|11 posts found|
OP 3/06/13 11:10:51 AM#1
A lot of players are waiting for a reay good RvR MMO. And lots of games got hyped because they said to make a game with a very good RvR part. But time after time the developers make the same misstakes over and over again and the games fail in being a good RVR game.
The main mistake: Dont try to make a MMO for all MMORPG players.
You have 3 types of MMORPG(maybe more); PVE MMORPG, RvR MMORPG, PVP MMORPG.
They are all called MMORPG, but they are completly different from eachother. Trying to make a game that has more then one of the types will always fail!
Classes in a PVE MMORPG are designed to level solo or/and to do dungeons in a group. So you need classes that do enough damage but also fulfill a role like healer or tank etc..
Its a shame Camelot Unchained started good with only wanting to make a RvR MORPG with PVE, but still ended to fell into the usual trap(s .. will probably become more)
Other mistakes that developers trying to make a RVR MMORPG usualy makes (so also probably Camelot Unchained) are :
So instead of fights where people chasing after eachother(offence classes chasing/attacking the healer/caster classes) more a fight where defenders actuely can potect the weaker classes so they dont have to kite all the time. So with block//push backs/CC etc.. So a fight where casters and range are protected by tanks and magic protecters. Melee attackers (and their close combat support) trying to get passed the defenders. And assasins fighting a seperete war in a 2nd dimension (shadow world) to get free access to jump on the wounded targets.
Hmm post got a bit big. Sorry
But i am still hoping a company will finaly make a good RvR game before i die or to be to old to play compter games. Its not so hard as long you keep in mind what problems will have each design desission.(like making blobbing up(zerging) the best tactic will end up in the same group with most people always winning and the usual big masses problems (like lag) will happen. Or growing stronger over time, will make the game for starters not fun and to hard to play.)
And sorry for the bad english.
3/06/13 11:25:41 AM#2
Tanks should be like Arms / Warrior / Hero in old DAOC, not tanks in WAR please.
Not things just run around with shield
Ozek - DAOC
3/06/13 11:30:13 AM#3
I agree with some of your distinctions and points about what would make an RVR game good, but I'm confused what you think Camelot Unchained has done already to ruin themselves from being a good RVR game?
They haven't even started development yet? LOL
OP 3/06/13 12:09:58 PM#4
Originally posted by Niix_Ozek
Daoc didnt had tanks.. or the tanking ability like taunt only worked on mobs.
In RvR they where just i bit harder to kill melee damage dealers.
WAR class design was made for solo play not group play (roles) where all classes where damage dealer with a bit of role abilities. So the tanks were damage dealers that were harder to kill and a few protect abilities.
I ment with tanks.. low damage dealers but very hard to kill (very slow movement speed in defence stance ofcourse) so real protectors/blockers
With lots of CC and protect abilities like:
- Grab And Hold: PBEAO/cone pull towards caster and pin down(cant move for a long time)
- cone push backs (he can use every 5 seconds)
- pbaoe criple for 40 seconds
- single target shield slam/ ability that dazes the target , where target cant use any ability for 20 seconds and is trown back
-Wall: Create a wall for like 60 seconds left and right of the tank no one can pass
-Shield bubble that protects a ground area for missle damage for a few seconds
- body guard that protects all grouped players very close to you (tank take damage instead)
So you first need to force the tank into block mode so he cant use any of the above skills. Or move around him and attack them in the back
I know very long CCs but all CCs are cureable (healer /magic protector solo target spells.. or resistant buffs)
3/06/13 12:13:31 PM#5
Pure tanks are a PVE designed class.
War/hero/arms wern't solo classes in DAOC, i think most if not all hib groups had Heros, warriors were very common peelers / could assist on trains, arms same thing. They were basically melee that had option to pull out shield for slam, but less offensive oriented abilities, imo they were perfectly designed PVP tanks.
In a pure RvR game, theres no need for tanks like wow/war...
Ozek - DAOC
OP 3/06/13 12:42:46 PM#6
Originally posted by Tuktz
They released lot of info already: like no pve leveling or realm points but a level system you level by doing RvR (so still kinda like realm points but for all skills/stats)
So people level while doing RvR, becoming stronger every time you play. So you will get a gap between players where players want to only group with level X) or new players (level 1) being one shotted by level 50 players..
Thats for me a fail.
I rather have seen a system where you stats grow but also drop during your play. So if you play well (killing stuff without getting killed) you will get points but also loosing points while you dont kill anything or even more points if you get killed more then you kill people.. But not playing for a few days would mean you are back to zero. (ofcoure it will grow fast again if you start playing again)And where stats are linked together.. Like getter stronger will mean your agility will drop (skill abilities will trigger slower and your dodges will fail) . Getting more health will mean you will move (run speed during combat) will get less.
DAOC before the zergs(new frontier) groups who did group vs group already didnt want to group with low Realm rank players. Because high realm rank players would get a stat advantage and have access to some very powerfull abilities. So winner between a + Realm rank 8 and a group with < realm rank 5 would 99% of all battles be the group with the high realm ranks. Even if the low realm ranks are better players (so not teamwork/ skill/ luck based)
If they would have make the realm abilities so it were only real abilities (so removed all the passive stat bonus rewards) that needed to charge up before you could use it. (like every time u use purge you first need to kill 30 players to recharge it). The gap between new players(or low realm rank new players or alts) and high realm rank players would be much smaller. And groups of higher realm ranked players would have only a small advage (once in a while) over low realm ranked players.
Leveling is for PVE games.
RvR games need rankings , fun battles and sieges. Fighting over land and resources.. recourses you need to build/rebuild/upgrade/replace lots of stuff like keeps/houses for NPCs/gear/weapons/siege weapons/NPCs who will gather resources or help defend etc.. but you could also make it so you need (a special type of resource) for everytime you use a special (most powerfull) ability.
Where resources will be devided to all players who helped defending or conquering a piece of land (will slowly add to your bank while the NPCs or you gather)
OP 3/06/13 1:02:09 PM#7
Originally posted by Niix_Ozek
I thought you ment with WAR(the game WAR: warhammer online) tanks. Not the warrior class.
Daoc was fun because it was a group based game with classes with each a role:
Like a bard would mezz and keep endurance and mana up while being kited by the enemy melee train.
A druid would buff/debuff/heal and root (usualy 2 druids for each group one healer other one buffer) and protect eachother by rooting/healing players if the other one got attacked.
Melee classes to chase after healers and casters to interrupt them and do some damage.
Casters you had debuffers so other casters could deal more damage and blind and mana regen
You had rangers and assasins both with stealth so good solo classes that could scout and give group movement info to the groups.
etc.. but no tanks.
In WAR(the game) every class could do good damage. So all classes were damage dealers. Healers were to busy doing damage to heal.. Tanks charged in first and werent protecters of the week classes. So there werent realy any roles. No teamwork needed. Groups were just large groups of people running together were classes didnt realy matter .. and only doing more dps(or having more people) is the main tactic.
(thats why WAR failed for me -> no teamwork needed... a soloplay game in a large group)
Real tanks(protectors and enemy blockers) that are designed to protect (so a real role you could use in tactics/teamplay strategies) in a RVR games i have never seen yet.(mostly because all games also had PVE, and a class that cant do damage only protect would suck in solo pve.)
3/06/13 1:14:48 PM#8
Originally posted by Tuktz
Yeah.. I'm not going to say Docares points are invalid, as some actually are good 'suggestions', but this post was written as if CU has been released and we're all playing it. It's way too early to straight out judge a book that doesn't even have pages yet, let alone a cover.
I think a better topic would have been, "My Thoughts on CU" or something.
Hard Core Member
3/06/13 1:16:33 PM#9
Too much reward based on capturing things, rather than for holding them.
OP 3/06/13 2:03:56 PM#10
Originally posted by Plastic-Metal
Sorry it wasnt my intention to write it like that.
It was more so Mark or someone else of the Camelot unchained would read it and see my warnings and like my ideas how to solve problems of all the other games who tried to make RVR had run into. Or atleast think about them. And maybe change stuff they already anounced like the e leveling system as personal reward/goal.
For example ANET (GW2) never thought about how to design classes for a rvr game. So it wouldnt become a game all about who has the largest group and has best 24/7 coverage. They are now slowly changing it so running in a very large blob isnt the best tactic anymore. But already lots of people stopped because of queues, lag and other zerg problems. And never thought about having a bad goal(ranking where best coverage wins) and lack of personal goal or team/guild goal(personal/guild rankings or temporary rewards etc. They maybe will change some of the problems.
But for example changing the class designs in GW2 so they are more role based will never happen. But would have forced people to work together and work as a group instead of just run along with the zerg(no help of others needed except that they dont out number me). Would have brought more tactics and teamwork gameplay options into the game. So smaller groups could beat bigger groups(and make running in the largest group not best tactic) . So group skills would have determined the ranking of the server. Would have make population difference effect be smaller. Would have spread out players more over all servers so they wouldnt have alsmost dead servers next to to crowded servers with very large queues. Would have removed most of the zergs and groups would spread out more over the zone. And no zergs would mean less culing(rendering) and lag problems.
OP 3/06/13 2:15:19 PM#11
Originally posted by Teh_Axi
If you make the game about recourses.
Holding a keep means you own the land around it. Means the NPCs will gather resources for you(your realm) while you own the keep.
Taking a keep would mean you will have more land so more income of resources. But you first need to spend resources to rebuilding houses so you will get the NPCs.
So if you take a keep spend recourses to rebuild houses, then after you just are done rebuilding you will loose the keep again will mean you lost resources instead of win.
So having a keep is good.. Taking a keep is only good if you can hold it for a while.
And if you make it so keep takes are very large battles(lots of small battles) that took a few hours to get it, people will defintly want to defend it.