Great, thanks guys!

Yeah, I know I'm getting into a problem with the timezones, but if the servers aren't region locked, then I can always have a character in a US server with my friends and another one in a European server whenever I want to play with other people. :)

Hey guys, I read on the pre-order FAQ that you actually get to choose the region server you want to play in, unlike most games that saddle you on to whatever region you live in. I live in Europe, but all my friends will be playing the game from America, so I just wanted to make sure I will be able to choose a server from the US without a problem if I buy a game disc in the UK. Those of you who have already gotten inside the game, did it give you the option to play in any server available, including European ones? I thought I'd ask before spending the money uselessly, because I never trust FAQs entirely, hehehe.

Thanks beforehand!

I think it's awesome. Send it in to the devs!

Originally posted by WSIMike

How about creating a sort of separate section of this site, then, that caters specifically to RPGs that don't fit the "MMO" part.. Call it "Offline" or something (not a serious suggestion, just an example off the top of my head :-p).

Just keep it segregated from the main site, but put a blurb on the main news page stating there's an update. This way you have all the non-MMO info in one spot, so those interested in it can go directly to a single source. At the same time, those not really interested in sifting through non-MMO news don't have to.

No on to Devil's Advocate mode..

Reading the bit about covering "the BIG RPGs" just seems to give support to the suspicion that this entire move isn't merely about expanding into other areas. Rather it reeks of "we want to get more advertising $$$ and we know covering major-name RPGs a way to do it". It's a conclusion looking for a justification.

To give an idea of where I'm coming from with that, I have to wonder, again, why it is that so much fuss wasn't made over Dungeon Siege III? It's in the same category as Diablo III is it not? Yet, no mention of DSIII that I've seen, yet Diablo III is obviously "a big deal" for the MMORPG.com staff. The reasoning is pretty obvious to me: Diablo III = major game = more traffice = more advertising $$$. DSIII... not as much. I know I don't recall articles, polls and discussions opened about adding that game to the site's list. Yet, Diablo III brings about discussion about a complete revamp of the game list's categories, etc.

If you're going to argue for covering RPGs on this site alongside MMORPGs - for all the reasons the OP states - then why only cover "the big ones"? Why not help give exposure to lesser known ones, possible diamonds in the rough that people may not otherwise know about? Why place such restrictions on  something you clearly feel very passionate about and have put thought into.

Again... my suspicion keeps coming back to simple math.

Big name RPG = more advertising $$$.

Lesser known RPGs = not so much.

I guess I'd just feel a bit more sincerity coming from y'all about your motives in this if all your assertions were more general and not so specifically settled on "only wanting to cover the big-name titles"; the ones which translate into more advertising money for the site.

 

Right on the head!

Originally posted by elocke

Originally posted by kitarad

I do not know much about every Asian MMORPG but FFXI is clearly one of my favourite games. It was amazing when I played it but that was years ago. Since then I think I have only tried Aion and that was not a in the same class. Just like Western games Asian games have their good and bad too.

Personally, I've never considered FFXI or any FF game "asian".  They are Japanese.  Differerent culture and mindset there.  Love Japan.  Loved FFXI too, my first "real" mmorpg.

Haha you gotta be kidding me. That's like saying Spain isn't Western because they're Spanish.

As for the rest of this thread, most of you need to get a clear perspective on this issue, starting by setting some distance from the viewpoint of "us" and "them". The industry is the same, except in different regions. The cultures are distinct, yes, but we all play many of the same games without a problem, or have you ever had trouble understanding how a Korean game works? The basic design is pretty much the same, and the changes are structural but never basic. Following that simple fact, you can see that all MMORPGs walk very similar roads, varying in quality but tending toward sameness. The problem here, perhaps, is one of perspective, because there are a lot more Asian producers that work ten times faster than their Western counterparts and consequently there are a gazillion more games coming from the East. But if you think about it, proportionally the quality is very similar to that of Western games; there's but a few MMORPGs that a majority of us could agree are really worth anyone's time and money, with copycats of all natures filling in the blanks, be they cheap or expensive. 

I don't have time to write anything longer to make a full argument, but if you all clear your head of prejudice, I believe you will see that the panorama is pretty much the same for both regions, and opinions in general about this boil down to prejudice first and taste second. With a lot more information I think this article would've been a great read and a great devil's advocate, but with so little research and so many vague statements it ends up saying pretty much nothing about the issue.

Haha "hissy fits". I think it's just a matter of keeping within the interconnected realm of MMOs (which basically come from RPGs, after all, and are produced within a context much wider than just "Western MMOs" and "Asian grinders"). I still remember the heated debate about the Starcraft 2 coverage, and I pretty much agreed with the vocal 'hissy fitters' about keeping the site from turning into Gamespy with more MMO emphasis. I think it's a valid concern, and you should see it as such, as a concern, not as bitching. Sure enough, some are more aggressive than others, but it all comes down to the same question: is mmorpg.com a general gaming site or an mmo gaming one (without ignoring, of course, the fact that MMO gaming is in a sense a subcategory within general gaming)?

I believe that as long as the answer is the second then it's all good to most of us who frequent the site. In my opinion, covering Starcraft 2 started to tilt the answer towards the first one, but the choice is ultimately yours to make.

The HOGS of the ground

Oh yes

the ground of the HOGS

Originally posted by Nerf09

Sandbox would be allowing players to build their own bases, control flow of war machine production from supply node to the Front sort of like a RTS game.

And that would be pretty nice. It's also something I don't think they'll incorporate to their system, to be honest. I would love to see something like that, but I just don't see the devs doing it (don't ask me why, it's just a hunch). Anyway, ever played Savage and/or Savage 2? That was one hell of a game (still is, and it's free to download now) in which one person would be the commander and the rest would function as ground troops. The commander would build things and give orders (which would be obeyed at the discretion of the players (believe it or not, they almost always did)) while the rest of the players would fight for resources and then defend them. It involved a lot of skill on both sides: if you fucked up with your resources as commander, the rest of the army wouldn't have enough upgrades and better units; if you or your ground squad weren't decent at FPS and/or managing skills RPG-style, then they could get easily smashed by better players. The balance was very good from what I can recall (haven't played in years, though) - if as commander you noticed that your ground troops weren't that good skill-wise, you had to make it up by devising a strong strategy and giving them all the little upgrades you could. If as ground troop you noticed that your commander wasn't very good, you could just vote to kick him out, hahaha. 

Anyway, I think there's plenty of players out there who would love to take the partially distant commander role as well as many who would take on administrative/productive roles.

I agree completely! I remember (haven't played in YEARS, mind you) that I first chose Terran because I liked their weapons (and style!), but they never sounded all that satisfying to me. As NC it was pretty awesome to blast someone to pieces with the shotgun, but the blast itself was never that great. 

Originally posted by Ichmen

FPS games generally require the 1 vs 1 system ... it makes it convoluted to have 1 v 1 v 1 v 1 v 1 ect.. as its been said if you make every race playable and make it a FFA there will be no content and the player pop will be stretched all over the place. 

one server may have 90% chaos players another mostly marine or gaurd or alien.. 

the 2 factions work fairly well in a FPS format, as you a have a Red vs Blue game system. while 40k fluff clearly makes that retarded to do... as a game it would work. but time will tell, there is no point harping the game saying its already dead when its not even playable to a mass group yet. if it fails its not because of 2 factions. its because the gameplay it self sucks.

but as long as the maps are like battlefield (aka HUGE) and not shit like those combat arms maps (wtf is that crap) game shouldnt be overly horrible. 

but then again i would be more interested in fluff correctness instead of black legion teaming with ultra marines or something...

It's a bit late to say that you should give Planetside a go, but if you look it up or ask around you'll see how people (including me) loved the three faction combat. This isn't to say more factions would work, but it's pretty safe to say that three factions do. Nevertheless, it seems like the main inspiration source for this game is not an MMOFPS, but the better represented MMORPG genre. Whether that's WoW or DAoC or UO is up to the devs, and we can only hope they get the mix right. In this sense I don't think you'll have to worry about 'maps', because the RPG way of doing these things requires enormous spaces with as little loading times as possible, so there. 

I agree that turning around with Games Workshop and working their lore however they see fit and not how we as fans perceive it is a bit reckless, but GW has done that for the last couple decades and there's been no shortage of players yet, so they're getting it right at least in a way. I guess that for now we can only hope they do the lore justice and make a great game at the same time.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by guignol69

Originally posted by rav3n2

Most ppl dont really care about lore the sooner the lore fans realize that the better, otherwise you are just not gonna enjoy the game

BURN THE HERETIC !!!

I have to agree with you. Regular MMO fans might not really care about the lore but there are millions of Warhammer fans out there that are potential players.

A certain other game pissed all those fans off and therefor lost all those potential subs, there is no point in using an existing IP if you don't make the game for the fans of that IP.

Sure, you can just make a regular MMO that are like the rest but the market for that is tough. 40K fans will keep their eyes on this game, screwing them over is not particularly smart.

Yeah, agreed, I mean, if people didn't care for lore, then why make Warhammer 40 000 in the first place? Why not make a new IP? If you want to do anything you want with gameplay, it's easier to start from zero than to adapt a world with who knows how many fans from decades back that know their thing inside out. 

For the same reasons we see many Europeans around here? Knowing more than one language is pretty common nowadays, mate.

Brushing aside all the regional prejudice (do you see many Asians bitching on these forums about the 'Western-ness' of many an MMO? Right.), I think this game holds a lot of promise. I do have a little request to make to MMORPG.com: since this was kind of a wide intro to the game for those who weren't in the know, it would be awesome if you could give us expanded, detailed info on the PvP system as well as on the class system. I know the class system is well explained in their website, so maybe you could give us details on how it works out in the game, beyond paper?

Looking forward to this!

I used to love Planetside 1 - of course I'll be there!

Originally posted by Bravnik

COH a MMO? Seriously? COH was a total joke and waste of time, same goes for COV and DC Universe. Community? Where? Immersion....you have to be joking. Now I don't and can't blame you for not having any clue as you joined the MMO worlds too late. You have no clue what immersion or community really is. Planetside was a good game and I played it for years but it was not immersive nor did it have any community. It was a cool FPS game that had a lot of diversity and way more fun that any other FPS I have played. You can only capture the flag so many times. I really hope Plantside Next happens but with SOE I will not hold my breath.

All the things you feel are great (no time sinks, no camping, fast travel etc.) are what kill immersion and community and make a game nothing more than a game to kill time. They are the reason why MMO's are nothing more than a time killing game. If you had the SLIGHTEST clue what immersion / community was then you would not think the way you do. However, with the current and upcoming MMO's you will never know the glory days where an MMO was about Risk vs Reward and not I want everything now and I should be able to solo everything except a boss mob attitudes.

hahahaha calm down, man, no need to patronize me and foam at the mouth. Care to define "immersion" and "community"? If by 'immersion' you mean escaping from real life and forgetting everything around you, then you're playing videogames for the wrong reasons. I was immersed alright, in the sense that I found logic and reason in the way the game was designed, and then developed a passion for the world it was set in. I read every quest, and I even wrote bios for every one of my characters within the rules given, like I was a roleplayer (I'm not). So you can't say I wasn't immersed. If YOU weren't, because you're apparently an obnoxious OCD kind of guy, then that doesn't mean no one was. As for community, if you mean a wide group of people who were both helpful and aggressive to each other, who could organize in guilds and play out (maybe even construct) a role in a given server, who cared about how the game developed in both positive and negative ways, and built identities that couldn't be left behind so easily, then yeah, CoH had a pretty great community. 

So I don't see how all those things you say kill immersion and community. You're just trying to search for those things in the wrong ways. Instead of adapting to the new rules, you hard-wired the ways to do things in your brain, to the point of equating camping, time sinks and slow travel to immersion and community. I mean, for real? And then you go on babbling about the glory days of risk vs reward; I don't 'want everything now' nor do I wish to solo everything. I understand the premise of MMOs being about the journey and sharing experiences with both friends and strangers on the way, but there are ways of achieving this, and what you don't understand is that travelling by car, a bus or the subway is easier and preferrable to walking to places as long as it's reasonable. The problem with today's MMOs is that it's no longer reasonable, they're, like you, hard-wired into doing things exactly in the way they once learned to do them with essentially no change involved. The risk vs reward formula has changed from what you knew - you're just expecting it to be the same one you were used to. I mean, it's not like I didn't live that change myself, and it seems that I understood it way better than you.

In conclusion, I'll see you in Arch Age to burn your house down. ;D

I think you people just take things a lot more seriously now. I mean, why give a shit if you get insulted over the broadcast channel? It's understandable to get upset if someone starts calling you names in real life, but in a game... really? The community is the same, the only thing is that there's more people in it, like you said. Trolling and being aggressive and 'winning' are far from being the invention of the new kids (and if you think about it, OP, it's kind of the invention of your savvy and wealthy [really, how shortsighted do you have to be to say the things you said?]). It's just that there are proportionally more people thinking that way than before. It's pretty much inevitable, and if you can't adapt to that situation, then I'm sorry for you. It's not that there are more computers, or the poor infiltrating your castle of good taste. There's just more of us, simple as that.

Just to add to the thousand points already made, I started with DAoC and Planetside. I was like 15 years old when I started playing those games (permissive parents ftw), and what I remember the most are the community and the feeling of something new. After all, I had never thought of a videogame as a form of interaction with people entire countries away from me, or that the rules of the game allowed for a huge world that could be explored and so on. I came from the context of action games and consoles (and an RTS or two), so it was a very different experience to what I was used to. 

In this regard, someone called upon the 'honeymoon' concept, but I don't agree with it entirely. I think it depends on the players and the personality of each one. In those times, I kinda just played, and didn't worry about patches and balance changes and shit like that. I just took the games at face value, and I had a wonderful time every evening I had the chance to play. Whether that was due to my age or not is irrelevant for now, because the next MMO I got into was City of Heroes, except this time I was playing with my brother and no longer on my own, and it is irrelevant because I played that game for like three years, and then started hopping around MMOs until very recently when we plainly gave up and decided to wait for something better. The point is that I had no honeymoon with City of Heroes or any of the other MMOs I tried later on (or before). I enjoyed them for what they were until I exhausted all of the 'fun value' they could offer me. I've never left an MMO over changes made through patches, because I don't cling to things like that. I'm not saying it's wrong to do so, but that the honeymoon idea is not open to the possibility of a different mindset. I'm sure that many people, like myself, have left games because they took everything the system could offer to them, which doesn't necessarily imply getting to the end-game, doing every quest, or seeing every zone.

That said, I played WoW years after its release and found it lacking. For me, the breakthrough experience from the second generation or whatever you want to call it (EQ,DAoC,Ultima) was City of Heroes, not WoW. The change from DAoC (Planetside was altogether a different beast) was pretty massive, and I loved everything that made 'being' in the world a lot simpler. Gone were the days of walking for hours on end to get from one place to another, gone were the corpse runs and the harshness of dying (turning it to XP debt was brilliant imho!), and the inability to team up with friends of higher levels. It was perfect for me, except for the lack of PvP, which I sorely missed (they added it later, but it was like sport, unlike the huge organized battles of DAoC and Planetside that had a point to them). The combat was a lot more dynamic (you could fucking JUMP while hitting someone!) and the lack of crafting, though not as nice, was fairly compensated by the quantity and quality of the action. I stuck with CoX for three years, which was the time it took to get me bored, and instead of clinging to it waiting for something to happen, I decided to leave. Looking for a new fix, I went to other MMOs, including WoW, but it bored me in a month. I won't say it was just the action, or the world, or something like that, because when I tried EQ II I really loved it. The cool thing about that is that even though they're in the same generation and the theme is somewhat similar (fantasy stuff) they play very differently and I got hooked for EQ's more flashy combat, nicer community, and a vast world that reminded me of DAoC. Everything was more streamlined than in that game, but I liked the simpler life of these newer ones. I lasted like seven months in EQ II, and I didn't leave it because I was bored, but because of RL stuff. I never got into it again, but I remember it well.

What I'm getting at is that the generation that WoW is a part of made almost everything right. They really improved upon the older games in ways that were both innovative in certain parts and just plain logical 'next-steps'. And I didn't like WoW, but there were a lot of options to play at the time, and very diverse among themselves. The problem with recent AAA games is that the devs thought exactly what the gamers were thinking, that they had gotten it right, and that they shouldn't move much from there. The result is that, from WAR to Rift to Aion to DCUO, they all play exactly the same with minimal changes in gameplay. It's just not that fun anymore. 

So, I may not have played all the games many other old-schoolers did, but from my perspective, WoW and all the games released around that time (SWG, CoH, EQII...) got what they were trying to do right. The love and the hatred these games evoke is kind of a proof that they really got to us. It really has no parallel in the general indifference and apathy that the games released later provoke, except maybe for WAR, AoC, and Darkfall, and even they have fallen behind in the 'let's talk about MMOs' conversations in this site and others. 

I guess we'll have to see how TOR, GW 2, Secret World, and so on do to decide if the new generation has really arrived yet. Maybe we'll have to keep waiting, but one never knows!

Originally posted by Theofonias

Originally posted by Unicornicus

There's a large difference between a team death match FPS and a MMO.  

Of course you can't have a "scramble" option but, most games now will let you switch sides with a small cooldown period this allows for a larger variety of play options but, not being able to cross realm effectively.

Having multiple factions dilutes the populations, true people want to win but, the chances for being able to win increase with the number of those who you can fight; not with less.  

In thier 2 faction system, I am hoping they add thematic and fun mechanisms to balance sides in the cases of OBVIOUS descrepancies over longer periods. I mean you dont want perfect balance all the time to stalemate pvp battles. But you also dont want one side to get steamrolled every time whether its due to skill or pupulation difference. 

 

There is a list earlier in this thread about what mechanisms could be used in this situation in order to keep the game generally balanced. I prefer systems that are intergrated into the game play and make thematic sense. Here are a few of the idea mentioned.

 

1. The losing side will eventually get reinforcements in the form of more and/or stronger vehicles. 

2. The losing side will egt AI reenforcements in the form of AI units that fight along side the players.

3. The losing side will get access to some special pve missions. These missions allow you to sbotage the brittle alliances between the opposing allied forces. This will acomplish 2 things.

• It will open up a pvp state between allied forces for a short time (IOM and eldar for example) allowing those forces to engage in pvp with eachother. Everyone would want this.
• It gives the lower pop side a chance to effect change in a thematic way rather than an arbitrary system of balance.

4. Balance the power level of the dominant side to level the playing field. In PVP

5. make multiple pvp objectives in battlefields/open pvp that are achievable with smaller groups that effect the power of the opposing side. Thusly, smart play and quick action by smaller groups can turn the tide of a battle.

6. Offer incentives to players for creating characers on low pop sides of a server.

 

There are more, but these are the ones that I remember right now. I think a combination of a few of these mechanics would be the best solution But whatever they do, it NEEDS to be implemented from launch forward and tested to the floor in back to ensure a working and fun balance system from the very beginning.

The problem with relying on NPCs and buffs is that there is still a growing horde from the winning side and these will not be enough of a deterrent.  This is evidenced by the continue changes that WAR is making to its RvR model.  There's a fine line between "a helping hand" and exploitable advantage.  

Number 3 on your list is the most exciting to me.  Since this is a PvP centric game anything that lends itself to getting people to PvP is great.  Why not go a step more and make the quests usuable by the same faction!  Slow PvP day?  Your side ruling the school?  Bored?  Time for some old fashion King of the Hill shoot 'em up fun.  Just give it a long cooldown, seperate for each side, so it can't be exploited.

I think lowbies should be involved in the over arching PvP since day one, if they choose.  WAR made the mistake of creating a tiered system that segregated those that weren't near the max level.  It made PvP rare or non-existant as they lost accounts and people leveled.  Eventually it became a chore to make a new toon, grind them up just so you can enjoy the game.  If they can't think of an innovative way to do this, then they should make a mentoring system like the one in CoH or EQ2.  It had very little in the way of maintaining a community of players.  

I understand that there should be things that you can do and lower level players cannot.  That's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is: in Warhammer the green fight alongside the grizzled.  From SMs to the IG, all have experienced men (or women) that instruct and tutor those that are newly arisen to their ranks.  That is one of my major hopes anyway.

There were incentives in WAR.  A 15% bonus in xp to the "losing side" on the server.  Eventually they added other bonuses but, it wasn't enough.  Like I said before and reinforced by StMichael: no one likes losing for 6 months straight.  Especially in a personally competitive enviroment like a PvP-centric game.

I totally agree with your final statement: there NEEDS to be measures taken and especially tested before launch to curb the downfalls of a two faction system in a PvP-centric MMO.   

I think these ideas are very cool! Maybe, to integrate the lowbies with the highbies in the war, the PvP zones could do without levels and standardize damage/damage resistances as if it was a regular FPS. Each faction would then rely on their special abilities/class combinations and their own solid strategies to win. To appease the hardcore levelers who want to be different just because they've spent more time playing there could be various vehicle sets limited to certain levels. Of course, these vehicles wouldn't be better the higher the level but just... different, with the first low level vehicles playing key roles and being just as useful as the higher ones. For example, levels 1-10 can only ride bikes. They're the fastest vehicle and the most mobile because they can cross any terrain in a very short time. They'd be useful to capture undefended zones or set up surprise attacks, and so on. Levels 11-20 can also ride tanks. Tanks are slow, but pack a punch and are good for defense, at least while their guns are unscathed and they can aim straight at stuff. Bikes could just drive around them and set some mines on their butts, unless the tanks have some ground troops for support and cover. Also, tanks can tear down buildings swarming with snipers (which can take out both bikes and ground troops fast) with ease, or defend bridges, and so and so on. Levels 21-30 get to ride airships as well as all the other vehicles; they're great for attacking defended positions but are pretty fragile and susceptible of being torn down by ground troop-manned turrets... and so on.

I'm just thinking out loud here with all of this, but I think they could make a good 2 faction RvR game if they make everything and everyone useful in a battle at the same time they give the players a choice of what kind of role they want to play, knowing that anything they choose will be important to the development of a battle. Integration of the whole range of levels is also key, like you guys said, and it would be a change of the boredom of having to level except to acquire different gear (even if it is gear that changes the outcome of a 1v1 battle, it won't do much in a battle of 70) and experience told stories. I don't know... I guess all we can do now is hope and see what they say in their next big announcement.

Haha, this thread is so silly it's hilarious. Yes, OP, the people who gank you are evil. Read all the German Idealism you want, it isn't making your question any more intelligent. In fact, it's making you look even sillier than if you had just honestly asked, without trying to get all 'the bowels of human nature' on us. People are complex. That's all you have to deal with when that ganker hits your ass multiple times. He/she's not evil, he/she's not trying to fuck with your life, he/she's not getting personal unless you let it get so. He/she's (GASP) just some person LIKE YOU with enough free time and money to spend in an afternoon of playing videogames. They're not learning anything. They're deciding to gank you and it's not an ethical choice, but a question of power embedded in the gameplay mechanics through the levelling system. In the 'real world' it would be an ethical choice. In these games, it's just one more suggested use very much enticed by the (oh so capitalist) hierarchy: after all, your digital persona is the same as mine and the exactly same as the mobs you're killing. You'd think the sun of Reason would've reached this side of the world by now like your guy said, but it seems like it's stuck somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic.

As for the dude blaming it on the generational divide, please man, get real. Your "back in the day" antics are as silly as the OP's question. Yeah man, back in the day, before the damn baby boomers, everything was better and the people were all cute and kind. You know, like in 1939 or 1914. Or say, like in, oh, most of the nineteenth century. And the eighteenth. Mmm, and, well, the seventeenth. You know what? Maybe since the bloody paleolithic when a stupid super ape decided to club another to death with a fallen tree branch. Yeah, such good times.

Originally posted by -Jan-

I'm a bit dissappointed. This isn't Planetside 2 - This is Planetside remake.

Are they really just going to update the graphics, redo all the old war machines and relaunch Planetside?  Where is the innovation and evolution of the concept?

They should have replaced the old war machines with totally new ones, which evolve the game strategically and tactically shifting the game to a new decade of war. 

Calm down, it's only three screenshots. It doesn't say anywhere there aren't gonna be new vehicles. Part of the basis of sequels is that some things stay the same. Otherwise it's just a different game. In the case of Planetside, the most defining and recognizable things were its vehicles and mechs. Therefore, they had to be included in some way or another. Since it's a sequel we can safely assume there's new weapons, new armors, new vehicles, new everything. It's just always safer to show what the fans already know and love.