Planetside was a MMOFPS (OPEN WORLD RVR and PVP)

Global Agenda & Huxley looks more like instanced and less world RvR

As wonderful this game may look it doesnt feel like an MMO.

From Todd Harris (EP for GA)

PvE action is dungeon based with 4 guys

PvP maps 8v8 and 12v12

Earth RvR still reduced to 12v12 but you can coordinate with other teams.

Man I really wanted this game to be a true MMO with posibilitites of zergs destroying everything on their path but it seems that I will get a GREAT Multiplayer FPS

Can someone please tell me please that I am incorrect.. because I have been dying to find a true MMOFPS

How many players are required before it can be considered to be "massive"?

Yeah, if you're looking for massive zerg fests with hundreds of people on your screen at once, this isn't the game for you.

Originally posted by Zukan

Yeah, if you're looking for massive zerg fests with hundreds of people on your screen at once, this isn't the game for you.

Indeed... but I think that this game will deliver lots of fun...I hope!

Originally posted by LoboMau

Originally posted by Zukan

Yeah, if you're looking for massive zerg fests with hundreds of people on your screen at once, this isn't the game for you.

 

Indeed... but I think that this game will deliver lots of fun...I hope!

In the fun department, and replaiblity, Global Agenda is #1 for me right now. The game focuses heavily on team play, and objectives. It's not a stupid death match game.

not only is this game an MMO its also an MMORPG because you can role play in it, whoever coined the term MMOFPS was a retard, Might as well call WoW MMOActionbar

Thanks for the confirmation.

Global Agenda will be a great INSTANCED multiplayer. I will still try it, but to be honest I am still looking for MMOFPS that offers true OPEN RVR.

I define Open RvR with at least 200 vs 200 like Planetside attempted to do and warhammer achieved.

This is nothing personal against Global Agenda, Huxley, Combat Arms , etc. They are or will be AWESOME games but they are not MMO by definition.

For example:

Diablo I, II, Global Agenda, Combat Arms, CCS, Huxley  etc (INCREDIBLE mutliplayer  BUT NOT AN MMO)

Everquest I and II, WOW,  Warhammer Online, even Maplestory  are TRUE MMOS

My point is that just because a game can get ton of people in lobby or in ladders doesnt make it an MMO. A true MMO is when you get a considerable amount people battle, play, or even chat through the whole world.

I cant wait till PS-2 and I hope that SW:TOR and WARHAMMER 40K live to be ture MMOs with Open RvR and PvE.

Originally posted by Avathos

I define Open RvR with at least 200 vs 200 like Planetside attempted to do and warhammer achieved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

thanks for that , to tell us that open rvr must have at least 200vs 200 .

 u know daoc , the most time u hunt other groups  and  jeah its open rvr .. open cause of the open field ( but its instanced too , rvr cause realm vs realm ) 

8vs8 on big rvr grounds .. so whats the difference ...

the only thing with MASSIVE pvp games like war is that they are a piece of shit , and they have no small group balance , so u don t need skill like , cause the single players doens t count , its always 100vs100 zerg , and the winner ist who has more tanks blockin the stairs at the tower.

wow arena was good but gw pvp is true pvp skill , daoc was a bit too "big button"skill intesive.

WOW are you deluded OP. Global Agenda focuses more on small scale team PvP than zerg PvP. PvP battle maps are broken down to 8 vs 8 teams and that is broken into how many 8 man teams their are. So if there is 8 teams of 8 people on each side, then thats 64 vs 64 people on battle maps that affect how the other battle maps do for the whole agency(guild).

So in essence this is an MMO because it has story progression, skill training, and neutral cities where all can gather to buy stuff and congeragate.

Originally posted by Avathos

Thanks for the confirmation.

Global Agenda will be a great INSTANCED multiplayer. I will still try it, but to be honest I am still looking for MMOFPS that offers true OPEN RVR.

I define Open RvR with at least 200 vs 200 like Planetside attempted to do and warhammer achieved.

 

This is nothing personal against Global Agenda, Huxley, Combat Arms , etc. They are or will be AWESOME games but they are not MMO by definition.

 

For example:

Diablo I, II, Global Agenda, Combat Arms, CCS, Huxley  etc (INCREDIBLE mutliplayer  BUT NOT AN MMO)

Everquest I and II, WOW,  Warhammer Online, even Maplestory  are TRUE MMOS

 

My point is that just because a game can get ton of people in lobby or in ladders doesnt make it an MMO. A true MMO is when you get a considerable amount people battle, play, or even chat through the whole world.

 

I cant wait till PS-2 and I hope that SW:TOR and WARHAMMER 40K live to be ture MMOs with Open RvR and PvE.

 

 

 

 

 

Go check out Jumpgate Evolution.   It should be the type you are looking for.  Except you will be in flight FPS instead of actual person.  Still, basing my opinion on the original Jumpgate ( Classic ) the combat was intensive, open, and supported massive as you are defining it.

is this not a little too early to criticize the open world rvr? let us wait untill beta gets opened to see what the players response is

Originally posted by Jerknife

is this not a little too early to criticize the open world rvr? let us wait untill beta gets opened to see what the players response is

There is no Open World RvR in. It's tactical instnace based matches.

Originally posted by DevilXaphan

WOW are you deluded OP. Global Agenda focuses more on small scale team PvP than zerg PvP. PvP battle maps are broken down to 8 vs 8 teams and that is broken into how many 8 man teams their are. So if there is 8 teams of 8 people on each side, then thats 64 vs 64 people on battle maps that affect how the other battle maps do for the whole agency(guild).

So in essence this is an MMO because it has story progression, skill training, and neutral cities where all can gather to buy stuff and congeragate.

It's not an mmo. People need to stop deluding themselves.

It has mmo-ASPECTS, but it isn't one. It's got the same concept going as APB and the devs of APB fully admit their game is NOT an mmo.

GA will have territory control, which still isn't clear on what that means exactly. It will have small-scale, arena-style PvP matches with interconnected maps that affect each other. What exactly that means, again, we have no idea.

Bottom line here is that there is no non-city envrions where you can run around and shoot mobs and see dozens and dozens of other people doing the same. It's a completely instanced game, like DDO or Guild Wars is. From what we've been told it won't be like Huxley, which I have tried and let me tell you the pvp in Huxley is basically exactly like looking for a match in UT3.

The fact that the pvp engagements are broken up into smaller team scenarios is just another detriment to the whole 'massive' part. An MMO by definition should have the feeling of being a continguous world. You have points a, b, c and d and you can go through each of them and see anyone else that happens to be there. Instead we have points a, b, c, or d and you choose which one your team goes into. The only other people you see there are those in your team and -only- the people you're fighting, that's it.

I'm fine if an mmo -includes- PvP/PvE instances, but not when the entire game has -only- those. There needs to be a world of some size, outside of the major cities, that when you go to it isn't an instance generated specifically for you.

Not saying it won't be fun, just saying it's not an mmo. It's just a multi-player online game, a mog.

amen

Originally posted by Avathos

Planetside was a MMOFPS (OPEN WORLD RVR and PVP)

Global Agenda & Huxley looks more like instanced and less world RvR

As wonderful this game may look it doesnt feel like an MMO.

From Todd Harris (EP for GA)

PvE action is dungeon based with 4 guys

PvP maps 8v8 and 12v12

Earth RvR still reduced to 12v12 but you can coordinate with other teams.

Man I really wanted this game to be a true MMO with posibilitites of zergs destroying everything on their path but it seems that I will get a GREAT Multiplayer FPS

Can someone please tell me please that I am incorrect.. because I have been dying to find a true MMOFPS

You may very well have a point,but every other game that calls itself a MMO does the same things.WOW the largest subbed game on the planet is full of instances.Guild Wars does the same thing.

You have to look  at the big picture,how many other players are you usually interacting with at any given time?not many,as a matter of fact MOST players are now asking for more single player content,witch IMO is ridiculous considering you are suppose to be playing an MMO.So IMO almost every game out there is for the most part a very weak mmo,as your time interacting with massive amounts of players is usually quite low.

Look at what you are asking for a "True MMOFPS",are you asking for a non stop massive player interaction?that would be impossible unless you have one playing zone with 500 players and you do nothing but kill/die/respawn over and over and over.

You could never make a game full of content this way,it would be an extreme waste of time,as you would always have to wait until you had 200+ players to interact with before you could play any opf the content.IMO MOST games do it right ,by offering content that caters to an average sized group of 6,i could live with 4 or 5,less and it becomes a single player game ,not a MMO.

I play UT99 a lot,and i consider it a MMOFPS,because i am playing against several different players all over the world at any given time,so it offers as much interaction as any other MMOFPS does.Most MMO that offer PVP,you are only fighting 1 maybe 2 players,in UT99 i can have 5/6/7/8+ surrounding me at one time.

This may not be the massive zerg vs. zerg game that the MMO gaming community is so used to, however I would imagine there would be a large general world with a mass ammount of other players in to which you can form your groups, clans, so on and so forth.

So just because the majority of the game is small, team based, pvp or pve doesn't nessecerly negate it to be an MMO.

They should post these threads in a bunch. "X isn't an MMO because it's instanced."  Massive....mu;tiplayer....online. 

Got it?  They have hundreds, maybe thousands, of people on one server, riiiiiiiiggght?  That sounds to me like a massive amount of people. 

Only ganking asshats want an open-world style PvP.  AoC had that.  Look how they're doing.  It's WoW for people with a Cray IV at home.  True PvP, skill vs skill, is in a set up like, for example, Guild Wars, where you have people with the same access to skills and gear, where it's affected by the skill of the player.  Besides, as shown with AoC and WAR, to get seiges to work, you have to have 2001-style graphics like in WoW of Darkfall.  Otherwise, most of your player base's comps are gonna shit themselves and die.

You want that open pvp zerg rush style, that's fine; but just because a game uses instances and doesn't want to have a Zerg rush-style seige combat, doesn't mean it isn't an MMO. 

Massive...multiplayer...online.  I doubt a site called MMORPG.com would put it here if it wasn't.

---

Originally posted by haggus71
They should post these threads in a bunch. "X isn't an MMO because it's instanced."  Massive....mu;tiplayer....online. 
Got it?  They have hundreds, maybe thousands, of people on one server, riiiiiiiiggght?  That sounds to me like a massive amount of people. 
Only ganking asshats want an open-world style PvP.  AoC had that.  Look how they're doing.  It's WoW for people with a Cray IV at home.  True PvP, skill vs skill, is in a set up like, for example, Guild Wars, where you have people with the same access to skills and gear, where it's affected by the skill of the player.  Besides, as shown with AoC and WAR, to get seiges to work, you have to have 2001-style graphics like in WoW of Darkfall.  Otherwise, most of your player base's comps are gonna shit themselves and die.
You want that open pvp zerg rush style, that's fine; but just because a game uses instances and doesn't want to have a Zerg rush-style seige combat, doesn't mean it isn't an MMO. 
Massive...multiplayer...online.  I doubt a site called MMORPG.com would put it here if it wasn't.

---

Originally posted by drago_pl

 

---

Originally posted by haggus71
They should post these threads in a bunch. "X isn't an MMO because it's instanced."  Massive....mu;tiplayer....online. 
Got it?  They have hundreds, maybe thousands, of people on one server, riiiiiiiiggght?  That sounds to me like a massive amount of people. 
Only ganking asshats want an open-world style PvP.  AoC had that.  Look how they're doing.  It's WoW for people with a Cray IV at home.  True PvP, skill vs skill, is in a set up like, for example, Guild Wars, where you have people with the same access to skills and gear, where it's affected by the skill of the player.  Besides, as shown with AoC and WAR, to get seiges to work, you have to have 2001-style graphics like in WoW of Darkfall.  Otherwise, most of your player base's comps are gonna shit themselves and die.
You want that open pvp zerg rush style, that's fine; but just because a game uses instances and doesn't want to have a Zerg rush-style seige combat, doesn't mean it isn't an MMO. 
Massive...multiplayer...online.  I doubt a site called MMORPG.com would put it here if it wasn't.

---

Then Diablo 1 is also mmorpg.

 

Yes, it is.  Now what?

Don't you guys have anything better to do than argue about this?  Maybe go play an mmo or something?

When I first saw the trailer, the first thing that came to mind was "Planetside meets Counterstrike"..  Team vs Team where you can customize your equipment before the fight.. FPS, which I'm not happy about, because it doesn't put everyone on an equal playing field..

I'll pass on this game, it's just too much like planeside, which I hated playing.. even for free.. LOL   Good Luck