PVP:Yes | Distribution:Retail | Retail Price:n/a | Pay Type:Subscription
Desktop Client | System Req:
DC Universe Online News - Hands-On Report
Posted by Jon Wood on Feb 11, 2009 | 90 comments in our forums
MMORPG.com's hasani Davis recently had the opportunity to sit down and get some hands-on time with Sony Online Entertainment's upcoming superhero MMO, DC Universe Online.
Recently, I attended Comic Con New York, where I was able to get a hands-on demo of DC Universe, Sony Online Entertainment’s upcoming MMO. Still with no confirmed release date, the playable demo (taking place in Metropolis), was smooth and fully animated. The demo allowed me to play as either a created villan or as a created superhero. The booth drew a HUGE crowd at the Comic Con this Saturday. Fans hovered around me as I got to rundown by Wes Yanagi, Creative Director behind SOE’s highly anticipated superhero action MMO.
The game’s backstory is based on a version of the DC universe suited for the game itself but with pleanty of elements of classic DC universe. So if Superman died (again) in your Wendsday comics, he will still be alive and kicking in DCU. Alternate realities or “universes” are nothing new to the world of comic books, and it always works best if you take each new incarnation of the stories with a grain of salt. It’s an interesting take on the use of an IP, no?
)
Read the DC Universe Online Hands-On Report
Oh joy! A PvP game aimed at Console gamers, with PC gaming thrown in to gain market share.
Just think, now PC gamers can know the joys of XBox Live. I can bairly wait to have some 12 year old screaming curses like they are the only words they know. Sounds like so much fun!
I'm starting to think Sony is showing its magic ability to kill any IP again. They killed Star Wars looks like they may be killing DC.
I personally can t wait for it. I really enjoyed COX games but really did miss the loot etc in it. Now with missions that conflict with the opposing side, thats awesome. I will try this at some point.
Well since Sony is handling it, I don't think we will see a 360 release. PS3's community isn't as bad as the 360's. Don't get more wrong there are always morons no matter where you go and that doesn't exclude the PC either.
Is this game going to be pay to play on the PS3 as well as PC? I am yet to find any use for my PS3 with the excepton of two or three games in the four or so years I have owned it.
I wanna try this one AND Champions Online when they come out!
yes but its unknown whether they will play on the same servers
yes but its unknown whether they will play on the same servers
That is a good enough response for me so it is much appreciated. Thank you. As I said I have grown so tired of my PS3 I have actually thought of playing that Free Realms game when it comes out just to have SOMETHING on my PS3 that could occupy me for longer than a few hours a month.
Hmm. This article makes it sound like PvP is going to get forced down your throat. Quite change from their original line from Chris Cao : "PvP will always be consensual. You'll either choose to play on a PvP server, opt-in to a PvP zone, or take egregious actions that will flag you for PvP."
Yeah I thought the same. Tbh, I feel this is quite a letdown for me. I am no fan of PVP and I had hoped DCU would be a PVE centred game. :/
there will be both PVE and PVP servers
dcuosource.com/index.php/topic,29.15.html
for the first group, we have PvE servers where you only fight another player when you choose to (e.g. duels, PvP content). Consensual here means you have to use a specific feature or game space to PvP. You have to actively choose to do it.
For the second group, we have PvP servers where heroes and villains can go toe-to-toe (we haven't talked about the specific rules for this yet). Consensual in this case means you've chosen to be on a PvP server and to be subject to the rules of engagement that apply there. You've chosen to live in a more dangerous world.
My impression of the article is that they're going to focus a lot more on PvP with PvE being thrown in as an afterthought so they can say "PvP or PvE action" on the box. It's only going to get worse with micropayments. Mark my words, those of us who don't like being ganked by teenagers with Daddy's credit card are going to get the short end of the stick.
My impression of the article is that they're going to focus a lot more on PvP with PvE being thrown in as an afterthought so they can say "PvP or PvE action" on the box. It's only going to get worse with micropayments. Mark my words, those of us who don't like being ganked by teenagers with Daddy's credit card are going to get the short end of the stick.
The demo at the Con was on a PvP server so the article is going to reflect the PvP aspect more then the PvE aspect of the game. The "Offical" word is that there will be PvE and PvP servers, so you will not get "ganked" unless you opt for it.
DCU will have item malls. Thanks sony.
Yet another mmorpg where the "end" consists of constant, mind numbing raids. Yeah it would be fun for a while but after the 20th time killing the same raid mobs in the same place with, more than likely, the same people will get boring. I'm tired of the idea of an online world needing an "end game" and raiding has been done a zillion times before.
If you have a passive interest in this game and you might sub in the future I suggest subbing the first day, create your toons then quit if you want. Otherwise you'll be villain8934 because all the good appropriate names will go fast. I suppose they'll hold your toons for you for a period of time after you quit.
I'll probably pass on this one.
They will have both pve and pvp servers, but no role playing server.
I just went over the audio of the interview, I was pretty sad about the no role play server part
The plans for the servers was to make them larger as to not segregate players like they are in other mmo's.
not sure what that exactly means, Im just reporting what I was told
with that being said, the pvp in this game was fun. I would like to see how it will go with healing powers thrown into the mix.... could get interesting.
Hasani
How can you have a competitive quest like that be PvE? And what happens if the quest is meant for level 13 players and one of them gets his level 72 friend to show up?
Forced pvp, button mashing, customization not even close to what Champions is capable of and everyone's favorite item malls will be there. Sounds like a complete winner to me! Ok so in all honesty, whats the main selling point of the game ?
The same selling point as all their games, the IP.
The same selling point as all their games, the IP.
Well they going to have to do better than that. MMOs like LOTRO,AOC and WAR have good IP's but they aren't exactly tearing up the mmo industry. I'm not saying it won't be a good game but there needs to be more to it than what they are offering.
Was intrested till i saw Sony.......
Would it honestly matter? You've obviously already made up your mind about the game. PvP will not be forced, it's hard to comment on customization when the game isn't even due out until 2010 (and what's there now looks damned good). I have no idea on item malls, but if they're implemented like EQ2's, then who cares? I don't even notice the mall there.
Nothing new for the MMO games.I can't say if the game is going to be good or bad,but like they say "focusing on PvP" that means they must create somthing near good WAR PvP.For the moment they don't say anything-1 reason.They don't have ideas ;2.The PvP is unfinished;3. The main idea is the same as the others 123123213 MMO games, where you ganke or fight tousands times the same players for some stupid gear.Well they are creating a devastating time bomb with the words "FOCUS PVP"-if it's good the game will be EPiC, if it isn't -EPIC FAIL.
THIS^ I swear they can't win for losing at the last demo folks were crying about no PVP...they just need to stop listening to Morons on Message boards.
In any even I did a hands on with this and with Champions...cryptic needs to go back and rethink if they hope to compete with DCUO.
A game I was mildly interested in until this article.
I may still try Champions when it comes out, but I certainly won't be purchasing this game.
Well Martie you might have too change your tune depending on how they handle the RMT.
Yep the big question will be will Sony manage to keep only non essential items in the time mall or will they start adding leveling aids like they have in EQ and EQ2.
Once leveling aids or other items that effect gameplay enter the item mall you will here a huge "clunk" as the playerbase leaves in droves.
So yeah sorry Martie, but Champions Online will probably be a much better game because it DOES NOT have an item mall.
You owned your PS3 for FOUR or so years? Guess you got the limited 2 years before it came out verison that no one else in the world got. If you cannot find any use for your PS3 then you probably cannot find a use for a spoon either, sad.
And to confirm that assumption, you also said "The same reason for all their games, the IP". Hrm, not to be a SOE fanboy but ... really?
Everquest, Everquest 2, Vanguard: SOH, Planetside, Pirates of the Burning Sea... never heard of any of those?
By the looks of it. DC Universe has one thing better then Champions. You can play villains at the start.
CoH and CoV both sucked imo. To clunky. However, I will never play a SoE product I don't care if they paid me.
I will swallow hard and give this game a shot. It looks more and more interesting as stuff comes out. On the flip side,
It could just be along the lines of NEW from Sony when it launches. ( i can't help myself, that was too funny).
YES!! A PvP and PvE Heroes and Villains MMO!! Awesome!
The more I see of this game the more sure I will at the least be waiting until it has been out for several months before buying it.
The problems I see are...
1. It is a SOE game. SWG anyone?
2. It seems to be PvP centric.
3. PvE is a afterthought
4. Made for consoles and PC = Overly simple play for people used to PC games.
5. Console gamers tend to be MUCH ruder then PC gamers. Granted PvP PC gamers do try to give the console gamers a run for their money.
6. RMT
7. Twitch gaming more important then tactics.
The only good things I see are.
1. It's a super hero game.
2. It looks pretty
If you like PvP and like to play on a console. I can see why you would be looking forward to the game. But for the rest of us... We just have to hope Champions is going to be good.
DUDE PVE isn''t an after thought...for gods sake learn to read.
I have read, and every hands on I have read talks about how great the PvP is and how the PvE seems weak.
Listen to the storys coming out of the devs and its the same thing, they hype the PvP and say as little as they can about the PvE.
I am not saying that it is a fact that PvE is a afterthought. Just that is the way it is coming off. Heck Warhammer hyped their PvE more then DC is.
I will grant it is early to say it is dead because of a lack of PvE. But the devs are making sure the PvP is completed before spending serious time on PvE. That means when SOE forces them to ship the game early (And they will), the PvE will be what needs the most work.
Shrug. Who knows, maybe next week there will be a interview that changes my mind on this. But for now, the official sources sure make it look like a PvP game with PvE thrown in.
Thanks for the intial review it was a good read. For those concerned about the nature of PvP consent etc., I wouldn't get too excited or disappointed just yet. This is SOE, after all. They have a long-standing pattern of changing things on the fly. Some of the PvP sounds like the Temporary Enemy Flag (TEF) system in the StarWars game. I loved that, and it was advertised prior to the game's release. However, it wasn't long before SOE removed this from the game.
They also said that PvP would be purely consensual, but then later introduced forced (non-consenting) PvP on all jedi unlock characters. If you were on the bounty hunting terminals, you wouldn't have a choice.
So, you never really know what you're going to get with Sony. If you hear something you don't like, I suppose that could be good news. If you hear something you do like, I wouldn't get too invested in it.
With SOE, I think a wait and see approach--coupled with not subscribing anywhere beyond 30 days due to their preference for surprise revamps--would be prudent.
I do hope they don't ruin another excellent IP. Just the same, I'm glad I'm a Marvel fan :).
Hey welcome new guy. (No teasing intended here, really. ^^)
I am kinda split over these. It MIGHT be that bad, but most of those points are quite uncertain.
1. SOE made also good games. Like EQ2. And SWG had a long good time also, so I dont see that the chances with SOE are worse than with any other MMO company. Not really.
2 & 3. Yeah the apparent PVP focus sucks. I hope with PVE servers it means there is a lot of PVE content as well. I really wish they would go a bit to the "story" focus as SWTOR and in part LOTRO already did. But we have to see. Maybe its just overly emphazised with PVP and the real game isnt such PVE-light.
4. Simple for PC games? Didnt you mean simple for console gamers???
5. I never met console gamers in a MMO. Are they really??
6. RMT as it is atm with SOE is just neglectable. Did they really finally decide about DCU and RMT? I would guess the final form is yet to manifest.
7. Yeah I see that too, but in DCU and Champions. Not to my liking either, but again, it remains to be seen how it will be implemented.
I guess as DC fan I am biased, or its wishful thinking. Somehow I hope at least ONE of two superhero MMos will be good, but as luck is, maybe both will suck. :/ Lets hope not.
Also what ArcAngel3 said was right. Its SOE! They are known for not too hardcorish games, aiming for the all average joe (or all average Superman in this case). I just cant imagine a SOE game will be so totally out of the line of what they did before, not having quests and all being PVP/PK zerg.
No doubt! What are they thinking? Pre-alpha isn't the place where major concept changes should be made! By pre-alpha the game's mechanics, features and concepts should be an unmovable promise written in stone..../sarcasm off.
And so it begins......
I predict that as we draw nearer the release of this game, statements from pre-alpha like this are going to be taken as a 'promise' for the final product. The above quote will likely be used as a sign that "the developers lied to us".
Everyone one froths at the mouth over the development process, yet then act betrayed and hoodwinked when changes are made during the development process.
Pre-alpha concepts will always always morph into launch realities. Pre-Alpha is the starting point. The concepts. The big ideas. Those ideas often change dramatically as the game develops. The word 'develop' has change inherent in its meaning. Yet, so often, I see people post about the 'lies', rather than having the first clue about how things change in major complicated projects such as mmo development.
And why do major changes happen in this dev process? Maybe because they want the game to be fun. What if they noticed that the separation of pve and pvp made the game boring, unbalancable and a lot like other mmo's with the same construction (i.e. a WoW clone)? What if the change happened because the game wasn't fun under the original concept?
And to further.....this is a common neurotic theme I've seen on these forums:
gamers: "We don't want another WoW clone"
devs: "Ok, we'll change quest structure to contain both pve and pvp elements"
gamers: "You lied to us - you said the game would seperate pve and pvp.
devs: "You mean like you had in WoW?".
gamers: I thought we told you we don't want a WoW clone.
devs: "Ok so, uh....."
----------------------------------------------------
Obviously I'm reading a lot into the post I quoted. On the surface, he is just noting a major change, rather than calling anyone a liar. "Forced down throats" does indicate he isn't happy about the change. And that's what I picked up on. There will be those that will use this as evidence to rail against broken promises made by developers, spreading and growing the perception that anything a develper says through the dynamic developmet period can never ever change without the label of 'fraud' thrown on.
Devs should just keep their big fat mouths shut. I have become convinced that the majority of gamers have never had to develop a major project of any type where they have to coordinate with a team and a boss holding the purse strings. Personally, I do this everyday. And I can assure everyone, that the 'alpha' stage rarely looks at all like the 'launch' stage. Gamers simply cannot handle the dynamics that go on through the development of a project. And so....Devs should find a new way to market their games, because openning the window to the dev process is just letting in noxious fumes.
Wendsday? What the hell is Wendsday?
Does anyone copy edit anymore?
Hmmm I never really paid much attention to this game but it does look pretty damn good. Its great to finally see online games moving away from the crappy old pure PvE game design. At last a game set in a persistant online world where I'm not playing purely against the computer. At last a game that doesnt prevent me from attacking and siding with players simply because it might hurt their delicate feelings. This is what REAL online gaming was always supposed to be about
I just read the Hands-on Report, and my first impression is that even for pvp it is quest based. Which as far as I know is kind of unique.
So I checked the website, and they do say there will be pve and pvp servers. So I would like to think that this hands-on was just the pvp server.
So for now I would say take a wait and see attitude. Lets see what happens the closer to release. Maybe it will be a pvp centric game, maybe not. Either way it seems like it can/will be an interesting game. One which I will be watching closely. Especially since I don't like the look of Champions Online.
Regarding the item mall stuff, it's quite a while yet before this game is due to be released. Unless the game goes the "free to play"/item mall route, if it adds an item mall at all that they claim isn't unbalancing, it will probably follow whatever SOE's other games will have done. If they steadily add more and more unbalancing stuff to the item malls in EQ2, etc., then they'll almost surely do the same to this game, even if it doesn't start out that way and even if they solemnly swear not to do so. If they add nothing to the EQ2, etc. item malls in the year and some odd before this game releases, then a claim that they won't add an unbalancing item mall here would be a lot more credible.
Stuff PvE! We've been seeing boring restrictive PvE games for years. Whats the bloody point in playing a game about heroes and villains fighting each other online with thousands of players if you cant actually fight against each other? To complain about it is just retarded
Oh boo hoo that nasty player just killed me.......THATS THE WHOLE POINT!! LMAO!!
If you just want to fight against brain dead computer opponents then why bother playing competitive online games? That doesnt make any sense at all.
No doubt! What are they thinking? Pre-alpha isn't the place where major concept changes should be made! By pre-alpha the game's mechanics, features and concepts should be an unmovable promise written in stone..../sarcasm off.
And so it begins......
I predict that as we draw nearer the release of this game, statements from pre-alpha like this are going to be taken as a 'promise' for the final product. The above quote will likely be used as a sign that "the developers lied to us".
Everyone one froths at the mouth over the development process, yet then act betrayed and hoodwinked when changes are made during the development process.
Pre-alpha concepts will always always morph into launch realities. Pre-Alpha is the starting point. The concepts. The big ideas. Those ideas often change dramatically as the game develops. The word 'develop' has change inherent in its meaning. Yet, so often, I see people post about the 'lies', rather than having the first clue about how things change in major complicated projects such as mmo development.
And why do major changes happen in this dev process? Maybe because they want the game to be fun. What if they noticed that the separation of pve and pvp made the game boring, unbalancable and a lot like other mmo's with the same construction (i.e. a WoW clone)? What if the change happened because the game wasn't fun under the original concept?
And to further.....this is a common neurotic theme I've seen on these forums:
gamers: "We don't want another WoW clone"
devs: "Ok, we'll change quest structure to contain both pve and pvp elements"
gamers: "You lied to us - you said the game would seperate pve and pvp.
devs: "You mean like you had in WoW?".
gamers: I thought we told you we don't want a WoW clone.
devs: "Ok so, uh....."
----------------------------------------------------
Obviously I'm reading a lot into the post I quoted. On the surface, he is just noting a major change, rather than calling anyone a liar. "Forced down throats" does indicate he isn't happy about the change. And that's what I picked up on. There will be those that will use this as evidence to rail against broken promises made by developers, spreading and growing the perception that anything a develper says through the dynamic developmet period can never ever change without the label of 'fraud' thrown on.
Devs should just keep their big fat mouths shut. I have become convinced that the majority of gamers have never had to develop a major project of any type where they have to coordinate with a team and a boss holding the purse strings. Personally, I do this everyday. And I can assure everyone, that the 'alpha' stage rarely looks at all like the 'launch' stage. Gamers simply cannot handle the dynamics that go on through the development of a project. And so....Devs should find a new way to market their games, because openning the window to the dev process is just letting in noxious fumes.
Absolutelt spot on! All of these emo whiners act as though they are involved in the creation process of these games.....as though they have invested their own time and money into them.
It seems pretty clear to me that online games need to move on from the single player game design that they have been stuck to for years. They need to take advantage of the fact that they are online and be truly different from single player games on multiplayer mode. This means allowing players to interact with each other properly and yes that means being able to attack each other within the contraints of the game. Gosh! Who would have thought such a thing could ever come to pass?! Online games where players can actually compete with each other? How shocking!
Its absolutely mind boggling that people are actually getting upset at the idea of being able to fight against other enemy players. Jesus bloody christ! Have you all really become so utterly brain washed by all the mmos of the past few years? You've all become so biased against ANY form of PvP due to the previous poor attempts at implementing it into games that were never designed for it in the first place. Now when games come along where the designers are giving us something new and building their games around the PvP idea everyone just moans about it.
I reckon developers should start focusing almost purely on making PvP focused games and then flood the market with them. Players would then give these new games a go (even the whiners would give it a try....they wouldnt be able to resist) and once they find out what a MASSIVE difference being able to actually interact with each other properly really makes they would actually start enjoying themselves and the whining will naturally fade away. They might actually remember how much fun playing against real people can actually be and would end up wondering why the hell they spent so many years playing against a computer with zero AI.
In other words the developers should not allow the whining gaming community to dictate what games they make. Instead they should simply make good games that take proper advantage of the fact that they are online. Then if players dont like fighting other players they can just go and play single player games on multiplayer mode instead. Problem solved.
I'm not intrinsically against PvP in an online game. I am, however, against PvP that is badly implemented--and most MMORPGs with PvP do a terrible job of implementing it. A contest of whoever is higher level wins is not interesting. A contest of whoever has the best gear wins is not interesting. A contest of whoever bought the most stuff from an item mall wins is not interesting. A contest of whichever faction can get more players in the area wins is not interesting. That rules out the PvP systems in most MMORPGs.
That's kind of like asserting that I'm not intrinsically opposed to item malls, but only opposed to item malls that unbalance a game. Most of them do--and indeed, doing so is often the point of adding the item mall, in order to make buying stuff from it essential. That makes a game having an item mall a major red flag, and something to look into carefully if considering the game.
Stuff PvE! We've been seeing boring restrictive PvE games for years. Whats the bloody point in playing a game about heroes and villains fighting each other online with thousands of players if you cant actually fight against each other? To complain about it is just retarded
Oh boo hoo that nasty player just killed me.......THATS THE WHOLE POINT!! LMAO!!
Wrong. That's NOT the point. The DC Universe is NOT some simplistic pk Fighting Game or pointless squad level Shooter.
Read the comix, watch the films - The Conflict isn't about a bunch of fools running around ganking each other over and over and over again.
If that's what the game degenerates to, then it will be about as successful as Shadowbane.
Wrong. That's NOT the point. The DC Universe is NOT some simplistic pk Fighting Game or pointless squad level Shooter.
Read the comix, watch the films - The Conflict isn't about a bunch of fools running around ganking each other over and over and over again.
If that's what the game degenerates to, then it will be about as successful as Shadowbane.
Well said! I mean, ok combat does have a big part in Superhero comics, both of DC and Marvel, the two biggest ones. If you read any of their comic series, its about so much more than combat! Ever since the 1970ies Superhero comics gained a LOT of depth and social topics, from racial question over drugs, women's rights, gay rights recently, political agenda of the Bush era, war on terror, the whole lot! It has for decades been a mirror of issues of society, and on a micro-agenda about the personal development of characters. Take the development of the various Green Lanterns as example. Sure, its still comic and no philosophical lecture, but compared to computer games, Superhero Comics have WAY more depths and complexity.
Yes there is a lot of fighting, but its so much more, and it would be a shame if the two Superhero MMos in development would be mere pew-pew-pew hamsterwheels. Many of the DC characters have so much story behind them, it would be a pity to waste it.
I don't think I've ever played a game and thought, you know, this game would be so much better if it were a lot more preachy and overbearing about pushing political correctness. I'm a political junkie, but I'd much rather read about politics from knowledgeable pundits than, say, airhead celebrity idiots who haven't the slighest clue what they're talking about. It's not likely that a game would hire people savvy enough to make the politics of a game anything other than obnoxious; the comic books I've seen sure didn't.
Yeah and 70% of statistics are wrong...
The animations are so poor that unless they get fixed before launch, the game wont be popular.
Well Martie you might have too change your tune depending on how they handle the RMT.
Yep the big question will be will Sony manage to keep only non essential items in the time mall or will they start adding leveling aids like they have in EQ and EQ2.
Once leveling aids or other items that effect gameplay enter the item mall you will here a huge "clunk" as the playerbase leaves in droves.
So yeah sorry Martie, but Champions Online will probably be a much better game because it DOES NOT have an item mall.
It'll be interesting to see if this game has an item mall with performance enhancing items. If it does, then the PvP emphasis makes sense from an SOE world-view. The competitive nature of a PvP game will drive up the demand for performance enhancing items. More real cash for Smed for nothing more than a temporary PvP buff--like he's already doing in the StarWars game.
My biggest problem with PvP [aside from the general feeling that it sucks] is that I don't want other people being able to dictate if I can finish my missions or not. Somebody else's $15 shouldn't dictate that my $15 should be spent in frustration. I don't want to be better at PvP. The people who enjoy PvP aren't even coming to the game as fans of the comics. They just want the latest PvP fix. The problem is that those are the people game developers cater to. Yet, those aren't the players who stay with a game. They're the ones who start a thread in the forums whining about their reasons for leaving a game! These developers are focusing on PvP as a way to not have to create more story. And that sucks. It's cheap. And it's not something worth $15 a month, to me.
Hey welcome new guy. (No teasing intended here, really. ^^)
I am kinda split over these. It MIGHT be that bad, but most of those points are quite uncertain.
1. SOE made also good games. Like EQ2. And SWG had a long good time also, so I dont see that the chances with SOE are worse than with any other MMO company. Not really.
2 & 3. Yeah the apparent PVP focus sucks. I hope with PVE servers it means there is a lot of PVE content as well. I really wish they would go a bit to the "story" focus as SWTOR and in part LOTRO already did. But we have to see. Maybe its just overly emphazised with PVP and the real game isnt such PVE-light.
4. Simple for PC games? Didnt you mean simple for console gamers???
5. I never met console gamers in a MMO. Are they really??
6. RMT as it is atm with SOE is just neglectable. Did they really finally decide about DCU and RMT? I would guess the final form is yet to manifest.
7. Yeah I see that too, but in DCU and Champions. Not to my liking either, but again, it remains to be seen how it will be implemented.
I guess as DC fan I am biased, or its wishful thinking. Somehow I hope at least ONE of two superhero MMos will be good, but as luck is, maybe both will suck. :/ Lets hope not.
Also what ArcAngel3 said was right. Its SOE! They are known for not too hardcorish games, aiming for the all average joe (or all average Superman in this case). I just cant imagine a SOE game will be so totally out of the line of what they did before, not having quests and all being PVP/PK zerg.
1. I never cared for EQ2, but EQ2 isnt where I developed my problem with SOE it was SWG. I beta tested SWG and it was the WORST beta I have ever been in much more like a alpha, no quest givers, no loot crashed all the time. It was a sick joke. Then they release the game a week after turning up the quest givers and turning on looting.
The release was almost up to most games Beta quality. And it really took almost a year to make it up to the level most games release at. This proved to me that SOE could care less about the quality of a game no matter what the IP.
4. No I meant overly simple for someone used to PC games. The controls on a Console game are very weak. Just a hand full of buttons and a sluggish controler. Compare this to the massive numbers of controls and high response of a PC mouse keyboard setup. Ever wonder why the console version of Halo and the PC version do not play against eachother online?
5. I can't say I have met any console MMO gamers. All I have to go on is console multiplayer gamers, and trust me you do not want to have to listen to them. They are revolting. But thats what happens when 12 year old kids get overly excited.
6. The final form of the RMT will not show its head until LONG after release. SOE will tweak it to find maximum profit. That is the way of any company, but SOE has shown itself to care far more about profit then long term health of a product. There is a reason the new Star Wars game is not a SOE product.
Wonder how many people will trust SOE? If DCU is successful then this may help repair some of SOE reputation, and if it doesn't succeed then i think this will be SOE's last MMO. This being another theme park franchise title this will probably be the last for SOE, so hopefully they will make at leat one under their belt worth playing and keep it intact. Where they seem to fail is when they release xpacs and try to tweak the game system. We will see if DCU will follow the same treatment that all their MMO's have gotten.
I'm not intrinsically against PvP in an online game. I am, however, against PvP that is badly implemented--and most MMORPGs with PvP do a terrible job of implementing it. A contest of whoever is higher level wins is not interesting. A contest of whoever has the best gear wins is not interesting. A contest of whoever bought the most stuff from an item mall wins is not interesting. A contest of whichever faction can get more players in the area wins is not interesting. That rules out the PvP systems in most MMORPGs.
That's kind of like asserting that I'm not intrinsically opposed to item malls, but only opposed to item malls that unbalance a game. Most of them do--and indeed, doing so is often the point of adding the item mall, in order to make buying stuff from it essential. That makes a game having an item mall a major red flag, and something to look into carefully if considering the game.
I totally understand your concerns but thats rather a lot of nay saying. Of course I wouldnt enjoy a game where PvP was implemented badly either (PvP in all the other PvE centric games has nearly always been pretty crap).......but then I dont like bad game design full stop. Simply removing all forms of PvP from online games is not the way to move forwards in my opinion. Online games should give players the freedom to play their characters properly so if a superhero sees a supervillain they should be able to engage them in combat. Enemies should not be able to simply wave at each other and then fight against the computer alongside each other while being seperated by an invisible barrier simply because game designers cant figure out how to develop a decent competitive system. Thats just shitty game design.
There are currently virtually no games in existence that successfully implement PvP (no WAR is crap sorry). I dont mind playing against the computer but its pretty ridiculous that we dont even have the option of being able to choose a good PvP mmo. That needs to change. What we currently have are little more than single player games ported onto the internet in multiplayer mode. Its rather lame.
Wrong. That's NOT the point. The DC Universe is NOT some simplistic pk Fighting Game or pointless squad level Shooter.
Read the comix, watch the films - The Conflict isn't about a bunch of fools running around ganking each other over and over and over again.
If that's what the game degenerates to, then it will be about as successful as Shadowbane.
Wrong. In the comics the heroes have one agenda and the villains have another agenda. They clash with each other as they attempt to achieve their own personal goals. When these characters encounter each other then they come into conflict and battles take place.
I never said that DCU should degenerate into mindless player killing. There will be missions in the game that players will be trying to complete just as they do in the comics. Players from opposing sides should be able to intervene and try to prevent enemy players from completing those objectives.......just as they do in the comics.
If the heroes cant stop the villains and vice versa then whats the bloody point?
Good things about the game:
1. Jim Lee
2. DC Universe
3. Pretty graphics
4. Superheroes
Bad things about this game:
1. SOE
2. Joker looks like a paedo form a 60's TV show (after Dark Knight and Batman R.I.P.?)
3. SOE
4. Simplistic (its being released on consoles as well)
Good thing overall:
1. Champions online...
Wrong. That's NOT the point. The DC Universe is NOT some simplistic pk Fighting Game or pointless squad level Shooter.
Read the comix, watch the films - The Conflict isn't about a bunch of fools running around ganking each other over and over and over again.
If that's what the game degenerates to, then it will be about as successful as Shadowbane.
Well said! I mean, ok combat does have a big part in Superhero comics, both of DC and Marvel, the two biggest ones. If you read any of their comic series, its about so much more than combat! Ever since the 1970ies Superhero comics gained a LOT of depth and social topics, from racial question over drugs, women's rights, gay rights recently, political agenda of the Bush era, war on terror, the whole lot! It has for decades been a mirror of issues of society, and on a micro-agenda about the personal development of characters. Take the development of the various Green Lanterns as example. Sure, its still comic and no philosophical lecture, but compared to computer games, Superhero Comics have WAY more depths and complexity.
Yes there is a lot of fighting, but its so much more, and it would be a shame if the two Superhero MMos in development would be mere pew-pew-pew hamsterwheels. Many of the DC characters have so much story behind them, it would be a pity to waste it.
Just because a game has PvP it doesnt mean thats the ONLY thing that will be happening in it. Players will still be free to go and do whatever they like.
So you're saying that allowing players to compete against each other while they try to complete their missions will somehow detract from the story and other content in the game. That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
You hope that the game doesnt degenerate into mere pew-pew-pew hamsterwheels? Have you ever actually played ANY computer games?! Have you been living in a cave for the past 30 years? Thats EXACTLY what ALL of them are! Virtually every computer game ever made is all about progressing through the content by fighting stuff. Name an mmo where you get to do something other than fight stuff, make stuff and read a story while you do this.
What exactly do you think you will be doing in DCU? Do you think you will be going to court to argue for womens rights? Will you be waging political campaigns to overthrow corrupt governments? No. You will be reading blocks of text related to these issues but you wont have any direct involvement in any of it as these games only tell you stories. They dont allow you to influence the outcomes of the stories. In between reading these blocks of descriptive text you will be playing the game.......which will involve killing things and going up levels. This is a computer game and allowing players to compete against each other isnt going to make the game any less intellectual than it already is.
Yes many of the DC characters have deep stories behind them. Why would allowing the players to directly compete with each other diminish this content in any way? There is going to be shit loads of combat in this game......because its a computer game.......thats what they do. You're saying that allowing players to fight each other will ruin the game and yet you think its ok for players to fight against computer controlled opponents. Yeah that makes lots of sense
What bothers me about all these conversations is, that people want the realisim that goes along with the storyline or quest. Yet they want those situations to be controlled.
ie.
Yay, I'm a super hero, I'm gonna go do a quest about saving a bank from being robbed. .....
Wow, that was easy.
Instead of, my quest is to stop ... (some rl player, playing a villian) from stealing from the bank.
>insert some sorta epic battle<
wow that was an amazing fight, what a great quest
obviously, not actuality of pvp, but you get the picture
why do you want some pos AI always fighting against you, makes no sense... games are supposed to be "real" war envoirnments, yet people always want them with training wheels attached, .. its beyond me
after playing EQ and EQ2 over the past 10 years -- nothing will ever make me trust SOE
but I do enjoy EQ2
regarding other mmos, SOE is already working on an india fantasy mmo, Ramayan 3392 A.D
www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/48369
an MMO based on Virgin Comics' Ramayan 3392 A.D.
Aiming for a global 2010 release, a Sony representative told Shacknews that the game is primarily being targeted to a Indian gamers, but is also being made available world-wide.
kotaku commentary
kotaku.com/gaming/ramayan-3392-a%27d%27/soe-and-virgin-team-for-ramayan-mmo-287706.php
As someone who has sampled almost everything the MMO world has to offer, the Ramayan 3392 A.D. universe is like nothing I've ever seen.
The setting is rich with Indian culture, juxtaposing the spiritual themes of the original Indian epic with technological ones for an enticing mix of old and new
Saying that something is a red flag doesn't mean that I automatically won't play it. Rather, it means that if I'm looking at playing a game, I'd better look into that particular thing pretty carefully to make sure it isn't game-breaking.
I'd like to play a game that does pvp well. Infantry did, but that game is all but dead now. Guild Wars did all right with pvp, I guess. A game that simply has players running around and says, oh by the way, you can attack each other, is all but guaranteed to do pvp badly. It might well be possible to balance open world pvp, but it's really, really hard to do, which is why no one has come remotely close to doing so yet. At a minimum, such a game would have to have quite a few things in place for the express purpose of balancing pvp in order to have a chance at being good. The odds that a company would go to the work to put such things in place but not then loudly trumpet them as "this is what makes our game better than the competition" are pretty slim.
The twitch is starting to looking interesting, probably the worst thing in CoX was its total lack of twitch, what is the point of moving or using ranged combat when every attack is heat seeking and will even pass through walls. Hitting something and then seeing the animation happen when the person you hit is on the other side of the room is painful.
Not a great PvP fan I find it very dull, but if a MMO is going to have PvP then PvP to achieve a PvE objective is a lot more interesting than FFA PvP. I want to take down giant robots, destroy incoming missiles, save cats even under villain fire, a lot more than just join in a pointless free for all with no real reason.
Question is always the same though can they balance the PvP so it doesn't degenerate to its usual level.
Just because a game has the client crash every half hour doesn't mean that's the only thing that will be happening in it. If it interferes with what you're trying to do, it can still be a nuisance, even to the point of being game-breaking. PvP doesn't automatically interfere with what you're doing, but getting jumped by a high level every 10 minutes or so sure does.
What I want to know is how the OP went up against Supes and beat him... with a killerclown no less.
More details on how that battle went would be nice. I mean, is it possible in this system to make a character that can go toe to toe versus the Big Guy? If not, how do you work out that you can escape him with the cargo in tow? Spare Kryptonite ring lying around... or did you have to beat Bats for his in the mission before it?
Bringing in big names into quests makes it interesting but there should be a level of believability to the encounter.
My impression of the article is that they're going to focus a lot more on PvP with PvE being thrown in as an afterthought so they can say "PvP or PvE action" on the box. It's only going to get worse with micropayments. Mark my words, those of us who don't like being ganked by teenagers with Daddy's credit card are going to get the short end of the stick.
This is exactly what Warhammer Online intended. It failed. Lets see how well Sony does with it. They have such a good reputation of making hits...
The lack of PVE content is going to disappoint a lot of people. If they haven't made PVE as exciting and fun as the PVP aspects, they will fail utterly. If PVP is not completely consensual, they will fail utterly. I know a lot of chickens on this site cluck about pvp vs pve being a 50 vs 50 thing. AoC and WAR have both shown that is NOT TRUE in the slightest. PVE FAR OUTSCALES the number of people interested in playing PVP oriented games. I hope the development team appreciates this and doesn't listen to the loudmouthed minority like the morons before them.
This is exactly what Warhammer Online intended. It failed. Lets see how well Sony does with it. They have such a good reputation of making hits...
The lack of PVE content is going to disappoint a lot of people. If they haven't made PVE as exciting and fun as the PVP aspects, they will fail utterly. If PVP is not completely consensual, they will fail utterly. I know a lot of chickens on this site cluck about pvp vs pve being a 50 vs 50 thing. AoC and WAR have both shown that is NOT TRUE in the slightest. PVE FAR OUTSCALES the number of people interested in playing PVP oriented games. I hope the development team appreciates this and doesn't listen to the loudmouthed minority like the morons before them.
Yeah I agree. I played WAR a while, and first it was exciting, but it was exactly WAR which made me doubtful about PVP centered games. Maybe some folks enjoys it, but for me the ever same PVP-run became boring fast, and when WAR-PVE was clearly a lackluster afterthought WAR became boring fast to me. I really hope DCU does not copy that PVP-PVE concept from WAR. See where that led them to. PVE just has to be good, deep and complex. By nature all PVP is essentially simplistic. I mean, how many ways to conquer a castle/keep over and over again can you do before it gets boring? Sorry if that hurts some PVP-geeks feelings, but I found all PVP ever quite same-ish in the long run. I mean, comparing it to the PVE-hog EQ2 I got entertained for years with PVE and I just cant imagine a vast number of people enjoyes the ever same PVP run a similar time. They just shoot themselves in the knee making DCU a PVP centered game imo. But let's wait and see. Maybe its just some bad PR mistake and they emphazised it wrong. I will definitely try it out either way and then see.
I think the thing we all seem to be forgetting is that this game is being made with a Console focus.
What do you do with online Console games? Almost ALL of them are PvP of one sort or another. So for a Console targeted game PvP focus makes perfect sense. As does the twitch gaming.
I have a funny feeling many of us are just the wrong target market. If you like playing FPS or RTS games on your console online, then this game is targeted at you.
However if you like to play online PC games more then online console games... Your not the target demographic.
This is not to say you wont like it, just they are not aiming at you.
Im not a big PvP person but that is PvP that makes sense, especially in the context of the DC comic universe.
Heroes will help Superman defeat Lex Luthor and villains will help Luthor defeat Superman.
MAKES SENSE.
Im guessing a lot of people here that are complaining about the "focus on PvP" are being ignorant on purpose of PvE servers and PvE goals because thisis shaping up to be a great game. A great game by SOE. They just cant accept that.
Also, to all the people complaining that this will also be on PS3 - Champions Online was designed from the ground up to be played on the Xbox 360.
Xia did you read the article or are you being purposely obtuse? I'm going to assume you did NOT read the article because the alternative is that you are an idiot and I'd like to assume otherwise.
The articles stated quite clearly that the PVE aspects of the game are secondary at best. This means that all the people who have zero interest in PVP can move on to another game if we take that statement literally.
This is the part I commented on with reference to WAR. This is the part the discussion continued on for the several posts before yours.
Now again are you simply a troll making yourself look like a tard or did you not read the article and all of our posts before commenting? I know which I think, but wanted to confirm with you before continuing.
Its nice to see someone using logic and common sense in these forums. Its a rare thing here. Most people are so close minded they dont want any level of freedom in their games. All they want is for games to tell them a linear story and line up loads of dumb computer controlled opponents for them to knock down in sequence. The moment a game moves away from this incredibly restricted type of game design and dares to introduce a level of realism and variety in which people can actually play against each other as well as the computer then we start hearing cries of "Oh no! PvP! You mean real people will get to be my opponents?! This game is doomed! waaaggghh".
Its fucking retarded.
Saying that something is a red flag doesn't mean that I automatically won't play it. Rather, it means that if I'm looking at playing a game, I'd better look into that particular thing pretty carefully to make sure it isn't game-breaking.
I'd like to play a game that does pvp well. Infantry did, but that game is all but dead now. Guild Wars did all right with pvp, I guess. A game that simply has players running around and says, oh by the way, you can attack each other, is all but guaranteed to do pvp badly. It might well be possible to balance open world pvp, but it's really, really hard to do, which is why no one has come remotely close to doing so yet. At a minimum, such a game would have to have quite a few things in place for the express purpose of balancing pvp in order to have a chance at being good. The odds that a company would go to the work to put such things in place but not then loudly trumpet them as "this is what makes our game better than the competition" are pretty slim.
I generally agree with what you are saying. Being cautious about a game is fine but you are not one of the game designers so its not your job to "look into that thing pretty carefully to make sure it isnt game breaking". Thats what the game developers are doing. All we can do is keep our fingers crossed that they dont cock it up.
Like I said before if a game is well designed then the problems caused by PvP in the recent past dont need to repeat themselves. Obviously if all the players are dumped into a big open battlefield and left to their own devices then it will be crap. Thats just basic common sense.
Yes, I read the article and what I read are the opinions of some nobody that played a PvP focused demo for a few hours.
Chris Cao, Studio Creative Director - "PvP will always be consensual. You'll either choose to play on a PvP server, opt-in to a PvP zone, or take egregious actions that will flag you for PvP"
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=170495422&blogID=444821377
That was from 3 months ago so I doubt very much it has changed since.
Quite frankly I'll take the word of the head developer over some nobody.
Also, I fail to see how PvE is a "necessary evil" or an "afterthought" when there is PvE quests, PvE instanmces and PvE raids. When on the PvP side you have PvP aspects to certain quests, arenas and Battlegrounds.
Sounds like the PvP in DCU Online is about as prevalent as the PvP in WoW.
I like how the PvP is incorparated in DCU but just because someone says its the focus of the entire game does not make it a fact.
1. I never cared for EQ2, but EQ2 isnt where I developed my problem with SOE it was SWG. I beta tested SWG and it was the WORST beta I have ever been in much more like a alpha, no quest givers, no loot crashed all the time. It was a sick joke. Then they release the game a week after turning up the quest givers and turning on looting.
The release was almost up to most games Beta quality. And it really took almost a year to make it up to the level most games release at. This proved to me that SOE could care less about the quality of a game no matter what the IP.
4. No I meant overly simple for someone used to PC games. The controls on a Console game are very weak. Just a hand full of buttons and a sluggish controler. Compare this to the massive numbers of controls and high response of a PC mouse keyboard setup. Ever wonder why the console version of Halo and the PC version do not play against eachother online?
5. I can't say I have met any console MMO gamers. All I have to go on is console multiplayer gamers, and trust me you do not want to have to listen to them. They are revolting. But thats what happens when 12 year old kids get overly excited.
6. The final form of the RMT will not show its head until LONG after release. SOE will tweak it to find maximum profit. That is the way of any company, but SOE has shown itself to care far more about profit then long term health of a product. There is a reason the new Star Wars game is not a SOE product.
All I see in your posts is, I hate consoles. Cool, don't play on them.
My girls kid is 12; I'll leave here in a few minutes and go hang out with him. We'll play some CoD: World at War (I won't let him play 4, don't want my K to D ratio going down). I even give him the mic. He never says anything. I have to take it back because the lack of smack talk gets dull, but then I'm a beast on my pathetic console shooters and I like talking junk; just like most everyone else I know my age that likes to be competetive in games.
I'm 32 and I talk more crap then the 12 year old.
And most of the people I hear being annoying are well over the age of 12.
And you don't have to listen to anyone when you're playing on a console. Turn voice off. It's that easy.
Who are you kidding anyways? Been playing MMO's for years and I've played with just as many kids in MMO's as I have in shooters on a console.
There is no dif. between people on a console and people on the PC, except maybe this over inflated ego that some insist on pumping themselves up with because they seem to think that thier PC and the games on them are so much more leet then consoles and those games. Maybe you should go take a look at video game sales, maybe do a little comparison. The last time I was in gamestop it wasn't stocked with 99% of PC games, Best Buys PC games section wasn't 5x as large as the console section.
Console games outsell PC games by leaps and bounds buddy. Stop strocking your epeen, playing on a PC doesn't make you any more sophisticated or uber then a console gamer.
I'll be buying a PS3 when this game releases. It'll be the only game I play on it.
PS: You've just met someone that playes MMO's on a console. FF XI. There's an insane number of servers to choose from and the one I created on is packed with people.
This is exactly what Warhammer Online intended. It failed. Lets see how well Sony does with it. They have such a good reputation of making hits...
Of course it failed. It was based on WoWs game design which is a PvE game. WAR simply made a number of open PvP playpens for players to fight meaningless battles that have no connection or relevance to anything. WAR isnt a PvP game. Its a PvE game with optional PvP that can actually be completely ignored if the player chooses.......so it was bound to fail
The lack of PVE content is going to disappoint a lot of people. If they haven't made PVE as exciting and fun as the PVP aspects, they will fail utterly.
True.
If PVP is not completely consensual, they will fail utterly.
False. What an incredibly stupid thing to say! If PvP is COMPLETELY consensual then it will have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
"Excuse me Mr Villain do you mind if I attack you?"
"Actually yes I do. I'm trying to complete this quest to poison all of these innocents and if you attack me then it will thwart my plans"
"But I'm a superhero and its my job to protect those innocents. I'm supposed to thwart your plans"
"Ah well thats tough luck I'm afraid. You're gonna have to stand by and watch all of them die at my hands while I cackle with glee."
I know a lot of chickens on this site cluck about pvp vs pve being a 50 vs 50 thing. AoC and WAR have both shown that is NOT TRUE in the slightest. PVE FAR OUTSCALES the number of people interested in playing PVP oriented games. I hope the development team appreciates this and doesn't listen to the loudmouthed minority like the morons before them.
Again you are talking complete crap. AoC and WAR are both PvE games with badly implemented PvP added as an afterthought.
Newsflash! We dont have ANY decent PvP games at all except for EVE and even thats not particularly brilliant. How can you say that most people prefer PvE games to PvP games when PvE games are the ONLY things we have to choose from? Oh thats right your making a giant assumption based completely non existant logic.
If you offer people cheese sandwiches and extremely mouldy ham sandwiches then obviously everyone is going to eat the cheese sandwiches. It doesnt mean that everyone likes cheese. It means that cheese is the only thing on offer.
Use your brain before you type.
Its nice to see someone using logic and common sense in these forums. Its a rare thing here. Most people are so close minded they dont want any level of freedom in their games. All they want is for games to tell them a linear story and line up loads of dumb computer controlled opponents for them to knock down in sequence. The moment a game moves away from this incredibly restricted type of game design and dares to introduce a level of realism and variety in which people can actually play against each other as well as the computer then we start hearing cries of "Oh no! PvP! You mean real people will get to be my opponents?! This game is doomed! waaaggghh".
Its fucking retarded.
same with you bro, the darkfall threads are worse then this, far worse lol
I will assume by the tone of your last few paragraphs that your part of the loudmouthed minority I mentioned earlier.
I agree with you that we do not have decent PVP in any games that exist currently. Frankly I am looking forward to Jumpgate Evolution which I think will take PVP where it should be in the first place. Twitch based faction based combat on a massive scale. They get that right and PVP will be revolutionized by what they have.
I don't even consider EvE to be pvp, that's point and click garbage. I've said this before, been flamed plenty for it. I have my opinion they have their's and they are simply wrong...moving on
My point was that with the games we see right now, it's obvious that the population prefers the PVE aspects of gameplay. Purely consensual pvp is very possible through pve and pvp servers. Grant the carebears the use of a server where the PVP works exactly as you stated so viciously and the problem is solved for everyone. Carebears are happy if the PVE doesn't suck, and PVPer's are happy with their gank-fests.
The alternative is to "fix" pvp so that gankfests CAN NOT HAPPEN. They do not intend on doing this. They intend on implementing "eventually...what a joke this word makes the whole concept" the use of anti-griefing code that will make high level NPC's protect you from griefers. We all know what this means...you still get griefed by the toon that doesn't give 2 shits about the high level NPC coming to stop them while they continue to grief you. It wont cost them anything because making it cost too much breaks realism and makes it not fun for so many people....ie the griefers.
This is what all the other games have done. I expect it to be the same for anything SOE touches.
what i think could be a cool system is
now keep in mind, I'm 100% for FFA PVP
but as an alternative that could possibly work....
the villain causes trouble, hero doesn't do crap about it
well, obviously who cares about the hero, if he'll let me destroy he isn't much of a hero
i continue my evil deeds, this ruins the hero's w/e certain aspect of the game (questing i guess?)
he has no choice, but to sit around twiddling his thumbs, getting bored or attack me
he doesn't attack me, city? goes into a panic, game becomes a free for all, sorry hero, you are vulnerable now
the evil side gets a buff of some sorts ... lets call it dominance as an example
now the heros strugle to win (whatever the 'endgame' is)
this can all be avoided by putting up a fight (activating a pvp flag)
obviously a rough idea, but i'm sure you get what i'm saying
honestly, i'd rather it just be open to attack whom ever
hero vs villain
villain vs villain
I will assume by the tone of your last few paragraphs that your part of the loudmouthed minority I mentioned earlier.
I agree with you that we do not have decent PVP in any games that exist currently. Frankly I am looking forward to Jumpgate Evolution which I think will take PVP where it should be in the first place. Twitch based faction based combat on a massive scale. They get that right and PVP will be revolutionized by what they have.
I don't even consider EvE to be pvp, that's point and click garbage. I've said this before, been flamed plenty for it. I have my opinion they have their's and they are simply wrong...moving on
My point was that with the games we see right now, it's obvious that the population prefers the PVE aspects of gameplay. Purely consensual pvp is very possible through pve and pvp servers. Grant the carebears the use of a server where the PVP works exactly as you stated so viciously and the problem is solved for everyone. Carebears are happy if the PVE doesn't suck, and PVPer's are happy with their gank-fests.
The alternative is to "fix" pvp so that gankfests CAN NOT HAPPEN. They do not intend on doing this. They intend on implementing "eventually...what a joke this word makes the whole concept" the use of anti-griefing code that will make high level NPC's protect you from griefers. We all know what this means...you still get griefed by the toon that doesn't give 2 shits about the high level NPC coming to stop them while they continue to grief you. It wont cost them anything because making it cost too much breaks realism and makes it not fun for so many people....ie the griefers.
This is what all the other games have done. I expect it to be the same for anything SOE touches.
I will tell you 100% why this never works (pve/pvp server)
it fails every time, because to balance the classes out for pve/pvp is near impossible ... its gotta lean towards one or the other, no matter what (and they aren't going to do two patches (1 for each server) its not worth their time and effort
so you are either going to have OP pvp skills, or OP pve skills.... or just uneven in the way where people are unhappy with the results
Then you try to make the most people happy that you can, and my original point in my first post was that the PVE players outnumber the PVP players. Clucking is much louder by the PVP players so they tend to get more attention. Most carebears simply wont play past the first free month if the game sucks and the developers wont discover this until they put out a worthless piece of garbage and fail miserably.
I'm just explaining the situation before that happens because I'm tired of games sucking and wasting money on them.
From what I've heard about this game, unless they do a 180 turn around I have no interest in their POS pvp centric console game for pc.
This is exactly what Warhammer Online intended. It failed. Lets see how well Sony does with it. They have such a good reputation of making hits...
The lack of PVE content is going to disappoint a lot of people. If they haven't made PVE as exciting and fun as the PVP aspects, they will fail utterly. If PVP is not completely consensual, they will fail utterly. I know a lot of chickens on this site cluck about pvp vs pve being a 50 vs 50 thing. AoC and WAR have both shown that is NOT TRUE in the slightest. PVE FAR OUTSCALES the number of people interested in playing PVP oriented games. I hope the development team appreciates this and doesn't listen to the loudmouthed minority like the morons before them.
Yeah I agree. I played WAR a while, and first it was exciting, but it was exactly WAR which made me doubtful about PVP centered games. Maybe some folks enjoys it, but for me the ever same PVP-run became boring fast, and when WAR-PVE was clearly a lackluster afterthought WAR became boring fast to me. I really hope DCU does not copy that PVP-PVE concept from WAR. See where that led them to.
WAR is not a PvP centred game. Its a PvE game that has been falsely sold to the public as a PvP product. If PvP is the centre of the game then why is it optional?
Yeah WAR failed in the PvP department because there was little meaning to it. Kill player, kill player, ding go up level, kill player, take control of keep, kill player, lose control of keep, ding go up level.......why am I playing this again?
WARs PvE was also boring......but actually it wasnt all that different to the lifeless PvE you find in any other mmo really......but was it an afterthought? Or was the PvP an afterthought? The entire game seemed like an afterthought to me lol
PVE just has to be good, deep and complex.
So does PvP. The entire game needs to be good......that applies to both PvE AND PvP.
By nature all PVP is essentially simplistic. I mean, how many ways to conquer a castle/keep over and over again can you do before it gets boring? Sorry if that hurts some PVP-geeks feelings, but I found all PVP ever quite same-ish in the long run. I mean, comparing it to the PVE-hog EQ2 I got entertained for years with PVE and I just cant imagine a vast number of people enjoyes the ever same PVP run a similar time. They just shoot themselves in the knee making DCU a PVP centered game imo. But let's wait and see. Maybe its just some bad PR mistake and they emphazised it wrong. I will definitely try it out either way and then see.
What a stupidly ridiculous statement to make. Your saying that a human opponent is more simplistic than a computer controlled one? Yeah.....ummm.....dumb arse statement of the year or what! LMAO!
Other human beings provide vastly more different and varied situations to deal with than any computer opponent could ever provide. Why is that? Because people are not SCRIPTED thats why. They are capable of independant thought.
The PvE content in mmos is all the bloody same. You wander into an area and see loads of mobs standing around in the open waiting for you to kill them. They wont attack you until you walk within range of them and when they do you can beat all of them with the same combination of key presses. Yeah thats wildly exciting. You found this entertaining for years? Well its nice to know you are so incredibly easy to please. I personally want more variety in my games. I want my opponents to have brains and be capable of making decisions. I dont want my opponents to just sit there oblivious to my existence simply because I'm not stood within a few metres of them.
By nature all PvE is simplistic because it all follows a routine script programmed by the developers. It will never surprise you. It will never go on the offensive and get you when you least expect it. It will however fill you with the warm cozy feeling of false achievement that can only be gained by defeating an opponent that has less intelligence than yourself.
Just face it. You like pure PvE games because you dont like playing games that challenge you or force you to think. You like to know exactly how things are going to unfold. Throw a human opponent into the PvE equation and suddenly you have variety.
You dont like variety.
I do
Then you try to make the most people happy that you can, and my original point in my first post was that the PVE players outnumber the PVP players. Clucking is much louder by the PVP players so they tend to get more attention. Most carebears simply wont play past the first free month if the game sucks and the developers wont discover this until they put out a worthless piece of garbage and fail miserably.
I'm just explaining the situation before that happens because I'm tired of games sucking and wasting money on them.
From what I've heard about this game, unless they do a 180 turn around I have no interest in their POS pvp centric console game for pc.
Then you should move on
What entitles you to decide who they are going to make the game for? Honestly, please explain it to me.
I'm missing something, and I'd like to be knowledged on the situation.
Why do we not deserve what they are saying they are going to create without your interference. Are you better then us because you like pve? Do you really care about the company's bottom line, do you work for the company? Let this be their pvp game break threw, or flop.
I'm so sick of everyone thinking they are entitled... you aren't
there is about as much integrity in posting these crap posts about how pvp games (pretty much wanted completely gone) by 'carebears' are bad ideas, and should be an afterthought and possibly elimited... its like telling people of color to sit in the back of the bus, obviously not on such an ourrageous level, but similar ...
I'm out right sick of it, and I honestly wish I could program games, because I would make a pvp game in a second, and I bet that it'd be successful
I will assume by the tone of your last few paragraphs that your part of the loudmouthed minority I mentioned earlier.
Your assumption is wrong but thats ok because its just an assumption......pretty much in the same way that you "assume" that I am part of some minority even though you dont know what everyone on the planet thinks. You assume quite a lot of things dont you. But obviously I am "loudmouthed" because I disagree with you. Of course if I agreed with everything you say then I would not be lumped in this "small group of loudmouths" that you have conjured up in your mind.
I agree with you that we do not have decent PVP in any games that exist currently. Frankly I am looking forward to Jumpgate Evolution which I think will take PVP where it should be in the first place. Twitch based faction based combat on a massive scale. They get that right and PVP will be revolutionized by what they have.
Ok you're talking sense now.....
I don't even consider EvE to be pvp, that's point and click garbage. I've said this before, been flamed plenty for it. I have my opinion they have their's and they are simply wrong...moving on
Hmm ok I can see that. Still talking sense. Things a looking good.....
My point was that with the games we see right now, it's obvious that the population prefers the PVE aspects of gameplay.
Oh dear we've lost him again. Now he's back on the slippery slope of nonsense once again. So you're saying "We only have PvE games at the moment and from that we can see that people prefer PvE gameplay". Read what you just typed. Does that seriously make any sense to you. Do I need to start talking to you again about cheese and ham sandwiches?
I know I'll try something else. Maybe this will get through to you.
I offer you a winegum. You take it and try it. Hmm its not bad.
Now I offer you a 10 year old biscuit. Yuck! That tastes disgusting!
Your logic says = Everyone prefers winegums to biscuits.
My logic says = Everyone prefers winegums to MOULDY biscuits.
Your logic says = People should only make winegums because thats what everyone wants. No-one wants biscuits.
My logic says = People should make good winegums AND good biscuits because no-one knows what good biscuits taste like. They have only sampled mouldy ones.
Purely consensual pvp is very possible through pve and pvp servers. Grant the carebears the use of a server where the PVP works exactly as you stated so viciously and the problem is solved for everyone. Carebears are happy if the PVE doesn't suck, and PVPer's are happy with their gank-fests.
No. You are talking from a completely jaded viewpoint. You used the word "gankfest" which is typical of someone who has had their perspective clouded by the fact that so far PvP has mostly failed in mmos. You are dividing people into two distinct groups which is a mistake. I actually like "good" PvE elements in games but I also want "good" PvP elements too. I dont want gankfests because that is what happens in a BADLY DESIGNED game (mouldy biscuits).
The alternative is to "fix" pvp so that gankfests CAN NOT HAPPEN. They do not intend on doing this. They intend on implementing "eventually...what a joke this word makes the whole concept" the use of anti-griefing code that will make high level NPC's protect you from griefers. We all know what this means...you still get griefed by the toon that doesn't give 2 shits about the high level NPC coming to stop them while they continue to grief you. It wont cost them anything because making it cost too much breaks realism and makes it not fun for so many people....ie the griefers.
This is what all the other games have done. I expect it to be the same for anything SOE touches.
Now your back to talking some sense again. Nice to have you back. Yes I am dubious about their method of combating griefing too but we will have to see how that works out. I think these problems can be easily solved by steering away from levels as a means of character development but it seems that many games developers just havent caught onto this idea yet. If levels simply provided additional skills and abilities then maybe the advantage of a more "powerful" character would not be so extreme but usually a single level bestows a gigantic health boost along with various other bonuses. This has always worked ok for single player games but not for multiplayer games.
Then you try to make the most people happy that you can, and my original point in my first post was that the PVE players outnumber the PVP players. Clucking is much louder by the PVP players so they tend to get more attention. Most carebears simply wont play past the first free month if the game sucks and the developers wont discover this until they put out a worthless piece of garbage and fail miserably.
I'm just explaining the situation before that happens because I'm tired of games sucking and wasting money on them.
From what I've heard about this game, unless they do a 180 turn around I have no interest in their POS pvp centric console game for pc.
Bullshit!
PvE players outnumber PvP players? PROOF........show us the figures. Whats that? You cant? I rest my case.
But yeah all of those loud noisy obnoxious vocal PvP scumbags keep getting what they want dont they. Yeah thats why the market is currently flooded with shit loads of PvP mmos. My god we have sooooo many of them! Why cant I find any PvE games?! Where are they all?! Oh I wish someone would make a PvE game for once instead of churning out all these PvP games to appeal to the "loud minority".
Why do you keep talking complete crap?
I would play a game like that in a flash. I guarantee loads of people would flock to it as well because many of them are so sick and tired of the boring mmos we have been seeing for years. Once people get a taste of a well designed game that allows the freedom to do what we want, compete against each other and shape each others gaming experience then we will all look back at the previous PvE games and wonder what the hell we ever saw in them. Going back to the pure PvE games will be like going back to Space Invaders and Donky Kong lol.
i kinda enjoyed the PvP in Lord of the Rings. I could go out and PvE till i was sick and then pop over to the ettens and bash some creeps or get steamrolled by them. either way, i always had a good time. whats wrong with this system?
I would play a game like that in a flash. I guarantee loads of people would flock to it as well because many of them are so sick and tired of the boring mmos we have been seeing for years. Once people get a taste of a well designed game that allows the freedom to do what we want, compete against each other and shape each others gaming experience then we will all look back at the previous PvE games and wonder what the hell we ever saw in them. Going back to the pure PvE games will be like going back to Space Invaders and Donky Kong lol.
i'd also like to a see a guild system along with that along the lines of
hero = guild master
guildmates = sidekicks
villain = guild master
guildmates = henchmen
... the percs of running a guild , to stop everyone from being in their own guild, make it so that its only obtainable by having a well run guild (not 2 or 3)
so it'd be good vs evil vs evil
with temporary alliances could be a g + e v e
fighting for city teritory, and "headquarters" that give certain buffs
i'd also like to a see a guild system along with that along the lines of
hero = guild master
guildmates = sidekicks
villain = guild master
guildmates = henchmen
... the percs of running a guild , to stop everyone from being in their own guild, make it so that its only obtainable by having a well run guild (not 2 or 3)
so it'd be good vs evil vs evil
with temporary alliances could be a g + e v e
fighting for city teritory, and "headquarters" that give certain buffs
I dont completely follow all of that but I do get the general idea of what you're getting at and I like the sound of it. So far in games guilds are pretty meaningless. They are just a way for people to socialise and find groups easier to help them grind through all the so-called "content".
However if players are able to properly compete with each other then guilds can have a much deeper meaning in a game. Like you said in DCU headquarters and various other structures or territory could be taken and held to provide additional support in the form of extra abilities, buffs, units that could be summoned etc. In a game that has well designed PvP this could lead to some pretty nifty power struggles as each side would want to take these control points to help them further their own "agendas". However if a game is pure PvE then no side could really take and hold anything as stupid invisible "please dont upset me" barriers would prevent anyone from taking over anything.
I seem to remember the article by the OP mentioning something about control points like the ones that get used in the Battlefield games. Now that opens up loads of potential as it could lead to a dynamic gameworld that changes depending on who controls what. Thats what online gaming should be all about. I hope more mmos make more use of this. It will be exciting because each time you log in the game world might be different to the way it was previously. Different events could be triggered by the actions of the players.
In a pure PvE game the game world is always static and unchanging. You're actions dont mean anything and the only thing you can change is the progress of your own character.
Its nice to see someone using logic and common sense in these forums. Its a rare thing here. Most people are so close minded they dont want any level of freedom in their games. All they want is for games to tell them a linear story and line up loads of dumb computer controlled opponents for them to knock down in sequence. The moment a game moves away from this incredibly restricted type of game design and dares to introduce a level of realism and variety in which people can actually play against each other as well as the computer then we start hearing cries of "Oh no! PvP! You mean real people will get to be my opponents?! This game is doomed! waaaggghh".
Its fucking retarded.
Sorry but thats ridiculous. PVP and PVE play entirely different. RL players are unpredictable, you cant make a scripted story event asf. There are many differences between an PVE or PVP approach, and I'd guess most MMO gamers have an opinion based on experience.
Defeating a villain NPC is WAY different from the setting of a PVP event. Do you assume we are all dumb that we didnt think this through? I dont like my MMOs to be PVP centered, because it plays entirely different. End of story.
Wether this is the final word on the matter is an entirely different thing.
Oh no please no Villain vs. Villain.
NCSoft beat that concept to DEATH with City of Villains.
Fighting another villain for territory or power is amusing every once in a while BUT you should be focused primarily on bashing Heroes.
I enjoy PvE (especially getting goodies from it for PvP), but I am primarily a PvP'er.
I have read what the Devs have mentioned so far regarding PvP and I'm optimistic.
If City of Heroes/Villains actually focused on this more they might have a larger customer base.
Sorry but thats ridiculous. PVP and PVE play entirely different. RL players are unpredictable, you cant make a scripted story event asf. There are many differences between an PVE or PVP approach, and I'd guess most MMO gamers have an opinion based on experience.
Defeating a villain NPC is WAY different from the setting of a PVP event. Do you assume we are all dumb that we didnt think this through? I dont like my MMOs to be PVP centered, because it plays entirely different. End of story.
Wether this is the final word on the matter is an entirely different thing.
Why is it ridiculous? You practicly just agreed with me. I said previously that most people are close minded and dont want any level of freedom in their games and the bit you typed (highlighted in red) sums that up very well. Real life players are indeed unpredictable.......but.......thats a GOOD thing! Why would you actually want a game to be totally predictable? Whats interesting about that? Why would you actually WANT a scripted story event to play out exactly the same way every single time you play it? You do realise you are talking about single player games right? I'm talking about online games that get shared by thousands of people......games that we pay a monthly fee for. Why pay a monthly fee for a game that will never change?
You are right about one thing. Many mmo gamers have an opinion based on their previous experience of the PvE and PvP approach we have seen so far in games. The PvE approach has always been pretty much identical to single player games. They tell a story and its the same every time. You start at the beginning and play through one scripted event after another until you reach the end. People are familiar with it.......and sheep will often flock to what makes them feel comfortable. However this approach does NOT take any real advantage of the fact that its online. Developers take this approach because its easy and they have plenty of experience in making single player games.
Adding dynamic content into an online game that can be changed by the players (eg fighting each other for control of a structure or the achievement of a specific goal) is a lot harder to do and more risky. However worthwhile things are rarely easy and with great effort comes great reward. A game is going to be much more interesting and exciting if you are not certain of what is going to happen.
You want to be told a story but you dont want to be an active participant in it. You merely want to be a bystander who clicks a few buttons to nudge the story along on its predefined track. You want to read an online book with visuals.
I want to take part in a story that changes each time I play it. I want to see the story and the game world my character inhabits change to reflect the results of my actions. By combining PvE elements of the past with newer PvP elements this can be made to happen. Complete evolving gameworlds can be created in this way. You can still have scripted events that get triggered when certain situations occur but those events will play out differently and in different sequences due to the unpredictable actions of the players.
For example lets say we have a special laboratory. One day a group of villains (players) gain control of it. These particular villains have a specific interest in biomechanics.....so they use the lab to create a biomechanical beast. Alternatively they could have chosen something else from a number of options. This triggers one of many scripted events in which a giant biomechanical squid beast erupts from the lab. In turn this then triggers a quest event for the heroes as the police department calls on them for aid. The heroes and villains clash with each other. The villains want to keep the squid beast alive to maximise the damage it inflicts on innocents while the heroes try to defeat the squid beast. Eventually the squid beast will be defeated.......or it might go on a rampage around the city if it is left unchecked. The lab is now ruined and a certain amount of time will pass before it becomes usable again. At that point it is open to be taken again. Ah this time a superhero group has gained control of the lab. What will they do with it I wonder? Hmmm they have chosen to use it to create special syrum that cures disease. The villains now get access to a quest to destroy it as they hear about it on the news. The heroes have to protect it so more conflict occurs.
Are you seriously saying that you would NOT want something like that to occur in an mmo? You would actually prefer to play a game that instead just tells you a linear story that you personally have no involvement in? Come on use your imagination! I promise it wont hurt. Just try thinking outside the stale boring box just for a moment. The potential of online games is bloody awesome so why do you want them to remain static, stagnant and boring? You are perfectly welcome to stick with linear scripted games of the past where shallow limitations are placed on you to prevent you from fully interacting with all the other players if you like. I've got my sights set on more interesting ideas where players can actually change the outcome of events and have variety in their games. Its inevitable that online games will evolve and become more complex and interesting so I'm sorry but sooner or later you will either have to participate with the rest of the human race or get left behind.
Kind of a silly argument going on here because you are missing the most pertinent point. How will RMT effect the pvp in the game? How far will SOE go with the RMT. If the restrict it to fancy clothes and such no big deal, if they add things like leveling aids, etc. it changes the entire ball game. It no longer has pvp, it is mvp (money vs player) and that is just lame and a joke to many of us.
RMT = will not play regardless....simple solution really.
It's refreshing to hear that the DC Universe Devs are making PvP a focal point of the game.
Especially since a lot of us are coming from City of X where PvPers were abused, ignored, or given a back seat to lame ass PvE scripted mobs.
Don't get me wrong I enjoy PvE and I think participating in the action with a lot of the Heroes you know and love is going to be great.
However fighting a scripted mob over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again gets REALLY boring REALLY fast.
Unfortunately most MMO Devs do not have the money to keep PvE content flowing at pace that will keep people's interest for long.
You have to have something fun and challenging like fighting other Players.
Sure you can make the PvE so difficult that only 5% of the game's population will ever see it like WoW did in their early days with AQ40 and Naxx 40 man Raids. But that was considered a mistake to the masses.
Don't get caught up in all the emphasis surrounding the PvP implementations.
It's just the Dev's trying to reassure a part of the community who were disappointed with CoX PvP.
You can bet there will be A LOT of PvE in this game and I imagine they'll have separate servers for the casual / consensual and diehard PvPers.