Hey guys, just wanted to add in my 2 cents and say I'm another one who believe ShadowBane was by far one of the best open PVP MMO's to date, shame it got killed off, although I found there's an emulator being made, I hope that pulls through. Personally I'm not a HUGE fan of PvP as a whole cus I can't stand gankers, but in turn I became one of the hunters when it came to ShadowBane. Slaughtering those noob gankers who didn't have a clue and picked on the weak was quite frilling for me, and actually hunting them down was of course half the fun I say bring back ShadowBane or create ShadowBane 2!
First, if you have a heavy(or even medium) death penalty, fewer people will PvP. I know this from personal experience over many, many games. Make the death penalty harsh enough, and most people will not even bother with the game. That automatically niches such a game.
I agree with this. Minor death penalties actually generate more PvP. People are braver which leads to more action. People also try new things more frequently which leads to a faster metagame cycle -> a plus in my mind.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Unlike what this article suggests, I would never call gankers, griefers and the like, competitive. Not in general atleast. On the contrary, those who play instanced X vs. X matches, would I call competitive. The PvP system which is applied in Guild Wars, for example, has been frequently referred to as "competitive PvP" as opposed to open/FFA PvP, BG or RvR seen in other games. Personally I think this is a fairly fitting term of GW's PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Well imo, the lack of hunt in PvP is the same problem as in a lot of aspects in MMOs today.
In the old days, we used to get a quest, had to read it, read between the lines to find our objective, now they give you the quest and point you in the right direction either with an arrow or something showing you where the quest is on the map.
In the good old days of EQ, when we wanted to sell something, on the Prexus server, we used to stand under a torch in EC tunnels and shout ''2 bags of stuff for sale, people would come, we would open trade windows and we barter. Now there are the brokers and auction houses.
Again, back then, every fight in the game was challenging, we could be killing a goblin 5 levels under us and be charged by a mob of goblins that we don't know where they came from and kill us. Now all mobs positions are set in stone, they barely move and fights are too easy.
A lot of things have been taken out of mmorpgs today, and PvP is the same now, they made it easy by adding the instanced PvP. So people don't have to hunt other players.
MMORPGs today have no fun factor to me anymore, because the fun part of an mmo to me was how challenging it was, and now there is no more challenge. In PvP it is no different, the fun and challenge of being jumped by another player whatever you're doing or wherever you are is gone.
Well imo, the lack of hunt in PvP is the same problem as in a lot of aspects in MMOs today. In the old days, we used to get a quest, had to read it, read between the lines to find our objective, now they give you the quest and point you in the right direction either with an arrow or something showing you where the quest is on the map. In the good old days of EQ, when we wanted to sell something, on the Prexus server, we used to stand under a torch in EC tunnels and shout ''2 bags of stuff for sale, people would come, we would open trade windows and we barter. Now there are the brokers and auction houses. Again, back then, every fight in the game was challenging, we could be killing a goblin 5 levels under us and be charged by a mob of goblins that we don't know where they came from and kill us. Now all mobs positions are set in stone, they barely move and fights are too easy. A lot of things have been taken out of mmorpgs today, and PvP is the same now, they made it easy by adding the instanced PvP. So people don't have to hunt other players. MMORPGs today have no fun factor to me anymore, because the fun part of an mmo to me was how challenging it was, and now there is no more challenge. In PvP it is no different, the fun and challenge of being jumped by another player whatever you're doing or wherever you are is gone.
110% agree with this.
I have been trying to stress this, but I'm met with a resistance of people who say that that isn't fun. Again, instant gratification is for console games. As you mentioned, having to read the quest and get only hints of where I need to go, and of what I need to do is what made it a "quest". Now, again as you pointed out, they give you quest GPS and tell you EXACTLY what to do, how is this engaging or fun? It's the same with PvP...again as you mentioned. Waiting to see how SWTOR handles their PvP system.
We all love PVP but the main problem is the current age of developers are all carebears and know nothing about PvP, the few that do are small companys that can't make enough money to develope there dream.
This is the exact reason PvP in Lineage II was so great. In that game if you ganked people(killed them without them fighting back) you were flagged red as a PKer. This added a great aspect to the game as when this happened the hunter became the hunted. Some of the best times I had in that game was hunting down PKers. Also if you were flagged red you had a much greater chance of dropping your items on death so hunting PKers could be profitable as well. These aspects of the game helped control out and out ganking pretty well. Sure there were PKers but there were also PK hunters so it kept the whole system in check so ganking didn't get out of hand.
Bren
Actually, this system failed miserably. While I never did it, I had a friend who loved to use his PK alt all the time to gank newbies/low levels. It was around level 60 at the time. He'd pop one or two or three in the dungeons and then park it and play his main. Even if he died, he had store bought cheap gear which meant: easily replaced.
Then there were all the exploits high levels would use to grief lower levels without incurring the flags, such as training mobs past your while you were fighting so they'd aggro you instead of the 80, etc.
PvP on my server was rare outside of the castle sieges, except for the griefing. There was always griefing going on.
This is the exact reason PvP in Lineage II was so great. In that game if you ganked people(killed them without them fighting back) you were flagged red as a PKer. This added a great aspect to the game as when this happened the hunter became the hunted. Some of the best times I had in that game was hunting down PKers. Also if you were flagged red you had a much greater chance of dropping your items on death so hunting PKers could be profitable as well. These aspects of the game helped control out and out ganking pretty well. Sure there were PKers but there were also PK hunters so it kept the whole system in check so ganking didn't get out of hand.
Bren
Actually, this system failed miserably. While I never did it, I had a friend who loved to use his PK alt all the time to gank newbies/low levels. It was around level 60 at the time. He'd pop one or two or three in the dungeons and then park it and play his main. Even if he died, he had store bought cheap gear which meant: easily replaced.
Then there were all the exploits high levels would use to grief lower levels without incurring the flags, such as training mobs past your while you were fighting so they'd aggro you instead of the 80, etc.
PvP on my server was rare outside of the castle sieges, except for the griefing. There was always griefing going on.
Thats exactly why I refused to play linage 2, even though I loved the graphics art style and the combat system looked entertaining. Way too many tales of ganking and griefing. A long time guild mate of mine tried it, and told me of his first hand experience of the ganking/griefing and the fact that the game is over run by bots. Its too bad, as other wise it looks like a fun game. Given past history, its doubtful that NCsoft is going to learn from its mistakes. Linage 3 is likely to be the same. Hell, look at Aion. They still refuse to have PvE servers. They simply can not conceive of games without forced PvP. Oh well, it would hardly be the first Asian game that niched itself in the west <shrug>
Garrett Fuller thinks something has been missing from PvP lately and he may know what it is: the thrill of the hunt. PvP is a critical part to many MMOs. Last week at AGDC I had the chance to talk to a lot of people about just how important it was. If you read my Jeff Hickman article and saw the chatter about Dark Age of Camelot it got people excited. More importantly I spent time at the Guild Panel with 4 of the top guild leaders in MMOs. Everyone was talking PvP. I wanted to outline something that makes PvP so much fun and has somehow been lacking in MMO lately, that something is The Hunt! Let’s take Battlegrounds for an example, or any instanced ten vs. ten style game. PvP in this form is fun, but can get repetitive. Players always know the goal, always know the odds and if the group is bad and the opposition is strong, usually they leave to find a better scenario. All that being considered I do enjoy scenario PvP. I like the capture the flag or taking check points type of battles. They have their place and can be fun, but they are usually predictable.
I absolutely could not agree more. Even though SWG wasn't the greatest game ever, I had more fun pvp'ing in that game than any other MMO I have ever played, by a WIDE margin. Why? Because I could load in 'hot' to a star port and never know if I was going to immediately have a fight on my hands. I could grab my bounty hunter and stalk jedi to see if I could take them down. I can remember times when the actual battles took place, that I felt after it was over as if I had just run a marathon. Palms sweating, heart pounding in my ears, and listening to people try to run strategy on vent in a chaotic and uncontrollable environment. You actually had people that you wanted in your vent because they were good leaders/strategists. Sadly there are few if any MMO's right now that bring that kind of excitement to their pvp. The only one I can think of that even comes remotely close is Eve. I enjoy being spoonfed pvp scenarios once in a while for a little break but if that's the only pvp there is then it does get old fast.
The issue with Ranged/DPS vs Melee/Tank balance that the author mentions is due to the designers NOT understanding the historical dynamics of how such combat played out in the ancient, dark ages or early middle-ages.
Historicaly it was not until fairly late (when more powerful ranged weapons were introduced) that an INDIVIDUAL ranged warrior was fairly effective against heavily armored infantry or cavalry. Ranged weapons generaly came in two varieties....weapons that were quick to fire but generaly lacked the power to penetrate heavy armor and shields with sufficient force to kill or debilitate thier targets (bows, slings, javalins, etc) or weapons that had excellent penetrating capabilities but were cumbersome to use and slow and awkward to reload (ballista, heavy crossbows , even primitave firearms).
Where ranged troops became dangerous (absent specialized troops like Ottoman Archers trained to use 120lb pull recurve bows) was in massed numbers. The famed English longbow was primarily employed by firing in massed volleys...not directly at the target but in high arcing shots which were aimed only at the general area of the targets location. With a mass of missles coming down in the midst of an enemy formation, even though most would miss or deflect harmlessly off of heavly armored locations.... some were bound to strike in unarmored or weakly armored location. That's where casualties were mostly inflicted by ranged troops.
Read carefully what accounts exist of the fate of individual warriors in historical battles of the period......when they mention one who was felled by an arrow, it almost inevitably describes that target being struck in an unarmored or weakly armored location (the eye in particular such as with Harold Godwineson at Hastings or Harald Hadrada a few weeks earlier). The real advantage of such ranged troops was in the strategic sense..... simply put, they were far cheaper to train, equip and field then heavy infantry or cavalry who required VERY expensive equipment and years of training to fight effectively (and expected to be compensated accordingly). Archers or skirmishers could be had on the cheap...and thus able to be fielded in far greater numbers....and easly released back into civilian service when not needed.
Properly employed, heavy infantry and cavalry could be VERY effective against ranged troops. Simply put, unhindered by obsticals, cavalry could close to distance with enemy missle troops before the enemy could get very many volleys off. Heavy Infantry had to endure fire for much longer periods due to a much slower movement rate....but could either be moved through terrain not well suited to long range archers (like woods) or had special formations they could adopt (such as the classic Roman toirtose) that would make them far less vulnerable.
The Battles of the Hundred Years Wars that were decisive victories for the English Armies that were heavly longbow equiped (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt) were not so much due to the vast technological superiority of the longbow over French armored knights....... but to the lack of discipline among the French forces....and that the French employed the forces they had at thier disposal in nearly the worst possible manner for which they were suited.....whereas the English maintained good discipline and employed tactics well suited to thier forces.
At Crecy for instance (happaned at Poitiers as well) then French ordered thier Genoesse Crossbowmen forward without protection of thier pavises... and then when the crossbowmen began to waver, the French cavalry charged through thier own crossbowmen (without orders) effectively breaking the initial impetous of thier charge with thier own troops. At Agincourt, the French allowed the English to position themselves perfectly (at the top of a narrow sloping, freshly plowed field with heavy thickets of wood to either side) and time to place out defensive stakes (anti-cavalry measure) but not sufficient time for the field to dry from the heavy rains (mud was described as being "knee-deep" in contemporary accounts)... and crowded thier own forces so tightly together that they barely had chance to move. Coming under missle fire, the French Knights again charged without waitinf for orders (and noteable against the dismounted English Knights and Men-At-Arms placed in the center rather then the archers on the wings).... under heavy fire and moving slowly uphilll through the slippery mud....the cavalry came up short upon encountering the stakes...but the French allowed so little space between the successive ranks of thier forces that the following ranks litteraly crashed into the front ranks of cavalry
The point being that missle troops were only effectively when employed under the right circumstances...and were entirely overmatched by heavy armored troops when employed outside of those paradigms (look at the Battle of Patay a few years after Agincourt for an example).
Developers of MMO's seem to give ranged DPS an ability to deal out damage to heavy armor far in excess of what would be historical (absent advanced firearms)... and also fail to impliment what would be the prime nemisis of ranged forces in open field fights.... cavalry.
The way to balance this is not hard... if you look to history for example (though some things would have to be abstracted since it would be impractical to simulate real world formation based fighting).... Ranged DPS should be very little damage to Heavy Infantry (tanks) who are moving in a deliberate and methodical fashion (slow walk, shields up, front towards the enemy). Damage should increase when the infantry are moving recklessly (charging) or are unprepaired (attacked from sides or rear). They would this be effective skirmishers/harrassers but far less effective at defending fixed positions unless heavly protected by thier own melee/tanks.
Melee/tanks would come into thier own when fighting in confined areas (where they couldn't be flanked) and attacking fixed positions (where they can approach in a methodical fashion) but would be vulnerable reaching the battle area (where they might be ambushed) or in open field battles where chances of being flanked might increase....or if they broke discipline (would also be nice to see an MMO impliment mounted combat in PvP...to simulate the 3rd critical arm of the ancient battle-field...cavalry).
I just want to say this article is spot on. I hope some developers read this and do something about it.
I'm an old school PvPer, pre-battlegrounds, from back in the UO era and the hunting aspect is a blast and now missing from modern games. This may sound crazy, but the most fun I've had PvPing in the past few years, where The Hunt was alive and well, was in LotRO. That's right, LotRO. A fun game, but by no means comparable to UO or DAoC in the PvP spectrum. While Monster Play, or PvM may've been a joke to the PvP community, it actually had a lot of old school themes. You didn't really have to grind to get into it, you had a zone to run around and hunt other players where terrain was an issue - hills and thick forest and keeps and towns. Fuller mentions the social aspect of The Hunt, and it was a blast in LotRO at release. You'd log onto your creep and see the same old faces there freep hunting, you'd ask where the raid was and get an invite - our server had about 3-4 well known, compitent raid leaders who could lead us to victory.
The next game to implement that threat level, where setting foot out into the world meant another player might be out there hunting you, or to even go on the hunt for other players, not knowing if you'll find a lone adventurer or a hunting group twice as big as yours. I miss that.
1 Aion - I spend all night long hunting Asmodians brilliant for small group skirmishing also. You have to get to level 25 to go hunting in the Abyss but that's only a couple of days work if that.
2. EvE Online - takes you 4-5 weeks of skill training you can start hunting players
Well imo, the lack of hunt in PvP is the same problem as in a lot of aspects in MMOs today. In the old days, we used to get a quest, had to read it, read between the lines to find our objective, now they give you the quest and point you in the right direction either with an arrow or something showing you where the quest is on the map. In the good old days of EQ, when we wanted to sell something, on the Prexus server, we used to stand under a torch in EC tunnels and shout ''2 bags of stuff for sale, people would come, we would open trade windows and we barter. Now there are the brokers and auction houses. Again, back then, every fight in the game was challenging, we could be killing a goblin 5 levels under us and be charged by a mob of goblins that we don't know where they came from and kill us. Now all mobs positions are set in stone, they barely move and fights are too easy. A lot of things have been taken out of mmorpgs today, and PvP is the same now, they made it easy by adding the instanced PvP. So people don't have to hunt other players. MMORPGs today have no fun factor to me anymore, because the fun part of an mmo to me was how challenging it was, and now there is no more challenge. In PvP it is no different, the fun and challenge of being jumped by another player whatever you're doing or wherever you are is gone.
110% agree with this.
I have been trying to stress this, but I'm met with a resistance of people who say that that isn't fun. Again, instant gratification is for console games. As you mentioned, having to read the quest and get only hints of where I need to go, and of what I need to do is what made it a "quest". Now, again as you pointed out, they give you quest GPS and tell you EXACTLY what to do, how is this engaging or fun? It's the same with PvP...again as you mentioned. Waiting to see how SWTOR handles their PvP system.
Well, as I've stated, every MMO PvP game I've seen has really done little to even slow the gankers/griefers down. Every "new" system thats been tried has only lead to an arms race between the Devs and the gankers/griefers. I somewhat agree on the quests, but remember it used to be on the other side of the spectrum. I can remember quest text that was so vague, that it might as well have been something like "Something needs to be done some place in the world...Go do it"... So now we've gone to the other extreme. Also keep in mind that "fun" means different things to different people. The test in a market economy is if people keep paying for something. If they do, then they must see some utility to it.
Comments
I'd pay a pretty penny for a Shadowbane server right now.
Hey guys, just wanted to add in my 2 cents and say I'm another one who believe ShadowBane was by far one of the best open PVP MMO's to date, shame it got killed off, although I found there's an emulator being made, I hope that pulls through. Personally I'm not a HUGE fan of PvP as a whole cus I can't stand gankers, but in turn I became one of the hunters when it came to ShadowBane. Slaughtering those noob gankers who didn't have a clue and picked on the weak was quite frilling for me, and actually hunting them down was of course half the fun
I say bring back ShadowBane or create ShadowBane 2!
First, if you have a heavy(or even medium) death penalty, fewer people will PvP. I know this from personal experience over many, many games. Make the death penalty harsh enough, and most people will not even bother with the game. That automatically niches such a game.
I agree with this. Minor death penalties actually generate more PvP. People are braver which leads to more action. People also try new things more frequently which leads to a faster metagame cycle -> a plus in my mind.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Unlike what this article suggests, I would never call gankers, griefers and the like, competitive. Not in general atleast. On the contrary, those who play instanced X vs. X matches, would I call competitive. The PvP system which is applied in Guild Wars, for example, has been frequently referred to as "competitive PvP" as opposed to open/FFA PvP, BG or RvR seen in other games. Personally I think this is a fairly fitting term of GW's PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Well imo, the lack of hunt in PvP is the same problem as in a lot of aspects in MMOs today.
In the old days, we used to get a quest, had to read it, read between the lines to find our objective, now they give you the quest and point you in the right direction either with an arrow or something showing you where the quest is on the map.
In the good old days of EQ, when we wanted to sell something, on the Prexus server, we used to stand under a torch in EC tunnels and shout ''2 bags of stuff for sale, people would come, we would open trade windows and we barter. Now there are the brokers and auction houses.
Again, back then, every fight in the game was challenging, we could be killing a goblin 5 levels under us and be charged by a mob of goblins that we don't know where they came from and kill us. Now all mobs positions are set in stone, they barely move and fights are too easy.
A lot of things have been taken out of mmorpgs today, and PvP is the same now, they made it easy by adding the instanced PvP. So people don't have to hunt other players.
MMORPGs today have no fun factor to me anymore, because the fun part of an mmo to me was how challenging it was, and now there is no more challenge. In PvP it is no different, the fun and challenge of being jumped by another player whatever you're doing or wherever you are is gone.
110% agree with this.
I have been trying to stress this, but I'm met with a resistance of people who say that that isn't fun. Again, instant gratification is for console games. As you mentioned, having to read the quest and get only hints of where I need to go, and of what I need to do is what made it a "quest". Now, again as you pointed out, they give you quest GPS and tell you EXACTLY what to do, how is this engaging or fun? It's the same with PvP...again as you mentioned. Waiting to see how SWTOR handles their PvP system.
Anyone that played as Bounty Hunter in pre-nge swg knows how fun hunting another player can be. It was the best pvp experience I've had in any game.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
We all love PVP but the main problem is the current age of developers are all carebears and know nothing about PvP, the few that do are small companys that can't make enough money to develope there dream.
Actually, this system failed miserably. While I never did it, I had a friend who loved to use his PK alt all the time to gank newbies/low levels. It was around level 60 at the time. He'd pop one or two or three in the dungeons and then park it and play his main. Even if he died, he had store bought cheap gear which meant: easily replaced.
Then there were all the exploits high levels would use to grief lower levels without incurring the flags, such as training mobs past your while you were fighting so they'd aggro you instead of the 80, etc.
PvP on my server was rare outside of the castle sieges, except for the griefing. There was always griefing going on.
Actually, this system failed miserably. While I never did it, I had a friend who loved to use his PK alt all the time to gank newbies/low levels. It was around level 60 at the time. He'd pop one or two or three in the dungeons and then park it and play his main. Even if he died, he had store bought cheap gear which meant: easily replaced.
Then there were all the exploits high levels would use to grief lower levels without incurring the flags, such as training mobs past your while you were fighting so they'd aggro you instead of the 80, etc.
PvP on my server was rare outside of the castle sieges, except for the griefing. There was always griefing going on.
Thats exactly why I refused to play linage 2, even though I loved the graphics art style and the combat system looked entertaining. Way too many tales of ganking and griefing. A long time guild mate of mine tried it, and told me of his first hand experience of the ganking/griefing and the fact that the game is over run by bots. Its too bad, as other wise it looks like a fun game. Given past history, its doubtful that NCsoft is going to learn from its mistakes. Linage 3 is likely to be the same. Hell, look at Aion. They still refuse to have PvE servers. They simply can not conceive of games without forced PvP. Oh well, it would hardly be the first Asian game that niched itself in the west <shrug>
Read it all here.
I absolutely could not agree more. Even though SWG wasn't the greatest game ever, I had more fun pvp'ing in that game than any other MMO I have ever played, by a WIDE margin. Why? Because I could load in 'hot' to a star port and never know if I was going to immediately have a fight on my hands. I could grab my bounty hunter and stalk jedi to see if I could take them down. I can remember times when the actual battles took place, that I felt after it was over as if I had just run a marathon. Palms sweating, heart pounding in my ears, and listening to people try to run strategy on vent in a chaotic and uncontrollable environment. You actually had people that you wanted in your vent because they were good leaders/strategists. Sadly there are few if any MMO's right now that bring that kind of excitement to their pvp. The only one I can think of that even comes remotely close is Eve. I enjoy being spoonfed pvp scenarios once in a while for a little break but if that's the only pvp there is then it does get old fast.
The issue with Ranged/DPS vs Melee/Tank balance that the author mentions is due to the designers NOT understanding the historical dynamics of how such combat played out in the ancient, dark ages or early middle-ages.
Historicaly it was not until fairly late (when more powerful ranged weapons were introduced) that an INDIVIDUAL ranged warrior was fairly effective against heavily armored infantry or cavalry. Ranged weapons generaly came in two varieties....weapons that were quick to fire but generaly lacked the power to penetrate heavy armor and shields with sufficient force to kill or debilitate thier targets (bows, slings, javalins, etc) or weapons that had excellent penetrating capabilities but were cumbersome to use and slow and awkward to reload (ballista, heavy crossbows , even primitave firearms).
Where ranged troops became dangerous (absent specialized troops like Ottoman Archers trained to use 120lb pull recurve bows) was in massed numbers. The famed English longbow was primarily employed by firing in massed volleys...not directly at the target but in high arcing shots which were aimed only at the general area of the targets location. With a mass of missles coming down in the midst of an enemy formation, even though most would miss or deflect harmlessly off of heavly armored locations.... some were bound to strike in unarmored or weakly armored location. That's where casualties were mostly inflicted by ranged troops.
Read carefully what accounts exist of the fate of individual warriors in historical battles of the period......when they mention one who was felled by an arrow, it almost inevitably describes that target being struck in an unarmored or weakly armored location (the eye in particular such as with Harold Godwineson at Hastings or Harald Hadrada a few weeks earlier). The real advantage of such ranged troops was in the strategic sense..... simply put, they were far cheaper to train, equip and field then heavy infantry or cavalry who required VERY expensive equipment and years of training to fight effectively (and expected to be compensated accordingly). Archers or skirmishers could be had on the cheap...and thus able to be fielded in far greater numbers....and easly released back into civilian service when not needed.
Properly employed, heavy infantry and cavalry could be VERY effective against ranged troops. Simply put, unhindered by obsticals, cavalry could close to distance with enemy missle troops before the enemy could get very many volleys off. Heavy Infantry had to endure fire for much longer periods due to a much slower movement rate....but could either be moved through terrain not well suited to long range archers (like woods) or had special formations they could adopt (such as the classic Roman toirtose) that would make them far less vulnerable.
The Battles of the Hundred Years Wars that were decisive victories for the English Armies that were heavly longbow equiped (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt) were not so much due to the vast technological superiority of the longbow over French armored knights....... but to the lack of discipline among the French forces....and that the French employed the forces they had at thier disposal in nearly the worst possible manner for which they were suited.....whereas the English maintained good discipline and employed tactics well suited to thier forces.
At Crecy for instance (happaned at Poitiers as well) then French ordered thier Genoesse Crossbowmen forward without protection of thier pavises... and then when the crossbowmen began to waver, the French cavalry charged through thier own crossbowmen (without orders) effectively breaking the initial impetous of thier charge with thier own troops. At Agincourt, the French allowed the English to position themselves perfectly (at the top of a narrow sloping, freshly plowed field with heavy thickets of wood to either side) and time to place out defensive stakes (anti-cavalry measure) but not sufficient time for the field to dry from the heavy rains (mud was described as being "knee-deep" in contemporary accounts)... and crowded thier own forces so tightly together that they barely had chance to move. Coming under missle fire, the French Knights again charged without waitinf for orders (and noteable against the dismounted English Knights and Men-At-Arms placed in the center rather then the archers on the wings).... under heavy fire and moving slowly uphilll through the slippery mud....the cavalry came up short upon encountering the stakes...but the French allowed so little space between the successive ranks of thier forces that the following ranks litteraly crashed into the front ranks of cavalry
The point being that missle troops were only effectively when employed under the right circumstances...and were entirely overmatched by heavy armored troops when employed outside of those paradigms (look at the Battle of Patay a few years after Agincourt for an example).
Developers of MMO's seem to give ranged DPS an ability to deal out damage to heavy armor far in excess of what would be historical (absent advanced firearms)... and also fail to impliment what would be the prime nemisis of ranged forces in open field fights.... cavalry.
The way to balance this is not hard... if you look to history for example (though some things would have to be abstracted since it would be impractical to simulate real world formation based fighting).... Ranged DPS should be very little damage to Heavy Infantry (tanks) who are moving in a deliberate and methodical fashion (slow walk, shields up, front towards the enemy). Damage should increase when the infantry are moving recklessly (charging) or are unprepaired (attacked from sides or rear). They would this be effective skirmishers/harrassers but far less effective at defending fixed positions unless heavly protected by thier own melee/tanks.
Melee/tanks would come into thier own when fighting in confined areas (where they couldn't be flanked) and attacking fixed positions (where they can approach in a methodical fashion) but would be vulnerable reaching the battle area (where they might be ambushed) or in open field battles where chances of being flanked might increase....or if they broke discipline (would also be nice to see an MMO impliment mounted combat in PvP...to simulate the 3rd critical arm of the ancient battle-field...cavalry).
I just want to say this article is spot on. I hope some developers read this and do something about it.
I'm an old school PvPer, pre-battlegrounds, from back in the UO era and the hunting aspect is a blast and now missing from modern games. This may sound crazy, but the most fun I've had PvPing in the past few years, where The Hunt was alive and well, was in LotRO. That's right, LotRO. A fun game, but by no means comparable to UO or DAoC in the PvP spectrum. While Monster Play, or PvM may've been a joke to the PvP community, it actually had a lot of old school themes. You didn't really have to grind to get into it, you had a zone to run around and hunt other players where terrain was an issue - hills and thick forest and keeps and towns. Fuller mentions the social aspect of The Hunt, and it was a blast in LotRO at release. You'd log onto your creep and see the same old faces there freep hunting, you'd ask where the raid was and get an invite - our server had about 3-4 well known, compitent raid leaders who could lead us to victory.
The next game to implement that threat level, where setting foot out into the world meant another player might be out there hunting you, or to even go on the hunt for other players, not knowing if you'll find a lone adventurer or a hunting group twice as big as yours. I miss that.
The 2 best hunting games on the market today:
1 Aion - I spend all night long hunting Asmodians brilliant for small group skirmishing also. You have to get to level 25 to go hunting in the Abyss but that's only a couple of days work if that.
2. EvE Online - takes you 4-5 weeks of skill training you can start hunting players
110% agree with this.
I have been trying to stress this, but I'm met with a resistance of people who say that that isn't fun. Again, instant gratification is for console games. As you mentioned, having to read the quest and get only hints of where I need to go, and of what I need to do is what made it a "quest". Now, again as you pointed out, they give you quest GPS and tell you EXACTLY what to do, how is this engaging or fun? It's the same with PvP...again as you mentioned. Waiting to see how SWTOR handles their PvP system.
Well, as I've stated, every MMO PvP game I've seen has really done little to even slow the gankers/griefers down. Every "new" system thats been tried has only lead to an arms race between the Devs and the gankers/griefers. I somewhat agree on the quests, but remember it used to be on the other side of the spectrum. I can remember quest text that was so vague, that it might as well have been something like "Something needs to be done some place in the world...Go do it"...
So now we've gone to the other extreme. Also keep in mind that "fun" means different things to different people. The test in a market economy is if people keep paying for something. If they do, then they must see some utility to it.