This whole argument about PvP in LoTRO when I was in beta came up and I recall that it was Tolkien's estate that objected to the spirit of the books. I am not so sure now but from what I read on the forums his books were basically good against evil and we as readers were suppose to rally around the good and hate the evil. That was the way the books come across. It was inconceivable for instance that hobbits would kill hobbits except for smeagol who did but generally his concept in the books seemed to have a clear demarcation of what is good and evil.
By allowing us as players to play humonoid characters that engaged in killing as forces on the side of Sauron was not within the spirit of Middle Earth and what he tried to achieve with the books. See he and C.S. Lewis were good friends who shared the belief that through myth and legend they could impart Christian gospel. In this light his estate in keeping with that would not agree to players playing the evil side. That was why the compromise was reached later with spiders and other monster play.
This whole argument about PvP in LoTRO when I was in beta came up and I recall that it was Tolkien's estate that objected to the spirit of the books. I am not so sure now but from what I read on the forums his books were basically good against evil and we as readers were suppose to rally around the good and hate the evil. That was the way the books come across. It was inconceivable for instance that hobbits would kill hobbits except for smeagol who did but generally his concept in the books seemed to have a clear demarcation of what is good and evil.
By allowing us as players to play humonoid characters that engaged in killing as forces on the side of Sauron was not within the spirit of Middle Earth and what he tried to achieve with the books. See he and C.S. Lewis were good friends who shared the belief that through myth and legend they could impart Christian gospel. In this light his estate in keeping with that would not agree to players playing the evil side. That was why the compromise was reached later with spiders and other monster play.
Yeah, I was in closed beta and I seem to remember something like that.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I can agree that having a server for pvp based play as a open world open conflict would be interesting and lead to more subs and people. I would have to saay as a matter of dev time making a game both a pve and open pvp game With alot more emphaisis on pvp then it has already would make it that they would need more money as well as time to develope pvp areas. Which for most would mean less time ad energy used on pve/story content for what they game is trying to be a stry and pve game with conflict/capture based pvp to add to the tension in the game world. I would never see aniddue with open world pvp, though it wouuld have to be possibily left to certain hours of the day when less people/npcs would be active to wittness it, or to areas which can hide the fight from the world it'self. What might be why they chose not to go with open world and pvp servers is that doing tht would not be cost effective for what groups of people they would gain from going in that direction. They have zone based pvp with objectives, which would be well recieved by most of the pvpers that are looking at the game, so making a open pvp sever might to them be bringing in to few more pvpers to warrent it being in the game as well as the other reasons they have said a;ready.
I am more intrested in how we travel in the game world between areas. Is their fast travel for large area distances like city to city travel, while not as much or slower travel between non-large scale cities. I would like to see fast travel really only being between countries, states, and continents largely. With slower more free form travel for other areas. ALso i hope to see more weapon types, such as rapiers in swords but that they do not work like other swords since they were made for a different style of fighting. I am looking forwards to making a melee sword-wielding mage with wards and seal types of powers to protect himself and others, somwhat melee supporter role.
With Lotr only really having a arena based ingame pvp system wheere you sign up for a area match in certain cities. Largely in the tolken world or Middle earth the dark races are enslaved, which is not really like how in other factional games they are not evi racesl but oppisional to the other side with the same free will to act .
Sorry you're heartbroken but I'm thrilled. I hate open world PvP. I might still be playing Aion except for the annoyance of getting ganked by a toon 20 levels above me while questing. No fun imo.
Anything other than consensual PvP, or PvP tagged servers is a one way trip to Nicheville USA.
It makes no sense to allow griefers to run off sub paying customers.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Sorry you're heartbroken but I'm thrilled. I hate open world PvP. I might still be playing Aion except for the annoyance of getting ganked by a toon 20 levels above me while questing. No fun imo.
Theres no levels in this game ;D
You wil simply get gank by players with more 'skill' than you.
Off course more skill means usually... 1 vs 20 , having the 20 skillfully mastered the art of fighting one on twenty... that ancient chinese technique almost long in time and space...
Originally posted by Orious Originally posted by Yamota
Originally posted by lizardbones
I don't know how many times I heard this but it is so wrong. As you mention yourself there is an evil faction loyal to Sauron. The Men of the South, Orcs, Goblins, Pirates and Saruman's Urukai (spelling?) are all loyal to Sauron and could easily form this 'evil' faction. Just because Turbine are scared of implementing PvP does not mean the LotR does not have the lore to support it, it does. So it all depends on if the designers want to design the game to support or center around world PvP or not. LotRO designers decided not to and apparently Secret World as well. The point is, they would have had to design the game so that it included those. It didn't; therefore, adding a PvP ruleset for that game would not make sense. If they doubled the content first and created a player faction siding with that side, THEN, a PvP ruleset would make sense (unless fighting was just for the sake of fighting and didn't really do anything on the grand scheme of things). TSW already has everything set to allow a PvP ruleset, but it choose not to based on the philosophy that the factions are against each other but fighting the same enemy. This could be changed much easier, than creating another whole viewpoint of a game. There is ALWAYS the ability to create a PvP world that makes sense, but the point of the development may not be to do that (to merely increase sells...because you bet that people would love to fight as orcs, goblins, and Balroq). This is what he's saying.
I had honestly lost track of this conversation, but Orious is pretty much right. Including PvP, much less open world PvP in LotR wouldn't make sense because it's not part of the game's design.
If you ignore the game's designers, the people who write the lore and the overall goals for the game, then yes, it's entirely possible to put open world pvp in LotR and TSW. That doesn't make it a good idea.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I know a lot of pvpers that were really looking forward to pvp with this game, me being one. I had the chance to speak with Ragnar 1 on 1, and found that he's a great guy with a vision. The sad thing is, to those pvpers that are looking for open world pvp....your not in his vision. I asked about the fact that we have three factions, so I'm assuming that means we can fight in open world when crossing factions. The response was, "good question, while the three factions don't like one another, they understand that they need to work together to defeat the forces (npcs) and therefor there is governing body that sets rules amongst the three factions." He went on to say that there will be battlegrounds type of pvp, but absolutely no world pvp when I spoked to him after the panel. I even asked about the opportunity for a pvp server where the factions could fight one another and he said it wouldn't even be considored because it doesn't fit the game. He did say that if the communty demanded clan war deccing on the forums, then he'd considor that.
So, while a great guy...and probably a great pve game based on what I saw, if you are looking for the open world pvp, whether it be faction based on ffa, its not here. This was such a heartbreaker for me...
there is an open pvp zone, the hollow earth, this has been announced AGES ago.
hollow earth, factions will fight each other, upper earth they fight evil together, you could have read some reports, why bugger poor ragnar with old questions?
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I know a lot of pvpers that were really looking forward to pvp with this game, me being one. I had the chance to speak with Ragnar 1 on 1, and found that he's a great guy with a vision. The sad thing is, to those pvpers that are looking for open world pvp....your not in his vision. I asked about the fact that we have three factions, so I'm assuming that means we can fight in open world when crossing factions. The response was, "good question, while the three factions don't like one another, they understand that they need to work together to defeat the forces (npcs) and therefor there is governing body that sets rules amongst the three factions." He went on to say that there will be battlegrounds type of pvp, but absolutely no world pvp when I spoked to him after the panel. I even asked about the opportunity for a pvp server where the factions could fight one another and he said it wouldn't even be considored because it doesn't fit the game. He did say that if the communty demanded clan war deccing on the forums, then he'd considor that.
So, while a great guy...and probably a great pve game based on what I saw, if you are looking for the open world pvp, whether it be faction based on ffa, its not here. This was such a heartbreaker for me...
there is an open pvp zone, the hollow earth, this has been announced AGES ago.
hollow earth, factions will fight each other, upper earth they fight evil together, you could have read some reports, why bugger poor ragnar with old questions?
The question was about a pvp server, your answer could have been good had you known what y ou were talking about.
Incognito www.incognito-gaming.us "You're either with us or against us"
This whole argument about PvP in LoTRO when I was in beta came up and I recall that it was Tolkien's estate that objected to the spirit of the books. I am not so sure now but from what I read on the forums his books were basically good against evil and we as readers were suppose to rally around the good and hate the evil. That was the way the books come across. It was inconceivable for instance that hobbits would kill hobbits except for smeagol who did but generally his concept in the books seemed to have a clear demarcation of what is good and evil.
By allowing us as players to play humonoid characters that engaged in killing as forces on the side of Sauron was not within the spirit of Middle Earth and what he tried to achieve with the books. See he and C.S. Lewis were good friends who shared the belief that through myth and legend they could impart Christian gospel. In this light his estate in keeping with that would not agree to players playing the evil side. That was why the compromise was reached later with spiders and other monster play.
Its the" Gnosis", not the "gospels", even though those are related somehow they are not quiet the same things. He had some strong links with some Gnosis societies, but i don't remember which one(s).
Originally posted by Requiamer Originally posted by cheyane This whole argument about PvP in LoTRO when I was in beta came up and I recall that it was Tolkien's estate that objected to the spirit of the books. I am not so sure now but from what I read on the forums his books were basically good against evil and we as readers were suppose to rally around the good and hate the evil. That was the way the books come across. It was inconceivable for instance that hobbits would kill hobbits except for smeagol who did but generally his concept in the books seemed to have a clear demarcation of what is good and evil. By allowing us as players to play humonoid characters that engaged in killing as forces on the side of Sauron was not within the spirit of Middle Earth and what he tried to achieve with the books. See he and C.S. Lewis were good friends who shared the belief that through myth and legend they could impart Christian gospel. In this light his estate in keeping with that would not agree to players playing the evil side. That was why the compromise was reached later with spiders and other monster play.
Its the" Gnosis", not the "gospels", even though those are related somehow they are not quiet the same things. He had some strong links with some Gnosis societies, but i don't remember which one(s).
Gnostic Christianity is a study of the teachings of Jesus. Kind of like taking Jesus as your philosophy teacher, but basing your life around it as if you were one of his students. The 'Teachings of Jesus' is a very controversial issue...some of the stuff no longer exists and some of it was excluded from the bible in written form. Some of it just looks made up to me. Not as bad as 'Ancient Aliens', but still, some of it seems like kind of a stretch.
Gospel Christianity seems to be simply the idea that your soul is saved through Jesus Christ. It is frankly kind of hard to get a clear answer on 'What Is Gospel Christianity', but it seems like it's more of a base concept for several branches of Christianity...'Believe in Jessus as Savior' kind of thing.
In Gnosis, there is the general idea that people should strive to be 'good'. With Gospel, there is the general idea that people should believe in Jesus as Lord, which will make them good.
If Tolkien was more Gospel and less Gnosis, we'd get to play the evil side of things because it's through Jesus that you're saved, not being good. Since he was more Gnosis than Gospel, we have to be good to be saved, so we don't get to play the evil faction.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This whole argument about PvP in LoTRO when I was in beta came up and I recall that it was Tolkien's estate that objected to the spirit of the books. I am not so sure now but from what I read on the forums his books were basically good against evil and we as readers were suppose to rally around the good and hate the evil. That was the way the books come across. It was inconceivable for instance that hobbits would kill hobbits except for smeagol who did but generally his concept in the books seemed to have a clear demarcation of what is good and evil.
By allowing us as players to play humonoid characters that engaged in killing as forces on the side of Sauron was not within the spirit of Middle Earth and what he tried to achieve with the books. See he and C.S. Lewis were good friends who shared the belief that through myth and legend they could impart Christian gospel. In this light his estate in keeping with that would not agree to players playing the evil side. That was why the compromise was reached later with spiders and other monster play.
Its the" Gnosis", not the "gospels", even though those are related somehow they are not quiet the same things. He had some strong links with some Gnosis societies, but i don't remember which one(s).
Gnostic Christianity is a study of the teachings of Jesus. Kind of like taking Jesus as your philosophy teacher, but basing your life around it as if you were one of his students. The 'Teachings of Jesus' is a very controversial issue...some of the stuff no longer exists and some of it was excluded from the bible in written form. Some of it just looks made up to me. Not as bad as 'Ancient Aliens', but still, some of it seems like kind of a stretch.
Gospel Christianity seems to be simply the idea that your soul is saved through Jesus Christ. It is frankly kind of hard to get a clear answer on 'What Is Gospel Christianity', but it seems like it's more of a base concept for several branches of Christianity...'Believe in Jessus as Savior' kind of thing.
In Gnosis, there is the general idea that people should strive to be 'good'. With Gospel, there is the general idea that people should believe in Jesus as Lord, which will make them good.
If Tolkien was more Gospel and less Gnosis, we'd get to play the evil side of things because it's through Jesus that you're saved, not being good. Since he was more Gnosis than Gospel, we have to be good to be saved, so we don't get to play the evil faction.
"Fact confirmed?" More like reaffirmed, they have made it clear for a very long time that the factions would work together but when they got to areas like the center of the world they would resume their fighting. The only difference now is they are saying there are more places to fight than the center of the world.
Because flying a Minmatar ship is like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair while firing an Uzi.
Even without open world pvp (i think it is open zone pvp) it will be just as fun since you can still hunt, jump and do all that good stuff on the other two factions. IT is not like the pvp is per say instanced that i have heard, it ust sounds like it is certain places in zones/is a zone that you fight over with each other. Somethign like wintergrasp in wow though think it would be several of those kinds of zone wars going on together at time, with the factions having to corridante their fighting to control more then one or two of them at a time. Honestly if this is the case i would be for that over open world pvp.
Even without open world pvp (i think it is open zone pvp) it will be just as fun since you can still hunt, jump and do all that good stuff on the other two factions. IT is not like the pvp is per say instanced that i have heard, it ust sounds like it is certain places in zones/is a zone that you fight over with each other. Somethign like wintergrasp in wow though think it would be several of those kinds of zone wars going on together at time, with the factions having to corridante their fighting to control more then one or two of them at a time. Honestly if this is the case i would be for that over open world pvp.
No...thats not fun, most of your players that prefer pvp to pve will tell you those pvp zones are nothing more than battle grounds. They are fun for a bit, but get boring. The fun of pvp is having no clue someone is coming...in BG's or zones, you are always looking for it...so you loe that excitement. Thats why it would be great to see pvp and pve servers.
Incognito www.incognito-gaming.us "You're either with us or against us"
Originally posted by afhn2110 Originally posted by Elricmerren Even without open world pvp (i think it is open zone pvp) it will be just as fun since you can still hunt, jump and do all that good stuff on the other two factions. IT is not like the pvp is per say instanced that i have heard, it ust sounds like it is certain places in zones/is a zone that you fight over with each other. Somethign like wintergrasp in wow though think it would be several of those kinds of zone wars going on together at time, with the factions having to corridante their fighting to control more then one or two of them at a time. Honestly if this is the case i would be for that over open world pvp.
No...thats not fun, most of your players that prefer pvp to pve will tell you those pvp zones are nothing more than battle grounds. They are fun for a bit, but get boring. The fun of pvp is having no clue someone is coming...in BG's or zones, you are always looking for it...so you loe that excitement. Thats why it would be great to see pvp and pve servers.
Er...'most players' do not prefer PvP to PvE in their mmorpg. If that were true, Rift would have more PvP servers than PvE servers and Warhammer would have more subscribers than Rift.
What 'most players' want is exactly what WoW provides. Mostly PvE servers with the ability to 'flag' PvP and with instanced PvP content. 'Most players' want a mix of PvE and PvP content with the ability to choose when PvP takes place. Someone else can bother with figuring out why...it doesn't really matter though.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Even without open world pvp (i think it is open zone pvp) it will be just as fun since you can still hunt, jump and do all that good stuff on the other two factions. IT is not like the pvp is per say instanced that i have heard, it ust sounds like it is certain places in zones/is a zone that you fight over with each other. Somethign like wintergrasp in wow though think it would be several of those kinds of zone wars going on together at time, with the factions having to corridante their fighting to control more then one or two of them at a time. Honestly if this is the case i would be for that over open world pvp.
No...thats not fun, most of your players that prefer pvp to pve will tell you those pvp zones are nothing more than battle grounds. They are fun for a bit, but get boring. The fun of pvp is having no clue someone is coming...in BG's or zones, you are always looking for it...so you loe that excitement. Thats why it would be great to see pvp and pve servers.
Er...'most players' do not prefer PvP to PvE in their mmorpg. If that were true, Rift would have more PvP servers than PvE servers and Warhammer would have more subscribers than Rift.
What 'most players' want is exactly what WoW provides. Mostly PvE servers with the ability to 'flag' PvP and with instanced PvP content. 'Most players' want a mix of PvE and PvP content with the ability to choose when PvP takes place. Someone else can bother with figuring out why...it doesn't really matter though.
No one really knows the statistics..you can pretend to know...but you don't. The only statement I will openly say is that the pve community is far more vocal and tends to speak better about what they wish, where as pvpers rarely post, go to conventions and in comments they usually tend to be a little more aggressive. The reason games like rift have more pve servers is because they aren't very good pvp games...
Incognito www.incognito-gaming.us "You're either with us or against us"
Even without open world pvp (i think it is open zone pvp) it will be just as fun since you can still hunt, jump and do all that good stuff on the other two factions. IT is not like the pvp is per say instanced that i have heard, it ust sounds like it is certain places in zones/is a zone that you fight over with each other. Somethign like wintergrasp in wow though think it would be several of those kinds of zone wars going on together at time, with the factions having to corridante their fighting to control more then one or two of them at a time. Honestly if this is the case i would be for that over open world pvp.
No...thats not fun, most of your players that prefer pvp to pve will tell you those pvp zones are nothing more than battle grounds. They are fun for a bit, but get boring. The fun of pvp is having no clue someone is coming...in BG's or zones, you are always looking for it...so you loe that excitement. Thats why it would be great to see pvp and pve servers.
Er...'most players' do not prefer PvP to PvE in their mmorpg. If that were true, Rift would have more PvP servers than PvE servers and Warhammer would have more subscribers than Rift.
What 'most players' want is exactly what WoW provides. Mostly PvE servers with the ability to 'flag' PvP and with instanced PvP content. 'Most players' want a mix of PvE and PvP content with the ability to choose when PvP takes place. Someone else can bother with figuring out why...it doesn't really matter though.
No one really knows the statistics..you can pretend to know...but you don't. The only statement I will openly say is that the pve community is far more vocal and tends to speak better about what they wish, where as pvpers rarely post, go to conventions and in comments they usually tend to be a little more aggressive. The reason games like rift have more pve servers is because they aren't very good pvp games...
And I would argue that the PVP community is the more vocal of the two. The numbers don't lie. If PVP were more popular, there would be more PVP servers.
All of this, however, ignores the fact that from a lore perspective, open world PvP does not make sense for this IP. It's called The "Secret" World for a reason. None of these three factions is going to go around killing the others in public. PvP will be kept in designated areas, just as it should.
Even without open world pvp (i think it is open zone pvp) it will be just as fun since you can still hunt, jump and do all that good stuff on the other two factions. IT is not like the pvp is per say instanced that i have heard, it ust sounds like it is certain places in zones/is a zone that you fight over with each other. Somethign like wintergrasp in wow though think it would be several of those kinds of zone wars going on together at time, with the factions having to corridante their fighting to control more then one or two of them at a time. Honestly if this is the case i would be for that over open world pvp.
No...thats not fun, most of your players that prefer pvp to pve will tell you those pvp zones are nothing more than battle grounds. They are fun for a bit, but get boring. The fun of pvp is having no clue someone is coming...in BG's or zones, you are always looking for it...so you loe that excitement. Thats why it would be great to see pvp and pve servers.
You mean more like : "that those other players dont know someone is comming" ... Most lovers of open world pvp actively seek fight and dont just wait if some will come after them, yes I know it doesnt look as innocent as you would like to, but thats how it is :P and pretending otherwise just makes argumentation look silly.
It looks like that Funcom thinks that this kind of pvp would more hurt their game - from my firends who played AoC i heard definitly way more stories about player griefing in open world than stories about great open world PvP ... So imo AoC experience played part in decision against open world pvp.
Comments
This whole argument about PvP in LoTRO when I was in beta came up and I recall that it was Tolkien's estate that objected to the spirit of the books. I am not so sure now but from what I read on the forums his books were basically good against evil and we as readers were suppose to rally around the good and hate the evil. That was the way the books come across. It was inconceivable for instance that hobbits would kill hobbits except for smeagol who did but generally his concept in the books seemed to have a clear demarcation of what is good and evil.
By allowing us as players to play humonoid characters that engaged in killing as forces on the side of Sauron was not within the spirit of Middle Earth and what he tried to achieve with the books. See he and C.S. Lewis were good friends who shared the belief that through myth and legend they could impart Christian gospel. In this light his estate in keeping with that would not agree to players playing the evil side. That was why the compromise was reached later with spiders and other monster play.
Yeah, I was in closed beta and I seem to remember something like that.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I can agree that having a server for pvp based play as a open world open conflict would be interesting and lead to more subs and people. I would have to saay as a matter of dev time making a game both a pve and open pvp game With alot more emphaisis on pvp then it has already would make it that they would need more money as well as time to develope pvp areas. Which for most would mean less time ad energy used on pve/story content for what they game is trying to be a stry and pve game with conflict/capture based pvp to add to the tension in the game world. I would never see aniddue with open world pvp, though it wouuld have to be possibily left to certain hours of the day when less people/npcs would be active to wittness it, or to areas which can hide the fight from the world it'self. What might be why they chose not to go with open world and pvp servers is that doing tht would not be cost effective for what groups of people they would gain from going in that direction. They have zone based pvp with objectives, which would be well recieved by most of the pvpers that are looking at the game, so making a open pvp sever might to them be bringing in to few more pvpers to warrent it being in the game as well as the other reasons they have said a;ready.
I am more intrested in how we travel in the game world between areas. Is their fast travel for large area distances like city to city travel, while not as much or slower travel between non-large scale cities. I would like to see fast travel really only being between countries, states, and continents largely. With slower more free form travel for other areas. ALso i hope to see more weapon types, such as rapiers in swords but that they do not work like other swords since they were made for a different style of fighting. I am looking forwards to making a melee sword-wielding mage with wards and seal types of powers to protect himself and others, somwhat melee supporter role.
With Lotr only really having a arena based ingame pvp system wheere you sign up for a area match in certain cities. Largely in the tolken world or Middle earth the dark races are enslaved, which is not really like how in other factional games they are not evi racesl but oppisional to the other side with the same free will to act .
In WoW Horde is not Evil per se. Neither were either side in Aion.
why do I fear this game will be a glorified MOBA game by the time it hits launch...
Anything other than consensual PvP, or PvP tagged servers is a one way trip to Nicheville USA.
It makes no sense to allow griefers to run off sub paying customers.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Theres no levels in this game ;D
You wil simply get gank by players with more 'skill' than you.
Off course more skill means usually... 1 vs 20 , having the 20 skillfully mastered the art of fighting one on twenty... that ancient chinese technique almost long in time and space...I don't know. Why do you think you are experiencing this fear?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Just because Turbine are scared of implementing PvP does not mean the LotR does not have the lore to support it, it does. So it all depends on if the designers want to design the game to support or center around world PvP or not. LotRO designers decided not to and apparently Secret World as well.
The point is, they would have had to design the game so that it included those. It didn't; therefore, adding a PvP ruleset for that game would not make sense. If they doubled the content first and created a player faction siding with that side, THEN, a PvP ruleset would make sense (unless fighting was just for the sake of fighting and didn't really do anything on the grand scheme of things). TSW already has everything set to allow a PvP ruleset, but it choose not to based on the philosophy that the factions are against each other but fighting the same enemy. This could be changed much easier, than creating another whole viewpoint of a game. There is ALWAYS the ability to create a PvP world that makes sense, but the point of the development may not be to do that (to merely increase sells...because you bet that people would love to fight as orcs, goblins, and Balroq). This is what he's saying.
I had honestly lost track of this conversation, but Orious is pretty much right. Including PvP, much less open world PvP in LotR wouldn't make sense because it's not part of the game's design.
If you ignore the game's designers, the people who write the lore and the overall goals for the game, then yes, it's entirely possible to put open world pvp in LotR and TSW. That doesn't make it a good idea.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
First thing first, it's a Funcom game, dont expect the game to be running at all at launch and for at least 6 months.
there is an open pvp zone, the hollow earth, this has been announced AGES ago.
hollow earth, factions will fight each other, upper earth they fight evil together, you could have read some reports, why bugger poor ragnar with old questions?
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
The question was about a pvp server, your answer could have been good had you known what y ou were talking about.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
Its the" Gnosis", not the "gospels", even though those are related somehow they are not quiet the same things. He had some strong links with some Gnosis societies, but i don't remember which one(s).
Gnostic Christianity is a study of the teachings of Jesus. Kind of like taking Jesus as your philosophy teacher, but basing your life around it as if you were one of his students. The 'Teachings of Jesus' is a very controversial issue...some of the stuff no longer exists and some of it was excluded from the bible in written form. Some of it just looks made up to me. Not as bad as 'Ancient Aliens', but still, some of it seems like kind of a stretch.
Gospel Christianity seems to be simply the idea that your soul is saved through Jesus Christ. It is frankly kind of hard to get a clear answer on 'What Is Gospel Christianity', but it seems like it's more of a base concept for several branches of Christianity...'Believe in Jessus as Savior' kind of thing.
In Gnosis, there is the general idea that people should strive to be 'good'. With Gospel, there is the general idea that people should believe in Jesus as Lord, which will make them good.
If Tolkien was more Gospel and less Gnosis, we'd get to play the evil side of things because it's through Jesus that you're saved, not being good. Since he was more Gnosis than Gospel, we have to be good to be saved, so we don't get to play the evil faction.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That is unfortunate. I don't like open world PvP personally, but I don't care so long as there are PvE servers. Let everyone have what they want...
It does seem like the perfect opportunity for open PvP with 3 factions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels
There is a reference to Tolkien in the Gnosis article.
"Fact confirmed?" More like reaffirmed, they have made it clear for a very long time that the factions would work together but when they got to areas like the center of the world they would resume their fighting. The only difference now is they are saying there are more places to fight than the center of the world.
Because flying a Minmatar ship is like going down a flight of stairs on an office chair while firing an Uzi.
Open PVP with 3 factions as you say would have been so much fun
Damn...
Even without open world pvp (i think it is open zone pvp) it will be just as fun since you can still hunt, jump and do all that good stuff on the other two factions. IT is not like the pvp is per say instanced that i have heard, it ust sounds like it is certain places in zones/is a zone that you fight over with each other. Somethign like wintergrasp in wow though think it would be several of those kinds of zone wars going on together at time, with the factions having to corridante their fighting to control more then one or two of them at a time. Honestly if this is the case i would be for that over open world pvp.
No...thats not fun, most of your players that prefer pvp to pve will tell you those pvp zones are nothing more than battle grounds. They are fun for a bit, but get boring. The fun of pvp is having no clue someone is coming...in BG's or zones, you are always looking for it...so you loe that excitement. Thats why it would be great to see pvp and pve servers.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
Er...'most players' do not prefer PvP to PvE in their mmorpg. If that were true, Rift would have more PvP servers than PvE servers and Warhammer would have more subscribers than Rift.
What 'most players' want is exactly what WoW provides. Mostly PvE servers with the ability to 'flag' PvP and with instanced PvP content. 'Most players' want a mix of PvE and PvP content with the ability to choose when PvP takes place. Someone else can bother with figuring out why...it doesn't really matter though.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No one really knows the statistics..you can pretend to know...but you don't. The only statement I will openly say is that the pve community is far more vocal and tends to speak better about what they wish, where as pvpers rarely post, go to conventions and in comments they usually tend to be a little more aggressive. The reason games like rift have more pve servers is because they aren't very good pvp games...
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
And I would argue that the PVP community is the more vocal of the two. The numbers don't lie. If PVP were more popular, there would be more PVP servers.
All of this, however, ignores the fact that from a lore perspective, open world PvP does not make sense for this IP. It's called The "Secret" World for a reason. None of these three factions is going to go around killing the others in public. PvP will be kept in designated areas, just as it should.
Does anyone know what battleground actually means in this context?
Will battlegrounds be seperated pvp regions like in DAoC or just stupid 5on5 capture the holy artifact scenario games?
The first is fine for me, the latter is just boring
You mean more like : "that those other players dont know someone is comming" ... Most lovers of open world pvp actively seek fight and dont just wait if some will come after them, yes I know it doesnt look as innocent as you would like to, but thats how it is :P and pretending otherwise just makes argumentation look silly.
It looks like that Funcom thinks that this kind of pvp would more hurt their game - from my firends who played AoC i heard definitly way more stories about player griefing in open world than stories about great open world PvP ... So imo AoC experience played part in decision against open world pvp.