As nice as LOTRO is and the company it fails for delivering good pvp. I was playing ettenmoors (both sides) a lot and it was fun but very limited. This is Lord Of The Rings....big, huge battles, but you will only find that in WAR. Same reason a lot of the pvpers from AoC have gone over to war too.
Do you really find that LOTRO PVP is lacking compared to WAR PVP when LOTRO was never billed as a PVP game. They have said from the start that the game was a story driven PVE game. So it is not surprising that WAR has better PVP.
And for the record if you ever read the books wich this game is bases on. The huge wars your talking about make up maybe 10% of the books in total. The battles were huge but were a small part of the books. The majority of the books deal with frodos journey and the trials and tribulations he goes thru in his battle against the power of the ring. What happens to the fellowship when it splits up at the end of the fellowship of the ring.
In the movies the war aspect of the books was brought out more to intise the audience into watching. Wich makes sense considering people are not going to pay that amount of money to watch frodo, sam, pippen and merry take two weeks to get from the shire to bree. Or watch tom bombadil skip around like a flamer singing his songs. Or sit thru the days it takes the fellowship to get thru moria.
Personally i love the game the way it is and i don't need huge wars to enjoy myself in a game. One of the reasons i won't be playing WAR. The playstyle doesn't interest me like the playstyle of LOTRO does. I say each to their owne.
Well yes i have read the entire set twice in my time and the additional booksm in addition to playing the old tabletop game for a few years many years ago and in all the contense the threat of war or war itself is an important aspect of the genre. I wasnt, however, talking about lore at all nor did i suggest that the game was built for pvp as we all know it wasnt, I stated an observation that pvp isnt good in that game its as simple as that take it for as its written and not as you assume i have written.
I've just ended my sub with LOTRO for a while, although may well go back. I was playing flat out for a good few months, but it's an odd thing. The game looks wonderful, it seems to play very well - it has everything in there that you think you'd want from an MMO, yet I just can't seem to stick with it - neither can lots of others if this post is anything to go by.
I've been trying to work out what it is about LOTRO that's holding it back - from my own experience, I think it's fair to say that it's a much more mature player base than other games and a great many players are in guilds - which can make it difficult to get a PUG for half-an-hour's play. And solo content later in the game is fairly thinly spread.
As well as that, it's almost too realistic - you have your own lovely little house and you ride around and meet your mates and do a little killing, then it's off to the marketplace. I found myself, eventually, wishing I could find a purple tree or a ridiculously large two-handed sword just to inject a little fun into the thing.
I dunno, people talk about wanting realism in these games, but I think LOTRO is an example of having almost too much realism.
Anyway, just a couple of thoughts, don't flame me if you don't agree, just let me know what you think.
I have actually no idea how the population is on lotro now.. I didn't play for a while because i had no time, but I think I gonna resub in te next few weeks. I'm not gonna try out WAR, I dunno why but it doesnt seems to be my type of game..
------------------------------------------------------------------- waiting for ... nothing..
As nice as LOTRO is and the company it fails for delivering good pvp. I was playing ettenmoors (both sides) a lot and it was fun but very limited. This is Lord Of The Rings....big, huge battles, but you will only find that in WAR. Same reason a lot of the pvpers from AoC have gone over to war too.
Do you really find that LOTRO PVP is lacking compared to WAR PVP when LOTRO was never billed as a PVP game. They have said from the start that the game was a story driven PVE game. So it is not surprising that WAR has better PVP.
And for the record if you ever read the books wich this game is bases on. The huge wars your talking about make up maybe 10% of the books in total. The battles were huge but were a small part of the books. The majority of the books deal with frodos journey and the trials and tribulations he goes thru in his battle against the power of the ring. What happens to the fellowship when it splits up at the end of the fellowship of the ring.
In the movies the war aspect of the books was brought out more to intise the audience into watching. Wich makes sense considering people are not going to pay that amount of money to watch frodo, sam, pippen and merry take two weeks to get from the shire to bree. Or watch tom bombadil skip around like a flamer singing his songs. Or sit thru the days it takes the fellowship to get thru moria.
Personally i love the game the way it is and i don't need huge wars to enjoy myself in a game. One of the reasons i won't be playing WAR. The playstyle doesn't interest me like the playstyle of LOTRO does. I say each to their owne.
Well yes i have read the entire set twice in my time and the additional booksm in addition to playing the old tabletop game for a few years many years ago and in all the contense the threat of war or war itself is an important aspect of the genre. I wasnt, however, talking about lore at all nor did i suggest that the game was built for pvp as we all know it wasnt, I stated an observation that pvp isnt good in that game its as simple as that take it for as its written and not as you assume i have written.
And i was pointing out that the war aspect of the books is just a small part of what the books are actually about. Yes the threat of war is there but it never materializes in a huge dominate way like in the movies. I have read the books more times than i care to remember over the last 25+ years. I was asking you a simple question cause to me it appeared you were very dissapionted in the fact PVP isn't a major part of the game.
If i miss understood you i am sorry but it is awfully hard to get a persons meening on a forum unless they come right out and tell you what they meen. Thanks for clarifying your stance on this as i hope i have also clarified mine.
Comments
Do you really find that LOTRO PVP is lacking compared to WAR PVP when LOTRO was never billed as a PVP game. They have said from the start that the game was a story driven PVE game. So it is not surprising that WAR has better PVP.
And for the record if you ever read the books wich this game is bases on. The huge wars your talking about make up maybe 10% of the books in total. The battles were huge but were a small part of the books. The majority of the books deal with frodos journey and the trials and tribulations he goes thru in his battle against the power of the ring. What happens to the fellowship when it splits up at the end of the fellowship of the ring.
In the movies the war aspect of the books was brought out more to intise the audience into watching. Wich makes sense considering people are not going to pay that amount of money to watch frodo, sam, pippen and merry take two weeks to get from the shire to bree. Or watch tom bombadil skip around like a flamer singing his songs. Or sit thru the days it takes the fellowship to get thru moria.
Personally i love the game the way it is and i don't need huge wars to enjoy myself in a game. One of the reasons i won't be playing WAR. The playstyle doesn't interest me like the playstyle of LOTRO does. I say each to their owne.
Well yes i have read the entire set twice in my time and the additional booksm in addition to playing the old tabletop game for a few years many years ago and in all the contense the threat of war or war itself is an important aspect of the genre. I wasnt, however, talking about lore at all nor did i suggest that the game was built for pvp as we all know it wasnt, I stated an observation that pvp isnt good in that game its as simple as that take it for as its written and not as you assume i have written.
I've just ended my sub with LOTRO for a while, although may well go back. I was playing flat out for a good few months, but it's an odd thing. The game looks wonderful, it seems to play very well - it has everything in there that you think you'd want from an MMO, yet I just can't seem to stick with it - neither can lots of others if this post is anything to go by.
I've been trying to work out what it is about LOTRO that's holding it back - from my own experience, I think it's fair to say that it's a much more mature player base than other games and a great many players are in guilds - which can make it difficult to get a PUG for half-an-hour's play. And solo content later in the game is fairly thinly spread.
As well as that, it's almost too realistic - you have your own lovely little house and you ride around and meet your mates and do a little killing, then it's off to the marketplace. I found myself, eventually, wishing I could find a purple tree or a ridiculously large two-handed sword just to inject a little fun into the thing.
I dunno, people talk about wanting realism in these games, but I think LOTRO is an example of having almost too much realism.
Anyway, just a couple of thoughts, don't flame me if you don't agree, just let me know what you think.
I have actually no idea how the population is on lotro now.. I didn't play for a while because i had no time, but I think I gonna resub in te next few weeks. I'm not gonna try out WAR, I dunno why but it doesnt seems to be my type of game..
-------------------------------------------------------------------
waiting for ... nothing..
Do you really find that LOTRO PVP is lacking compared to WAR PVP when LOTRO was never billed as a PVP game. They have said from the start that the game was a story driven PVE game. So it is not surprising that WAR has better PVP.
And for the record if you ever read the books wich this game is bases on. The huge wars your talking about make up maybe 10% of the books in total. The battles were huge but were a small part of the books. The majority of the books deal with frodos journey and the trials and tribulations he goes thru in his battle against the power of the ring. What happens to the fellowship when it splits up at the end of the fellowship of the ring.
In the movies the war aspect of the books was brought out more to intise the audience into watching. Wich makes sense considering people are not going to pay that amount of money to watch frodo, sam, pippen and merry take two weeks to get from the shire to bree. Or watch tom bombadil skip around like a flamer singing his songs. Or sit thru the days it takes the fellowship to get thru moria.
Personally i love the game the way it is and i don't need huge wars to enjoy myself in a game. One of the reasons i won't be playing WAR. The playstyle doesn't interest me like the playstyle of LOTRO does. I say each to their owne.
Well yes i have read the entire set twice in my time and the additional booksm in addition to playing the old tabletop game for a few years many years ago and in all the contense the threat of war or war itself is an important aspect of the genre. I wasnt, however, talking about lore at all nor did i suggest that the game was built for pvp as we all know it wasnt, I stated an observation that pvp isnt good in that game its as simple as that take it for as its written and not as you assume i have written.
And i was pointing out that the war aspect of the books is just a small part of what the books are actually about. Yes the threat of war is there but it never materializes in a huge dominate way like in the movies. I have read the books more times than i care to remember over the last 25+ years. I was asking you a simple question cause to me it appeared you were very dissapionted in the fact PVP isn't a major part of the game.
If i miss understood you i am sorry but it is awfully hard to get a persons meening on a forum unless they come right out and tell you what they meen. Thanks for clarifying your stance on this as i hope i have also clarified mine.