Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
huge pvp concerns
Draccan
Member Posts: 1,050
It seems there won't be real pvp in this game... that stiffles my expectations.
I think COH was a great game but COV came too late and wasn't working well for me when I finally tried it..
I want real pvp ... all over, all the time ... with consequences!
____________________________
CASUAL CONFESSIONS - Draccan's blog
____________________________
Comments
i think the game only mentions being heroes, i didn't notice anything about being villains. they may not be intending pvp at all?
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
They said there would be PvP, but it's not going to be like the kind you want probably.
- CaesarsGhost
Lead Gameplay and Gameworld Designer for a yet unnamed MMO Title.
"When people tell me designing a game is easy, I try to get them to design a board game. Most people don't last 5 minutes, the rest rarely last more then a day. The final few realize it's neither fun nor easy."
i think the game only mentions being heroes, i didn't notice anything about being villains. they may not be intending pvp at all?
History will repeat itself in this case -- villains will be available in an expansion according to the website.
Jack say that they havent decided on Villains , and Heretic is pushing hard for PVP. In fact Heretic is the one working on the PVP , more than likely its be arena based. This game is geared to Teen rating, generally families dont like open pvp , or duel spam.
I think the arena system is going to be like Marvel's Wrestling thing that Ben Grimm was involved with. Where you can advance through the game with it.
Personally I dont think Villains should be put in at all. I think Villains require more depth than CoV gave them , and require a GTA type setting so they pull off crimes , work in stories which require them to be evil. I dont think that is gonna happen with a teen rating.
Even if PVP just the arena , there are plenty of Korean clones , Aion , WAR , and Conan to get your pvp fix , get your pve fix from Co.
Let me point you to a myriad of korean grinders that are right up your alley. Apparently Koreans love punishing themselves in their entertainment so you'll find plenty of games you'll like.
That model doesn't translate to the states as most of us have limited time to play and don't want to spend it either destroying someone's progress or being penalized by our recreational diversions.
Actually most Koreans are casual PVPers. I wouldn't call Lineage II a hardcore PVP game. It is more like a hardcore PVE game. You have to be able to PVE to PVP in that game.
I really hope they consider adding PVP in CO becuase there aren't that many non-medievalish PVP MMORPG's floating around.
And no adding elements of PVP doesn't change the rating of the game (lol?).
As for hardcore PVP consequences? No thanks and I am a long time PVP player.
The idiots namely (Jack Emmert) just will never learn, we begged and pleaded with them when COH was being developed to include some meaningfull PVP from the jump.. His repsonse? We just do not want PVP in this MMO or some crap like that.
A year later when their subs are dropping guess what?... they bring in PVP....
Now once agian History is repeting itself and Jack "Carebear" Emmert is making the same stupid choices he did in the past... If he thinks this game will survive without some type of legitimate PVP then he is just as crazy as he was back in 04.
Am I saying I want this to be a FFA gankfest PVP game? No, not at all. But I am saying that in todays world of MMO's (not yesturdays world of EQ1) your PVP needs to be on par with your PVE... Well rounded games prosper, the rest just sputter and/or die.
Now im starting to see why Microsoft pulled the plug on this crap, they saw the writing on the wall.
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
Good superhero pvp should be like playing cops and robbers.
Villians commit crimes.
Heroes have to stop them.
I highly doubt they're going to leave Villains or meaningful PvP out at launch. What's the point in admitting repeatedly that it was a mistake tacking both on as an expansion later in City of Heroes, only to do the same crap again?
That aside, Cryptic has to be paying attention to the big three MMO releases of this year. Age of Conan, Warhammer Online and Wrath of the Lich King: all with heavy server-encompassing PvP elements.
At the same time they must be observing releases like Lord of the Rings Online and Tabula Rasa, the first of which doing more than decent I think but still showing the growing pains of trying to pitch a gimmicky PvP mechanic as something worthwhile.
If I were Cryptic, I wouldn't even use the term Arena since it defines their original gimmick of what PvP is.
Hopefully they take the time to implement Villains and an avenue of PvP between them and Heroes. No real reason to quicken the release by slimming plans only to launch a PvP-less MMO within the first year running of this year's juggernauts.
I think it would be pointless releasing a no-PvP MMORPG these days (other than something like Hello, Kitty).
For me, the main reason I stopped playing LOTRO was because of the no/bad-PvP. I really wanted to like it but it all seemed pointless.
PvE is boring without having PvP to work/look forward to (even if you rarely actually pvp).
CoH did a bad job with PvP (couldn't be added later because they didn't build the game correctly from the start). It's a shame because CoH did so many things right.
Wargames like capture the flag and the arenas/ladders are a lot of quick fun. Sieges for control of areas or for specific events are awesome. It is -always- more fun/challenging to fight other players than it is to fight computer generated no-AI blips (unless you always lose).
And let's face it... Hello Kitty would be so much better with hardcore PvP rules.
Actually I think the LOTRO model of PVP or some other non-traditional approach to PVP would work very well for Champions Online. Personally I like PVP, but I don't think that it's impossible to make a great, successful MMO without it. If you're going to build your MMO from scratch with PVP in mind (in terms of pvp content, class balance, and overall relevance of PVP), then great. You can certainly make a successful MMO with that strategy, but I think building a PVE focused game is also viable. Where you get in trouble is trying to tack on PVP to a PVE game in a way that detracts heavily from the PVE game. That's where COX messed up.
IMO LOTRO was able to successfully implement PVP in a PVE focused game at launch without detracting from the PVE game, and Champions Online would do well to emulate their strategy. You can call it gimmicky, but I call it innovative. One of the main reasons that lotro's pvp works well in a pve focused game is that they avoided having symmetric factions such as you see in WOW with the Horde and the Alliance. This lets them focus on one side for the main game (PVE). They don't have to split development resources between the factions and there's a lot more freedom to develop compelling stories. Seriously how many times can you go to the "oh, we're enemies but lets join together to fight a common threat" well? Anyway, while the main game is just for one side, you have a PVP faction that is specifically created for PVP.
They don't need to copy LOTRO's approach exactly, but I do think that they would be much better off by doing something other than making a WOW/Warhammer Online style faction based PVP game. For example, what if instead of making a complete game for Villains, you will eventually get the choice to have your character turn evil or perhaps even neutral. I'd much rather have them think outside the box than make it a WOW clone with superheroes.
~~~ Currently Playing ~~~
LOTRO- Guardian Wrymstrum & Lore-master Stabler on Nimrodel.
Conan- Zoltar <Angels of Death> Guardian on Stormrage.
You're comments here are very ego-centric. Not everyone feels the same way. It may be pointless to do an MMO without making PVP the focus TO YOU. But it's not pointless overall, because a lot of people enjoy PVE for its own sake.
~~~ Currently Playing ~~~
LOTRO- Guardian Wrymstrum & Lore-master Stabler on Nimrodel.
Conan- Zoltar <Angels of Death> Guardian on Stormrage.
Well while I am sure they can get the lotro crowd with a non pvp mmo, all I can say is that the worst thing about COH was that everyone was waiting for COV and it took them years to complete, so I for one was very dissappointed... And so has many others said..
A non pvp mmo is boring to me... not a real mmo
____________________________
CASUAL CONFESSIONS - Draccan's blog
____________________________
<< IMO LOTRO was able to successfully implement PVP in a PVE focused game at launch without detracting from the PVE game, and Champions Online would do well to emulate their strategy. You can call it gimmicky, but I call it innovative. >>
LOTRO's pvp isn't gimmicky, it's crap. I applaud new ideas and Turbine certainly likes to try new things, but ultimately most of the people interested in pvp are not going to bother with monster play or LOTRO. Forcing people to play pseudo characters in special zones only is not my idea of pvp.
If there was going to be a big, next gen pve game, D&D or LOTRO would have been it. While they aren't bad games and LOTRO isn't a failure, they aren't particularly close to the most successful either. I think MMOs are going to require pvp henceforth unless they completely redesign the gaming model from the ground up (but even then, they should include pvp or many will not be interested). Too many gamers have tasted how fun it can be at this point.
Cryptic has proven that they can do great and innovative things (they gave MMOs travel powers, costume creation, good group-finding mechanics and random instances - which shouldn't have replaced -all- content but were still a good addition). I think they can put a real dent in WoW if they focus on balance and PvP (and add in other things like vehicles and more environment interaction - and oh yeah: weapon sheaths/holsters) .
First off all, I think your expectations for D&DO & LOTRO are overblown. Sure, D&D is a well known IP, but it was set in Ebberon (ugh) AND it wasn't really designed like an MMO. It's designed to appeal to people that play the actual D&D board games, so this doesn't exactly scream "mainstream hit" to me. LOTR is a very popular IP as well, but I think it is a very difficult one to translate into an MMO. To be true to the lore, the game has to shun a lot of things that make MMO's popular. As much as the extensive lore for LOTR is a resource, it also doesn't give the team a lot of flexibility. Personally I like what Turbine did with it, and I think they are doing very well to have the success that they have had. Do they compete with WOW? Hell no, not even in the same ballpark. But who else does? Nobody as of yet.
"LOTRO's pvp isn't gimmicky, it's crap."
You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I think you're reasoning is pretty weak though. If you object to special zones, what do you think Battlegrounds are? Monster play was never designed to be the focal point of the game, and your main complaint seems to be that monster play isn't the focal point of the game. Well, duh. Rather than judging it on it's own merits, you're dismissing it because it doesn't fit your idea of what it should be.
Anyway I think you need to separate your analysis of the scope of Monster Play from the model. There's absolutely no reason that you couldn't use the model of monster play for PVP that is of much larger scope. The essence of the monster play system is that you have PVP characters that can exist outside of the PVE game. The type of PVP characters that you can make, the zones and activities that they can participate are all questions of scope. I'm all for Champions Online having PVP as a much bigger part of the game than what it is in LOTRO, but I think using the Monster Play system would be the best way to incorporate that PVP.
~~~ Currently Playing ~~~
LOTRO- Guardian Wrymstrum & Lore-master Stabler on Nimrodel.
Conan- Zoltar <Angels of Death> Guardian on Stormrage.
EVE is a niche MMO with 300k subs paying 15$ a month and Dark age of Camelot is just way too old.
90% of korean games more PvE than even WoW.
They just focus on leveling more than gear. So its a bit different. And teen rating... go look at WC3, things explode when killed by cats and mortars. And the water gets filled with blood if they die in water.
And that game has a Teen raiting... i think you dont know what your talking about.
I agree with one of the former posters; I hope Champions Online has some type of PvP diversity (Capture enemy Base, etc) or something of that nature. In CoV it got sorta repetitive defeating the opposing side over and over again. (which I LOVE CoV btw.)
But about Villians in Champions Online; I read in one of Game Informer's recent issues that a Villains part of CO was in the works as well, like seperate of the Heroes side. They may have changed it since then, but that's what I read.
Backup Your Videogame CD's
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
<<
"LOTRO's pvp isn't gimmicky, it's crap."
You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I think you're reasoning is pretty weak though. If you object to special zones, what do you think Battlegrounds are? Monster play was never designed to be the focal point of the game, and your main complaint seems to be that monster play isn't the focal point of the game. Well, duh. Rather than judging it on it's own merits, you're dismissing it because it doesn't fit your idea of what it should be.
>>
Battlegrounds are cheap, Quake-type fun. I don't think they belong in a MMO but I enjoyed them in spite of that. Monster play, when I played it, wasn't fun.
It certainly could be fun but it won't scratch the PvP itch. For a game to have PvP, you need one person's character to fight another person's character. Part/most of the thrill is seeing how well your skills, time invested, pve success and stat/skill choices do -against- someone elses in various situations. I feel that is the heart of good PVP.
Focal point or not, a game which doesn't let you really prove your mettle isn't going to do well anymore (IMO). It doesn't count if your fighting someone that's built with completely different mechanics. Player controlled monsters or villains can certainly make things more interesting than fighting bad AI all of the time, but it would be hard to make sure that it wouldn't be severely exploited if there were any player character gains on the line. I know that I wouldn't hesitate to let the heroes win a battle if I was temporarily playing a villain and I didn't have anything against any of the PCs. And if I found myself obliged to play a villain and win just to somehow make my real character more powerful, I would be turned off to that game.
I haven't followed Lineage 2, but the original Linage was certainly as Hard Core as a game comes and the people playing it certainly were not casual gamers for the most part. Also the original linage was made to be a Korean game while lineage2 was an attempt to appeal to both Korean/US market. So perhaps if lineage2 is different that is why.
There's no reason why the LOTRO model couldn't be used while also incorporating battleground style scenarios. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "build with completely different mechanics". The monster classes in LOTRO are somewhat simplified versions of the freep classes. Not exactly the same, but fairly close.
It would actually be pretty easy to prevent exploitation of certain types of events with rewards. You'd just give the events pvp rank/level requirements so that you can't enter throw away PVP characters. And make sure both sides get rewards. That would pretty much take care of it. Of course any type of PVP system's rewards will be exploitable through cooperation. But if you do those things I don't see how it would be any worse than a multitude of other PVP reward systems.
~~~ Currently Playing ~~~
LOTRO- Guardian Wrymstrum & Lore-master Stabler on Nimrodel.
Conan- Zoltar <Angels of Death> Guardian on Stormrage.
CO would be smart to have pvp server(s), it's a fun aspect of any mmo!
IMHO World pvp is really not suited to a super hero game. But battlegrounds and scenarios would be appropriate.
ATM i believe i heard something about a sorta fight club style pvp system to begin with? Ionno, i'm playing a super hero mmo to bust baddies and stop crimes, not to randomly gank some noob trying to level.
It's a little early to speculate on the end product unless there is something that states that they will have absolutely no pvp, regardless of the consequences. Give it time, the player base "should" help drive their focus.
Well I really, truly can not agree with that. World pvp is perfect for a super hero game. Isn't this what happens in all the books. People randomly meet and fight, often when engaged in other things.
It really is the right setting for combining group play and faction play. Perfect!
If you take that out of the equation, then for ME, it is just another 3d engine filled with x numbers of critters and a progression system to keep you occupied while a company gets 15$ from you a month.. no excitement!
____________________________
CASUAL CONFESSIONS - Draccan's blog
____________________________