Trending Games | ArcheAge | Guild Wars 2 | WildStar | Warhammer 40K: Eternal Crusade

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,789,368 Users Online:0
Games:723  Posts:6,193,663
Zenimax Online Studios | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 04/04/14)  | Pub:Bethesda Softworks
Distribution: | Retail Price:$59.99 | Pay Type:Subscription
System Req: PC Mac Playstation 4 Xbox One | Out of date info? Let us know!

Elder Scrolls Online Forum » General Discussion » 10 people are kicking the guy, guess I should too

22 Pages First « 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 » Last Search
430 posts found
  Nanfoodle

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/23/06
Posts: 3369

 
OP  4/22/13 4:05:52 PM#341
Originally posted by Deivos
Originally posted by Nanfoodle

What a shock, a game with no level system got its balance worked out quicker. All they have is battle rank and that counts for very little. Point I made is, given time it willl balance out. Once the MMO hoppers leave and people settle into their main chars and get top level. The guilds get to know eachother and then communities start to from. Thats when the real game starts.

I just don't agree with the notion that this will happen.

 

You claim to have played DAoC. then you should remember the faction bias of many servers. Sure some might have been balanced, but it was far from abnormal for midgard , albion, or the hibbies to have a dominant hold on a server.

 

There was no 'balancing out' on those servers. People picked the strong side and settled down.

 

WoW isn't a three way conflict and it's world PvP is a joke, it's cross server PvP mechanics have also solved some of the issues here too. However, if you think back on that game too, because it was only two faction, it was easy to tell how faction bias affected that games servers too. Many of them went very clearly to the alliance or horde simply because of players stacking faction.

 

The point you made is the one I'm saying is off. It trusts that a majority people aren't going to take the path of least resistance in order to attain the things they desire.

I do, played Ab and midguard was always over populated. The EXp and money boots helped but on my server we were always lots to midguard and zerged to death 3 and sometimes 4 too 1. Took us little less then a year to learn tatics to beat zergs. We started to win as often as they did and in time the war balanced out for the most part. Sometimes outnumbered and sometimes 1 to 1.

WoW was the same thing, Hord was the winners almost always but in time PvP guilds moved to Ally to have more fun. As a real PvPer who likes auto win? I want a fight! Same with Warhammer, in the end it balanced out from what I read but they are down to 2 servers from what I hear lol

  Deivos

Novice Member

Joined: 10/14/04
Posts: 1701

Iarð skal rifna, ok upphiminn.

4/22/13 4:06:41 PM#342
Originally posted by Nanfoodle
Originally posted by ShakyMo
You level in ps2

If not what are all those upgrades you buy with certs.

I could be worng, never play it. Just read up on it and see lots of info on no levels or level cap. Just battle rank that means very little.

Your baseline functionally stays the same, but through certs you can unlock new items for your character and components to improve your gear/class.

 

A standout example is the cloaking device for the quad in the game. After I got that I've had fun infiltrating things much more often because people just can't place me easily enough when I'm a transparent blur.

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero. - Vaarsuvius

  Nanfoodle

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/23/06
Posts: 3369

 
OP  4/22/13 4:09:42 PM#343
Originally posted by nate1980

All I've gotta say is when a developer claims to target a specific audience, they better pay attention to what the majority of that audience wants from said game. In this case, a TES game needs to be a TES game. Not a TES-esque game. 

I just read the Game Informer review on ESO and that guy is raving about how fun the game is and feels like TES, yet on the other hand admits that the game is far more linear than other TES games. You go from one quest hub to the next. I think this is probably the main storyline, but he says each area has some good side quests, area quests, and plenty of nuggets for explorers. The point being, when you change things that don't need changing in an IP series, fans get upset. They changed the way content is delivered, they've gated content and zones by level, they've melded TES/GW2 combat into one (IMO) craptacular model.

Low level is never a good judge of how a game plays. Also the devs have said you can wander off the quest hubs. There is lots of things to encounter in the open world and to explore. Most MMOs have quest hubs so they added them but thats not the end of things with ESO.

  Nanfoodle

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/23/06
Posts: 3369

 
OP  4/22/13 4:11:28 PM#344
Originally posted by Deivos
Originally posted by Nanfoodle
Originally posted by ShakyMo
You level in ps2

If not what are all those upgrades you buy with certs.

I could be worng, never play it. Just read up on it and see lots of info on no levels or level cap. Just battle rank that means very little.

Your baseline functionally stays the same, but through certs you can unlock new items for your character and components to improve your gear/class.

 

A standout example is the cloaking device for the quad in the game. After I got that I've had fun infiltrating things much more often because people just can't place me easily enough when I'm a transparent blur.

So a gear progression. Cool. Always wondered if a MMO like WoW, ESO, Rift could pull that off. Here is your char, go play the end game. BTW thats all the game has.

  Yamota

Elite Member

Joined: 10/05/03
Posts: 6501

"I fight so you don't have to."

4/22/13 4:14:06 PM#345
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by Yamota
Originally posted by Iselin

There's no sense of arguing about the influence of broadband saturation on the online game market--especially online games that have real-time components. There is a direct relationship. This is a fact not an opinion.

There's no sense of using 2001 numbers to discuss 2013. There wasn't a single MMO in the top 10 PC games sold in 2001--it was a niche market. Expecting 20K customers is not a mark of dedication, just the economic reality at the time.

No one here is saying that RvR has the most MMORPG appeal... that would be the PvE-based WOW that has the most appeal obviously. If mass appeal was the only criteria, this would be another WOW-formula clone. As a matter of fact, the fact they decided to go with a less popular system, shows more, not less integrity and dedication.

Except they didnt go for a less popular formula. Everything except the PvP areas is your standard, WoW like, ThemePark quest-hub type of gameplay.

So what they "cleverly" did is to combine DAoC RvR with WoW PvP, using Elder Scrolls skin.

Will it work? Dunno. But I do know that it will not be very much like Skyrim or other Elder Scrolls games which I believe is what many are griping about.

Skyrim had minimal levels but if you chose to follow the various story lines--which most people did--it was pretty WOW-like complete with quests that sent you to appropriate places. It even had areas that were locked to you until you had learned the proper shout required to get through the obstacle. Same is true of all of the TES games going back to Arena.

The key word is is choice various storylines, not just one. And it is completely your opinion that most people followed story lines in a linear fashion. I didnt and many of my friends, who loved Skyrim, didnt either. That was actually the reason why we liked it so much as you were not forced to follow some arbitrary, linear storyline.

Even if you look in Wikipedia for Skyrim:

 The open world gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series returns in Skyrim; the player can explore the land at will and ignore or postpone the main quest indefinitely.

The nonlinear gameplay traditional in The Elder Scrolls series is incorporated in Skyrim.

So the fact that you played the game like WoW is your choice but it is a choice. In WoW and other ThemeParks there is no such choice because the gameplay is linear and quest hub like. And you can play Skyrim that way if you like but in no way is that the only viable way.

Will TESO be like that? Who knows (except the devs) but judging from what I have seen so far, the answer would be probably not.

  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

4/22/13 4:14:18 PM#346
Originally posted by Nanfoodle
Originally posted by nate1980

All I've gotta say is when a developer claims to target a specific audience, they better pay attention to what the majority of that audience wants from said game. In this case, a TES game needs to be a TES game. Not a TES-esque game. 

I just read the Game Informer review on ESO and that guy is raving about how fun the game is and feels like TES, yet on the other hand admits that the game is far more linear than other TES games. You go from one quest hub to the next. I think this is probably the main storyline, but he says each area has some good side quests, area quests, and plenty of nuggets for explorers. The point being, when you change things that don't need changing in an IP series, fans get upset. They changed the way content is delivered, they've gated content and zones by level, they've melded TES/GW2 combat into one (IMO) craptacular model.

Low level is never a good judge of how a game plays. Also the devs have said you can wander off the quest hubs. There is lots of things to encounter in the open world and to explore. Most MMOs have quest hubs so they added them but thats not the end of things with ESO.

yes im hoping its just the starter zone, and they've made that more wow like to ease "acustomed mmo players" in.

hopefully it will open up and be more exploration and less quest driven later, like tes (and daoc).

  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

4/22/13 4:15:56 PM#347
Originally posted by Yamota
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by Yamota
Originally posted by Iselin

There's no sense of arguing about the influence of broadband saturation on the online game market--especially online games that have real-time components. There is a direct relationship. This is a fact not an opinion.

There's no sense of using 2001 numbers to discuss 2013. There wasn't a single MMO in the top 10 PC games sold in 2001--it was a niche market. Expecting 20K customers is not a mark of dedication, just the economic reality at the time.

No one here is saying that RvR has the most MMORPG appeal... that would be the PvE-based WOW that has the most appeal obviously. If mass appeal was the only criteria, this would be another WOW-formula clone. As a matter of fact, the fact they decided to go with a less popular system, shows more, not less integrity and dedication.

Except they didnt go for a less popular formula. Everything except the PvP areas is your standard, WoW like, ThemePark quest-hub type of gameplay.

So what they "cleverly" did is to combine DAoC RvR with WoW PvP, using Elder Scrolls skin.

Will it work? Dunno. But I do know that it will not be very much like Skyrim or other Elder Scrolls games which I believe is what many are griping about.

Skyrim had minimal levels but if you chose to follow the various story lines--which most people did--it was pretty WOW-like complete with quests that sent you to appropriate places. It even had areas that were locked to you until you had learned the proper shout required to get through the obstacle. Same is true of all of the TES games going back to Arena.

The key word is is choice various storylines, not just one. And it is completely your opinion that most people followed story lines in a linear fashion. I didnt and many of my friends, who loved Skyrim, didnt either. That was actually the reason why we liked it so much as you were not forced to follow some arbitrary, linear storyline.

Even if you look in Wikipedia for Skyrim:

 The open world gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series returns in Skyrim; the player can explore the land at will and ignore or postpone the main quest indefinitely.

The nonlinear gameplay traditional in The Elder Scrolls series is incorporated in Skyrim.

So the fact that you played the game like WoW is your choice but it is a choice. In WoW and other ThemeParks there is no such choice because the gameplay is linear and quest hub like. And you can play Skyrim that way if you like but in no way is that the only viable way.

for the first couple of months play, i never touched a quest, I just worked my way up river taking in anything that popped up on my compass.

But then i started with morrowind, not oblivion or skyrim, so to me thats how you play a tes game.

  Deivos

Novice Member

Joined: 10/14/04
Posts: 1701

Iarð skal rifna, ok upphiminn.

4/22/13 4:17:26 PM#348
Originally posted by Nanfoodle

I do, played Ab and midguard was always over populated. The EXp and money boots helped but on my server we were always lots to midguard and zerged to death 3 and sometimes 4 too 1. Took us little less then a year to learn tatics to beat zergs. We started to win as often as they did and in time the war balanced out for the most part. Sometimes outnumbered and sometimes 1 to 1.

WoW was the same thing, Hord was the winners almost always but in time PvP guilds moved to Ally to have more fun. As a real PvPer who likes auto win? I want a fight! Same with Warhammer, in the end it balanced out from what I read but they are down to 2 servers from what I hear lol

I'm forced to ask 'when'.

 

In the case of Warhammer it has much to do with the fact their population is just small to begin with. Faction bias is hard in that case.

 

Same can be said for DAoC. When the servers start dwindling and having to get merged is generally when you see an inprovement in faction balance, becise that's the point where there's no longer enough players to be moving around and forming bias.

 

In WoW it's as I noted got multiple reasons, and it's PvP woes were not cured by players themselves swapping factions as you just claimed. Blizzard enacted a cross server PvP system specifically to address this imbalance issue. It was a strong enough problem that people had to wait around in queues because there simply weren't enough of the opposing faction's players to match the other side.

 

Going back to DAoC. It's again the notion that maybe your server blanced out. However, not everyone is what you seem to call a 'real PvPer'. The fact you saw zergs (and could beat them with inferior numbers) is rather evidence of that on it's own.

What this ultimately means is what I already said. There is a fair number of people you can trust to play PvP because they want something out of it. Be it gear or a score number. The easiest way to get either of those is not through competition, but to stack the odds in your favor, and that's just what you can expect mobs of people to do (mob mentality, it applies to game worlds too).

In the time I played DAoC I can honestly say that the most balanced server I ever saw was an emulated server, not an official one.

 

EDIT: Note, I'm not arguing against DAoC style PvP in TES. I generally think it's a compatible and good idea.

I mostly just take umbrage to how some things are approached in the implementation.

Glossing over the issues the system has faced is not a good thing to do either.

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero. - Vaarsuvius

  Yamota

Elite Member

Joined: 10/05/03
Posts: 6501

"I fight so you don't have to."

4/22/13 4:18:37 PM#349
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Originally posted by Yamota
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by Yamota
Originally posted by Iselin

There's no sense of arguing about the influence of broadband saturation on the online game market--especially online games that have real-time components. There is a direct relationship. This is a fact not an opinion.

There's no sense of using 2001 numbers to discuss 2013. There wasn't a single MMO in the top 10 PC games sold in 2001--it was a niche market. Expecting 20K customers is not a mark of dedication, just the economic reality at the time.

No one here is saying that RvR has the most MMORPG appeal... that would be the PvE-based WOW that has the most appeal obviously. If mass appeal was the only criteria, this would be another WOW-formula clone. As a matter of fact, the fact they decided to go with a less popular system, shows more, not less integrity and dedication.

Except they didnt go for a less popular formula. Everything except the PvP areas is your standard, WoW like, ThemePark quest-hub type of gameplay.

So what they "cleverly" did is to combine DAoC RvR with WoW PvP, using Elder Scrolls skin.

Will it work? Dunno. But I do know that it will not be very much like Skyrim or other Elder Scrolls games which I believe is what many are griping about.

Skyrim had minimal levels but if you chose to follow the various story lines--which most people did--it was pretty WOW-like complete with quests that sent you to appropriate places. It even had areas that were locked to you until you had learned the proper shout required to get through the obstacle. Same is true of all of the TES games going back to Arena.

The key word is is choice various storylines, not just one. And it is completely your opinion that most people followed story lines in a linear fashion. I didnt and many of my friends, who loved Skyrim, didnt either. That was actually the reason why we liked it so much as you were not forced to follow some arbitrary, linear storyline.

Even if you look in Wikipedia for Skyrim:

 The open world gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series returns in Skyrim; the player can explore the land at will and ignore or postpone the main quest indefinitely.

The nonlinear gameplay traditional in The Elder Scrolls series is incorporated in Skyrim.

So the fact that you played the game like WoW is your choice but it is a choice. In WoW and other ThemeParks there is no such choice because the gameplay is linear and quest hub like. And you can play Skyrim that way if you like but in no way is that the only viable way.

for the first couple of months play, i never touched a quest, I just worked my up river taking in anything that popped up on my compass.

Cool, I did as well and so you know what I am talking about. There is no way that would be viable in a game like WoW or any ThemePark out there, short of maybe GW 2. But that is pushing it.

  Hersaint

Novice Member

Joined: 6/11/03
Posts: 366

Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value. Albert Einstein(1879 - 1955)

4/22/13 4:19:24 PM#350

Loved DAoC trierealm
Worried about ESonline mixture of PvE PvP turning into griefing.

  immodium

Hard Core Member

Joined: 11/03/07
Posts: 1271

4/22/13 4:24:27 PM#351
Originally posted by Yamota

Cool, I did as well and so you know what I am talking about. There is no way that would be viable in a game like WoW or any ThemePark out there, short of maybe GW 2. But that is pushing it.

Actually, seeing as TES gamers ARE themepark games, you can.

  Nanfoodle

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/23/06
Posts: 3369

 
OP  4/22/13 4:25:54 PM#352
Originally posted by Deivos
Originally posted by Nanfoodle

I do, played Ab and midguard was always over populated. The EXp and money boots helped but on my server we were always lots to midguard and zerged to death 3 and sometimes 4 too 1. Took us little less then a year to learn tatics to beat zergs. We started to win as often as they did and in time the war balanced out for the most part. Sometimes outnumbered and sometimes 1 to 1.

WoW was the same thing, Hord was the winners almost always but in time PvP guilds moved to Ally to have more fun. As a real PvPer who likes auto win? I want a fight! Same with Warhammer, in the end it balanced out from what I read but they are down to 2 servers from what I hear lol

I'm forced to ask 'when'.

 

In the case of Warhammer it has much to do with the fact their population is just small to begin with. Faction bias is hard in that case.

 

Same can be said for DAoC. When the servers start dwindling and having to get merged is generally when you see an inprovement in faction balance, becise that's the point where there's no longer enough players to be moving around and forming bias.

 

In WoW it's as I noted got multiple reasons, and it's PvP woes were not cured by players themselves swapping factions as you just claimed. Blizzard enacted a cross server PvP system specifically to address this imbalance issue. It was a strong enough problem that people had to wait around in queues because there simply weren't enough of the opposing faction's players to match the other side.

 

Going back to DAoC. It's again the notion that maybe your server blanced out. However, not everyone is what you seem to call a 'real PvPer'. The fact you saw zergs (and could beat them with inferior numbers) is rather evidence of that on it's own.

What this ultimately means is what I already said. There is a fair number of people you can trust to play PvP because they want something out of it. Be it gear or a score number. The easiest way to get either of those is not through competition, but to stack the odds in your favor, and that's just what you can expect mobs of people to do (mob mentality, it applies to game worlds too).

In the time I played DAoC I can honestly say that the most balanced server I ever saw was an emulated server, not an official one.

May help in ESO with the fact there is no real PvP gear. You can earn gear buts its equal to what you can get with other types of game play. Also depends how cool the gear looks as well. Maybe Im odd but I never played PvP for a score number. Was always the thrill of the hunt and knowing when I won, was because it was worth fighting for. I like to think Im the norm when it comes to PvPers but again maybe I am wrong.

  Sovrath

Elite Member

Joined: 1/06/05
Posts: 17011

4/22/13 4:28:45 PM#353
Originally posted by ShakyMo
 

for the first couple of months play, i never touched a quest, I just worked my way up river taking in anything that popped up on my compass.

But then i started with morrowind, not oblivion or skyrim, so to me thats how you play a tes game.

lol myself as well.

  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

4/22/13 4:32:23 PM#354
Originally posted by Nanfoodle
Originally posted by Deivos
Originally posted by Nanfoodle
Originally posted by ShakyMo
You level in ps2

If not what are all those upgrades you buy with certs.

I could be worng, never play it. Just read up on it and see lots of info on no levels or level cap. Just battle rank that means very little.

Your baseline functionally stays the same, but through certs you can unlock new items for your character and components to improve your gear/class.

 

A standout example is the cloaking device for the quad in the game. After I got that I've had fun infiltrating things much more often because people just can't place me easily enough when I'm a transparent blur.

So a gear progression. Cool. Always wondered if a MMO like WoW, ESO, Rift could pull that off. Here is your char, go play the end game. BTW thats all the game has.

yeah its not the same as wow endgame progression though, you dont have a never ending supply of large vertical upgrades that get replaces every few months.  Its more a mix of horizontal and vertical progression.  One on One a skilled newbie will beat a 6 month veteran.  Its a similar power curve to daoc, nothing like as steep as wow, but then youve got the whole horizontal thing too, where the game has 5 classes (well 6 with the MAX), and they have numerous upgrades, but you pick your class every time you respawn, and theres only so many power ups you can equip at one time.  So a month or so in you will be very good in one role where as a veteran will have more options, maybe advanced 3 of the classes, with a couple of choices of spec on both.

e.g. I can play several roles pretty well.

An assualt / squad leader / sucide bomber specced light assualt

A defensive, spotter / sniper specced light assualt

A forward assualt, base preparing specced infiltrator (working on a defensive sniper spec for him too)

A mid range medic, that works on both attack and assualt (but i need to work on getting him some heal grenades)

An anti air MAX

A anti vehcile engineer with any vehicle turret, tank mines etc..

Ive also specced the light fighter for my faction the scythe for getting to bases quick and easy landing, with ground clearing weapeons (suits my LA and infiltrator for if im going ahead to hack terminals or plant spawn beacons)

And the vehicle transport - the sunderer for acting as a mobile deployment station and either having a mine guard or acting as a tank ammo resupplier (cant equip both at once)

but i cant do all them at the same time.

It sounds like TESO will have a chunk of horizontal progression at end game too, like you can skill different weapons and stuff, but cant equip them at the same time.

  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

4/22/13 4:34:08 PM#355
Originally posted by Nanfoodle
Originally posted by Deivos
Originally posted by Nanfoodle

I do, played Ab and midguard was always over populated. The EXp and money boots helped but on my server we were always lots to midguard and zerged to death 3 and sometimes 4 too 1. Took us little less then a year to learn tatics to beat zergs. We started to win as often as they did and in time the war balanced out for the most part. Sometimes outnumbered and sometimes 1 to 1.

WoW was the same thing, Hord was the winners almost always but in time PvP guilds moved to Ally to have more fun. As a real PvPer who likes auto win? I want a fight! Same with Warhammer, in the end it balanced out from what I read but they are down to 2 servers from what I hear lol

I'm forced to ask 'when'.

 

In the case of Warhammer it has much to do with the fact their population is just small to begin with. Faction bias is hard in that case.

 

Same can be said for DAoC. When the servers start dwindling and having to get merged is generally when you see an inprovement in faction balance, becise that's the point where there's no longer enough players to be moving around and forming bias.

 

In WoW it's as I noted got multiple reasons, and it's PvP woes were not cured by players themselves swapping factions as you just claimed. Blizzard enacted a cross server PvP system specifically to address this imbalance issue. It was a strong enough problem that people had to wait around in queues because there simply weren't enough of the opposing faction's players to match the other side.

 

Going back to DAoC. It's again the notion that maybe your server blanced out. However, not everyone is what you seem to call a 'real PvPer'. The fact you saw zergs (and could beat them with inferior numbers) is rather evidence of that on it's own.

What this ultimately means is what I already said. There is a fair number of people you can trust to play PvP because they want something out of it. Be it gear or a score number. The easiest way to get either of those is not through competition, but to stack the odds in your favor, and that's just what you can expect mobs of people to do (mob mentality, it applies to game worlds too).

In the time I played DAoC I can honestly say that the most balanced server I ever saw was an emulated server, not an official one.

May help in ESO with the fact there is no real PvP gear. You can earn gear buts its equal to what you can get with other types of game play. Also depends how cool the gear looks as well. Maybe Im odd but I never played PvP for a score number. Was always the thrill of the hunt and knowing when I won, was because it was worth fighting for. I like to think Im the norm when it comes to PvPers but again maybe I am wrong.

This is the other feature they borrowed from DAOC - gear equality regardless of playstyle.

Hope they stick to their guns and dont start doing instanced raiding with tiered progression and what not.

  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

4/22/13 4:36:43 PM#356
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by baphamet

 


Originally posted by ShakyMo
Trudge.Because...A) lame easymoders would all choose the current biggest faction.B) because huge zerg guilds would develop making the game lob-sided, as everyone they recruit would end up picking that faction.

 

judging by the info we have, you don't pick campaigns, they are assigned to you.

you can pick the faction that has overall the most numbers but once you get assigned to a campaign, it may not be the winning faction in that campaign.

you can switch but that is assuming you can then pick the new campaign you would like to join, which i doubt.

not only that but campaigns end, not sure how that works exactly but i would assume they get balanced once the new campaigns begin.

yes, the downside to that is there is no rivalries or faction pride but it does make it more balanced in theory.

hopefully they at least add a ranking system of some sort and once certain top end guilds assert their dominance, they get paired with other top end guilds from the other factions, which could build some decent rivalries.

with the way they are doing it it can be done.

My opinion of campaigns and the megaserver is that they spent way too much time thinking about what happens when servers loose population and overthought the problem.

The old-fashioned server system would work much better here since you'd also be PvEing with the same people you PvP with. You'd get to know your faction mates much better.

hell yeah

and it would let them have alternative ruleset servers

  Iselin

The Listener

Joined: 3/04/08
Posts: 3735

4/22/13 4:38:43 PM#357
Originally posted by Yamota
Originally posted by Iselin
Originally posted by Yamota
Originally posted by Iselin

There's no sense of arguing about the influence of broadband saturation on the online game market--especially online games that have real-time components. There is a direct relationship. This is a fact not an opinion.

There's no sense of using 2001 numbers to discuss 2013. There wasn't a single MMO in the top 10 PC games sold in 2001--it was a niche market. Expecting 20K customers is not a mark of dedication, just the economic reality at the time.

No one here is saying that RvR has the most MMORPG appeal... that would be the PvE-based WOW that has the most appeal obviously. If mass appeal was the only criteria, this would be another WOW-formula clone. As a matter of fact, the fact they decided to go with a less popular system, shows more, not less integrity and dedication.

Except they didnt go for a less popular formula. Everything except the PvP areas is your standard, WoW like, ThemePark quest-hub type of gameplay.

So what they "cleverly" did is to combine DAoC RvR with WoW PvP, using Elder Scrolls skin.

Will it work? Dunno. But I do know that it will not be very much like Skyrim or other Elder Scrolls games which I believe is what many are griping about.

Skyrim had minimal levels but if you chose to follow the various story lines--which most people did--it was pretty WOW-like complete with quests that sent you to appropriate places. It even had areas that were locked to you until you had learned the proper shout required to get through the obstacle. Same is true of all of the TES games going back to Arena.

The key word is is choice various storylines, not just one. And it is completely your opinion that most people followed story lines in a linear fashion. I didnt and many of my friends, who loved Skyrim, didnt either. That was actually the reason why we liked it so much as you were not forced to follow some arbitrary, linear storyline.

Even if you look in Wikipedia for Skyrim:

 The open world gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series returns in Skyrim; the player can explore the land at will and ignore or postpone the main quest indefinitely.

The nonlinear gameplay traditional in The Elder Scrolls series is incorporated in Skyrim.

So the fact that you played the game like WoW is your choice but it is a choice. In WoW and other ThemeParks there is no such choice because the gameplay is linear and quest hub like. And you can play Skyrim that way if you like but in no way is that the only viable way.

Will TESO be like that? Who knows (except the devs) but judging from what I have seen so far, the answer would be probably not.

It doesn't really matter how you played or I played. The fact is that different ways of playing it were available. I'm still not seeing how ESO is so different except that they added yet another way to play with the RvR-only option. But those damn levels... can't avoid them.

Grindy mindless exploration just does nothing for me. For me to really get into the game, I need to feel like there is a real world here. Just like in the real world there are some things you can do that are a lot more interesting than others. Following the fighters, thieves, mages, dark brotherhood, rebellion, and dragon/shouts plot lines is what immerses me. Killing 2000 wolves and kiting giants doesn't do it.

There were many things and many areas that weren't even open to you unless you were following the appropriate story. I would have missed more by not doing that than just going off on my own. Not that I didn't enjoy finding caves and ruins and exploring them. But in some I would get to a point where I would be getting my ass handed to me often enough that I backed-out and tried to remember to come back later. It was only after I'd followed all the plots and couldn't find many new ones that I just said "fuck it" and systematically went everywhere I hadn't yet been to.

What I did like a lot was the freedom to choose which of the many stories I followed and in what order. Playing a mage, first thing I did was followed the Mage's Guild stories to improve those skills much more easily than I would have by grinding and randomly running into people who could teach me new spells.

In ESO not only do we get to do that but those guilds also have their own skill lines available only to members. Mind you I don't know if you can choose side plots first or you need to level-up before you unlock them. But levels make it much trickier to go off in your own direction...

Shrug. Close enough for me if they do it well.

  jmcdermottuk

Hard Core Member

Joined: 6/10/06
Posts: 772

4/22/13 4:41:04 PM#358
Originally posted by Deivos
Originally posted by Nanfoodle

I do, played Ab and midguard was always over populated. The EXp and money boots helped but on my server we were always lots to midguard and zerged to death 3 and sometimes 4 too 1. Took us little less then a year to learn tatics to beat zergs. We started to win as often as they did and in time the war balanced out for the most part. Sometimes outnumbered and sometimes 1 to 1.

WoW was the same thing, Hord was the winners almost always but in time PvP guilds moved to Ally to have more fun. As a real PvPer who likes auto win? I want a fight! Same with Warhammer, in the end it balanced out from what I read but they are down to 2 servers from what I hear lol

I'm forced to ask 'when'.

 

In the case of Warhammer it has much to do with the fact their population is just small to begin with. Faction bias is hard in that case.

 

Same can be said for DAoC. When the servers start dwindling and having to get merged is generally when you see an inprovement in faction balance, becise that's the point where there's no longer enough players to be moving around and forming bias.

 

In WoW it's as I noted got multiple reasons, and it's PvP woes were not cured by players themselves swapping factions as you just claimed. Blizzard enacted a cross server PvP system specifically to address this imbalance issue. It was a strong enough problem that people had to wait around in queues because there simply weren't enough of the opposing faction's players to match the other side.

 

Going back to DAoC. It's again the notion that maybe your server blanced out. However, not everyone is what you seem to call a 'real PvPer'. The fact you saw zergs (and could beat them with inferior numbers) is rather evidence of that on it's own.

What this ultimately means is what I already said. There is a fair number of people you can trust to play PvP because they want something out of it. Be it gear or a score number. The easiest way to get either of those is not through competition, but to stack the odds in your favor, and that's just what you can expect mobs of people to do (mob mentality, it applies to game worlds too).

In the time I played DAoC I can honestly say that the most balanced server I ever saw was an emulated server, not an official one.

 

EDIT: Note, I'm not arguing against DAoC style PvP in TES. I generally think it's a compatible and good idea.

I mostly just take umbrage to how some things are approached in the implementation.

Glossing over the issues the system has faced is not a good thing to do either.

I'd have to agree given my experience with these games.

WAR, well that was pretty much a clusterf*ck from day 1 so we can leave one.

When I started playing DAoC I had no idea about realm balance. I picked Albion and Briton because I'm English, so no brainer there. It turned out the Albs were the dominant realm followed by the Mids and distantly in third place were the Hibs.

What would usually happen was the Mids and Hibs would gang up on us, because it was the only way to get a reasonably balanced fight and even then we outnumbered them, but not by much.

 

With WoW there was a 70/30 split on my server in favour of the Alliance and I played Horde. The result of this was we got really good at PvP very quickly, because we had to if we wanted to survive. Player for player we were much better at PvP and often beat superior numbers.

When the BG's were introduced this became evident because the Horde dominated. This resulted in a lot of alliance players switching sides because a) they wanted to be on the winning side and b) they were sick of sitting in a queue for 2 hours to get into WSG, whereas we waited for around 5 minutes.

Obviously this was before the cross server pools.

But getting back to your point, it does highlight problems inherent in the RvR system and they shouldn't be ignored.

  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

4/22/13 4:42:14 PM#359
Originally posted by Iselin

@ Mo...

I think we're only fooling ourselves that in any game where mobs and players have levels, it's truly possible to go off in any direction of the compass.

Whether breadcrumb quests send us there or we get there through the trial and error of dying / surviving, level-based MMOs--which is pretty well all of them--lead you to appropriate areas for your level one way or another.

yeah i prefer the trial / error approach

Also yes, skyrim levels some mobs as you level, but its not like Oblivions system (i dont like oblivion btw).

A good thing in skyrim is within the same area you have mobs you can fight and mobs that will kill you outright.  You Might happily clear a pack of wolves on your level 5 character, then go clear a mine of bandits, but you sure as hell arent going to take on the big feck off giant wandering about, you want to avoid him.  I prefer the pve work like that mobs of varying strenght within the same region.

p.s. morrowind had a good system too, generally speaking the further inland you went, the more dangerous things got.

  BigHatLogan

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 1/09/06
Posts: 695

4/22/13 4:47:15 PM#360
Why did they ruin the combat?  Skyrim combat was cool but they decided to make WoW combat which is not so cool.  They should have heeded the lessons of SWTOR and stuck with the good parts of the IP they chose instead of MMORPGing the crap of it.  MMORPGs in general are pretty awful at the moment so sticking with current conventions is just sad.   

Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!

I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!

22 Pages First « 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 » Last Search