never have a major sucesful AAA mmorpg without pvp post daoc/wow, will not occur. you may get 200k subs top and trickle from there. The reason is simple no one want to do the same thing over and over, pvp is an entire differnt playign field and style. Its refreshing to pvp after pve ing for a long time... and vis versa. Well done pvp is a miracle and keeps subs and makes subs grow. However, i do find all the talk of teso's pvp odd and the nature of it also (the basic concepts for it seem right on with what you would want however.) "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine |
|
|
2/21/13 2:42:45 PM#125
They should ditch the RVR and go with what a true ES mmorpg should be like- total free for all pvp with consequences. Just because the humanoids in your virtual environment are now pc's and not npc's shouldn't change a thing. Of course that would totally turn off a lot of potential customers so I understand that the design team has to make compromises and balance. B)
|
|
|
2/21/13 4:57:28 PM#126
Originally posted by DMKano This Matt Firor guy sounds like a right cunt then. |
|
|
2/21/13 5:05:18 PM#127
First off, this is my first post - ever - on mmorpg.com! So hey :p
Ive been following ESO for some time and played all the old (and new :p) Elder Scrolls games - I was surpised when I saw that RvR was gonna play such a huge role in the game. It hard to tell at this point if RvR will be the only or even the major part of the end-game - but for arguments sack lets say it is:
I understand why they would do this and to some extend I think its a smart move: PvE content (in a Themepark-type game) is hard to keep up to date and player go through it faster then anyone can make new (quality) content - even the behemoth World of Warcraft will see alot less activety in the last months before a major patch or expansion - and any new developer will have a very hard time making new PvE content fast enough to keep the majority of players engaged. I have no doubt that there will be lots of good PvE content in ESO and an amazing story (if they follow the recipe from the old single player games), but after we've played through it - they need something for us to do while they make new content. RvR and PvP in general is alot easier to keep "interesting" (if you are into PvP that is) as the "encounters" are more varied - because its basicly "made" by other players. Several games have tried to incorporate this into PvE through player made content (CoH, STO and others) with more or less luck - but PvP is the easist way to do it. With this in mind RvR makes sense: All the Elder Scroll games revolve around conflicts - and with ESO the titel and the conflicts go Massive Multiplayer Online. I do hope that the main focus of the game will be PvE and the story with Molag Bal as the main antagonist will lead to epic raids and fights- but if the RvR part is done right - im sure ill spent just as much time doing that while waiting for the next patch. TL:DR: Themepark MMOs based on PvE will run out of content - hence RvR can fill the gaps while we wait for more PvE. |
|
|
2/21/13 6:12:17 PM#128
I get your point but to design the game around a gap filler...and for it to have such a big impact on the PvE side of things...just smacks of lazyiness and lack of imagination. As others have mentioned, myself included, it just looks like Matt Frior wanted to do a DAOC2 game, got the ES IP and ran with it with no attention to what an ES MMO could be great at. Faction locked races are a design limitation and if you actually sit down and really look at how you could have good PvP without doing it the options open up vastly. Keep all the good stuff about ES, keep all the good stuff about 3 faction RvR and just get rid of all the crap stuff that has lots of fans up in arms. It all stems from someone stubbonly sticking to how it was done in DAOC without updating it for now and TESO. |
|
|
2/21/13 7:01:25 PM#129
Originally posted by Maelwydd PvP is a gap filler? You sure? I'd hate to be a game like Planetside2, GW2, Rift, or WoW right now. Someone should have told them that large portions of their games are unimaginative gap fillers, and that clearly only PvE counts when you're designing an MMO. Bummer for them.
"Criticism is an indirect form of self-boasting." - Emmet Fox |
|
|
2/21/13 8:43:33 PM#130
I wouldn't say gap filler, more like another option for people to do. An mmo is a gathering for people with different tastes. As far as pve goes gw2 is doing factal dungeons. Neverwinter is going to have player made content. There are things to do besides just rvr. It concerns me ESO is so focused on rvr to the point the game is being built around it.
|
|
|
2/22/13 12:27:49 AM#131
It's because they believe they can provide the best and most addictive gameplay experience this way. Time will tell if they did it right.
- vigilo confido - |
|
|
2/22/13 12:43:53 AM#132
The game sounds pretty fun but I wish they would have bought the DaoC license from EA and made the game into DaoC2 instead, now they will make the fans of the original game dissapointed. Or they could have made a new IP for that matter, or licensed some IP better fit for this type of game. Firor is not bad but he is the wrong person to turn ES into a MMO. ES have been about exploration since Daggerfall and the DaoC model is just too limited for that. |
|
|
azzamasin
Hard Core Member
Joined: 6/06/12
We live in a fantasy world, a world of illusion. The great task in life is to find reality. |
2/22/13 12:50:28 AM#133
Originally posted by Loke666 I know plenty of fans excited for the MM Oversion because the game as designed has the best of 2 worlds. The best aspects of the Elder Scrolls Series and the best aspects of DAoC tied up into a nice neat little package.
And to think this is going on what little stuff we know, there are tons of new information that is yet to come. |
|
2/22/13 12:55:14 AM#134
Originally posted by rygard49 For 3 out of 4 of those games, most players are there for pve. That 1 game that the majority of people are there for pvp doesn't have pve. Guess which game is least popular on the list, belolw even the ailing Rift. Yep, the one without pve. Unless a game is designed from the ground up for pvp with pve resource competition the pvp will always be a side-sport gap filler. |
|
|
2/22/13 1:03:47 AM#135
Originally posted by azzamasin "The best of 2 worlds" rarely works out, exploration PvE and massive PvP are hard to mix in the same game. But it will be interesting to see how they succeded of course. I still think they should have turned this game into DaoC2 instead though. |
|
|
2/22/13 3:16:32 AM#136
Originally posted by Ryowulf I agree, not as much a gap filler as another thing to do - saying its a gap filler implies that its "not fun" or just something to pass time with (which it could be argued any video game is), but if done right RvR can be fun, and even if I prefer quality PvE, id rather have quality RvR then bad PvE - and if that means I have to do more quality RvR while I wait for the quality PvE Ill happily do so. Rushed PvE content is killing games I cant count the number of times ive leveled to max level and had a blast, only to find that the endgame was bad, none-exsisting or lacking - SWTOR and GW2 are the latest exampels for me. GW2 had RvR to keep me playing longer while waiting for new content - but imo it wasnt quality RvR - due to small maps, lots of bugs, latency issues and the neverending resets, free transfers and no factions. MMOs could take a page from the Action MMOs such as diablo and the new Path of Exile - random generated loot keep things interesting longer - make instances and raids have a better chance to get good results (and higher drop rate/massive drops) - and the complexity in character development in Path of Exile helps alot (lots of viable specs). The game itself is so/so - but character development and random loot keeps people coming back. I wouldnt say im concerned - but I hope they do it right. |
|
|
2/22/13 11:59:29 AM#137
Originally posted by Torvaldr You're wrong. Or you're being intentionally ignorant. If we're talking about a game like SWTOR, then I can see PvP being labelled as a gap filler. It's barely there, and done so poorly that you really can't consider it a major focus of the game. However PvP is a major feature of all of the games I listed above. Major features =\= gap fillers. Popularity of games that utilize PvP more than others is also meaningless in this debate. Popularity can definitely be used to measure success based on that feature, but does nothing to define the feature itself and it's relevance to the game. So, there's no need to be dismissive of it just because it's not something that you enjoy. For you, perhaps PvP truly is just a 'gap filler', regardless of the game. I can say that I feel the same way about dungeons and raiding. However I know better than to brazenly label them something that they're not. "Criticism is an indirect form of self-boasting." - Emmet Fox |
|
|
2/23/13 1:31:14 PM#138
Originally posted by sapphen
Thanks for the "lulz".
I don't know where you are from (what planet) but SWTOR is clearly one of the biggest fail of thoz last 10 years... I'm not going to throw random numbers that you would use and twist... The only success SWTOR achieved was to sell millions of boxes... and then drive every hardcore PvEr out of the game within a month, PvPer within 2, and semi-hardcores left after patch 1.2 . It's a free2get-scammed cheap wannabe-wow-clone.
EDIT : to stay in topic : Wait and see FFS poeples... old school MMOs like most of us loved 'em were those well mixing PvE and PvP. Not those focusing on ONE side. Old school french hardcore whiner. Online since T4C. I was "Namless" in AO (Rk2) |
|
|
azzamasin
Hard Core Member
Joined: 6/06/12
We live in a fantasy world, a world of illusion. The great task in life is to find reality. |
2/24/13 7:57:26 PM#139
Originally posted by Loke666 Tell that to World of Warcraft!
game set and match. |
|
2/24/13 8:02:07 PM#140
Originally posted by Margulis Because the series was single player? And now this is a multiplayer game? Last time I checked, its pretty hard for a single player game to be anything but PvE focused. A big part of multiplayer games is player vs player. It is content that basically keeps the game fresh. Going for a PvE focused game is a losing battle, you will never keep up with the content locusts. Well designed PvP will keep players around. |
|