I prefer to only play one MMO at a time and I don't always feel like PvP, sometimes I want to go kill some NPCs, usually while wandering around and exploring. Now questing I can do without, if you want to take that out and just leave free roaming mobs to kill, I'm fine with it. But I don't want to progress solely through pvp.
As it stands right now, I'm looking forward to both GW2 and TSW, so for the first time, I might actually end up playing two MMOs and enjoying both. I hope so. However, GW2 may end up being a primarily pvp game for me, while TSW will be a mix of everything. If one of those was solely pvp, I wouldn't look forward to it as much.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Isn't a MMO without PVE just a MMOFPS with a storyline?
PvP is the number one cause of MMO failure. MOST games release with PvE only and PvP is tacked on later. Eventually the PvP balancing game destroys the PvE game... Then you're left with a select few fanboy PvPers and the PvE group hates the game and leaves... Game dies.
WoW -> Released w/o any real PvP and people loved it... number one MMO (as far as number of players) ever made. They added Battlegrounds, people still loved it because they were somewhat complex and not about balance, but about objectives... Then they added Arenas, game went to shit. Every class watered down to be just like every other class and "balanced" for 1v1 and 2v2 combat situations.
WAR -> Released WITH PvP, game just epic failed right at the start. PvE was meh and people didn't stick around because of it.
Everquest 2 -> Released with no PvP if I recall, game wasn't bad and lots enjoyed it. Now they have battlegrounds and "balanced" pvp bullshit and game is going F2P which = fail (if you want to argue that point please show me a game that wasn't losing subs and popularity that went F2P)
I'm sure others can pull out many... MANY more examples. PvP kills MMORPG's. PvP douchebags who keep fighting for it need to GTFO and go play LoL, HON, Dota, CS, TF2... or any of the other PvP focussed games. Stop trying to force PvP into a game style where it simply won't fit! I have yet to see a smash hit MMORPG with a high focus on PvP.
clearly you haven't played EvE. Is EvE not a smash hit? As I have just recently went on hiatus, I guess it isn't anymore. Darkfall would not be, Lineage 2 had pvp and still is pretty popular. It isn't just the pvp that kills a game. I would say you make a compelling arguement, but it simply doesn't apply to EvE's game mechanics and is not what CCP wanted.
Darkfall could be classified this as well...AV wanted a pvp-centric game with everything else ancillary to that. You could make the argument that DF failed b/c of this and I would not disagree...however...I applaud them for trying. If the game is designed from the beginning as is the OP's example, it can work.
Apparently DAoC was fantastic PvP wise and there are many here that would like to see an updated version of it. As long as everyone knows that the game is centered around PVP from the START...then the wailing and crying can be easily dismissed.
I do agree with some of your points in that most games are PvE-centric and PvP is added on as an afterthought, and then it's done poorly at that.
Playing: BF4/BF:Hardline, Subnautica 7 days to die Hiatus: EvE Waiting on: World of Darkness(sigh) Interested in: better games in general
Wouldn't touch it. I have no taste for ganking PvP play, no thank you.
[edit]
Originally posted by CityHam PvE is like pop music, its what the scrubs like, -scrubs get it. PvP is like Hard Rock, its what the hardcore like, -but do not get. I guess it comes down to tab target games, they need little to no skill to play, you just lock on and magical fire balls turn in mid flight to seek out the target, you then get 1.5 sec to think about your next move ala rotation or priority oh wow, its like playing the piano but only using one button and only hitting one key note every 1.5 sec, -retarded yes, we will all look back in 20 years and go jesus H. Christ what the fuck where we doing back then, where as FPS with 20ms reaction time, well, thats another story.
tl;dr PvE = Casuals who like rotations and do not want to get hit, so they can stand still and feel epic doing there priority rotation and watch the damage meters, only to do it all again next week only a little tiny itchy bitcy faster, cus they gone one item better that was +2 in extra pew pew.
ld;dr tl;dr Casuals killed the game
ROTFLMAO Such an enlightened mind we are dealing with here. I guess I better quit all MMOs since I don't play "the right way".
/declines PvP invitation
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Elricmerren Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by mgilbrtsn No. Too many people like PVE content. Whether it be a little or a lot.
The PvE content would exist, it just wouldn't be the directed story type of content. There would be a world and there would be non-combat activities, but mostly related to building an economy and crafting. I'm not sure if that would be enough though...you are very right that people like the whole faction based, directed story type of content.
** edit ** I think the quality of the game would be a bigger factor than whether it was based on PvP or not. If a game like Eve/DaoC (but fantasy based) launched with the polish that Eve/DaoC has today instead of how they originally launched, it would do very well.
The second biggest factor is the whole griefing thing - whether real or perceived. If your less aggressive players are relatively safe, they'll keep playing and supplying the stuff that your more aggressive players need for the war efforts.
Originally posted by Elricmerren
The issue is the op said wiithout pve content, meaning you have no quests, or such in it with yoru progression being only thru pvp based actives and such over the norm of pve questing and instances.
From the OP: That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict
There is PvE content, it just supports the RvR/PvP content. Some of the other stuff listed (like crafting) would be impossible without some PvE content. At the very minimum, gathering materials and then turning them into stuff.
The PvE content would be totally unscripted, unless it supports the PvP. It would possibly include PvP by default. For instance, a quest to gather X amount of iron, because your faction or your guild is short on iron for arrow heads. Doing so might require going to places with opposing faction players, but would not include NPCs you'd have to kill a certain number of, even if it included aggressive mobs.
That is not pve if it is not player vs enviroment content, what you discribe is gathering not pve. If a quest has you go to an area where you deal with non player groups then you have pve content in the form of non pvp based conflict, THis would not be a sole pvp game but a pvp game with pve tacked on to it to give more playing options when the population is low in a area. Also what most like in pve is the story and items as wel as fact of a quest in play that is at their own pace and choice. That is would be another issue for it that those pve/pvper whhich are the majority of the players that play mmos would find it worthless like pvper's feel abotu tacked on pvp.
Gathering is a PvE activity. So is exploring. Ditto for mobs in the environment, which may contain some necessary materials. Based on what was posted, PvE would exist in the game, but it would be there to support the PvP side of the game.
A PvP centric game would be less of a draw than the standard PvE based games, but the OP wishes to make sure the PvP is either fair or balanced using RvR style conflict. I'm not reading this as Open World PvP. Minimized 'ganking' type activities would go a long way towards attracting more people.
Rift cost about fifty million dollars to make. SW:ToR cost a hundred million to make. SW:ToR needs roughly 250,000 active subscriptions to be profitable. Rift would probably need 125,000 active subscriptions to be profitable. Spend $25 Million on a game (which is nearly AAA) and pull in 75,000 subscriptions, and you have a successful game. If the game is actually well done (which we are assuming for the sake of the thought experiment) pulling in 75,000 subs shouldn't be too hard.
Dominus the Game (was Prime Online) will have something very similar to the OP, but with faction based open world PvP. It'll be interesting to see how well that turns out.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Ever heard of PLANETSIDE? One of the most memorable and respected "Old" MMOs? It's the first TRUE MMOFPS, and never had ANY PVE.
It was also considered a AAA title, and still technically is.
The active word is old in the post here. The market base as well as playerbase is moving away from pvp and more to themepark as well as pve games. Lok at wow as well as other game like eq or such. If you braught them back to full life with improved graphics and such, and then launched them many i would think would fail in that they do not fit into what the majority of players want. Many of the games have a group of players that stay with them but then also have a revolving door of players that come and go. Liek if wow were shut down now, and then re launched as vanilla wow after the surges of players shifted to other games, would you think wow would gain back it's playbase? The issue is that thngs that were popular then will fight with these newer mmos for players, and the older mmos with more content win out, on sheer content and volume of players. Just basising this on features leaves out the biggest problem of mmos whch is "why do i want to play and wat for content in this game, when in that game have tons more and people to play with." factor. many great concets as well as gamess died or limped along from lack of players, and the compared pvp/fps to pvp/pve market of mmos is quite different.
That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict, instead offering a complete, quality RvR experience with things like:
Meaningful and persistent open world PvP. Yes please.
Three faction design, DAoC style, with an emphasis on your faction gaining territorial domiance and resources by conquest. I prefer FFA but if we must have factions, I say have more than three. What about 5?
Player created buildings, siege engines, barricades, etc., along with NPC towns, castles, and faction main cities. Yes please.
Destructible environments (think Battlefield 3), where even someone casting a fireball could potentically burn a door, or someone could slash a window open. Siege engines could be used to destroy buildings, creating an ever changing battlefield. This has to be designed very carefully. You don't want your city burned to the ground by another guild who happens to play during another timezone. Overall though, I do like the idea.
Meaningful crafting systems, and player based economy. Yes please. You will need item destruction for this to work though or the market will just become flooded over time. That's the reason Eve's economy is so successful.
A modern combat system with things like dodging, blocking, etc. No thanks. I'm playing an RPG not an FPS.
No full loot. And a system put in place to prevent griefing. Booo. What's the penalty for losing? Without one, a game like this turns into a mindless zerg. If gear isn't expensive and easy to replace then losing it is not a major hardship. As the saying in Eve goes, "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose".
Faction NPCs that fight alongside players like soldiers, generals, kings. As long as they're not too powerful. NPC's shouldn't be the deciding factor in conquoring an opposing faction's city. Killing the king could be an objective.
Conquering other faction's capitals after long campaigns similar to WAR's idea. Sure as long as it doesn't reset and it has an effect on the game world. Players should not be indifferent to losing their capital (and I'm not talking about just for role-playing sake).
Open FFA arenas and non-instanced tournaments in colliseums. No no no, please no! Keep the fighting focused on the RvR objectives.
Political systems with wich players can make their faction ally with other NPC sub-factions and cultures. Depends on how it's implemented.
With complete quality voice-overs, and a rich lore. Wouldn't listen to it or read about it. Let the players create the story, it's much more memorable.
And finally but most importantly, quality. An incredible graphics engine, lag free, relatively balanced classes, solid customizable UI, and all the features you would expect from an AAA million dollar MMO. Wishful thinking. If you want large wars then they would need to keep the graphics much simpler so the players wouldn't need a cray supercomputer to run the game.
Do you think it would succeed in today's market?
Probably not but I'd still love to give it a shot. At least it would be a little different.
If factions were not allowed to speak to one another and there were no emotes then trash talking couldn't happen. Since you can sack cities there would need to be one building, say the inn, that is off limits so players have somewhere to go AFK.
A few other things I'd like to see added...
No global auction house or bank. Each city/town should have it's own market so trading would be a nice way to make money.
No instant travel. Traveling should be dangerous.
No bind on equip or bind on pickup items. Everything should be freely tradeable or sellable.
One can dream.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict, instead offering a complete, quality RvR experience with things like:
Meaningful and persistent open world PvP.
Three faction design, DAoC style, with an emphasis on your faction gaining territorial domiance and resources by conquest.
Player created buildings, siege engines, barricades, etc., along with NPC towns, castles, and faction main cities.
Destructible environments (think Battlefield 3), where even someone casting a fireball could potentically burn a door, or someone could slash a window open. Siege engines could be used to destroy buildings, creating an ever changing battlefield.
Meaningful crafting systems, and player based economy.
A modern combat system with things like dodging, blocking, etc.
No full loot. And a system put in place to prevent griefing.
Faction NPCs that fight alongside players like soldiers, generals, kings.
Conquering other faction's capitals after long campaigns similar to WAR's idea.
Open FFA arenas and non-instanced tournaments in colliseums.
Political systems with wich players can make their faction ally with other NPC sub-factions and cultures.
With complete quality voice-overs, and a rich lore.
And finally but most importantly, quality. An incredible graphics engine, lag free, relatively balanced classes, solid customizable UI, and all the features you would expect from an AAA million dollar MMO.
That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict, instead offering a complete, quality RvR experience with things like:
Meaningful and persistent open world PvP.
Three faction design, DAoC style, with an emphasis on your faction gaining territorial domiance and resources by conquest.
Player created buildings, siege engines, barricades, etc., along with NPC towns, castles, and faction main cities.
Destructible environments (think Battlefield 3), where even someone casting a fireball could potentically burn a door, or someone could slash a window open. Siege engines could be used to destroy buildings, creating an ever changing battlefield.
Meaningful crafting systems, and player based economy.
A modern combat system with things like dodging, blocking, etc.
No full loot. And a system put in place to prevent griefing.
Faction NPCs that fight alongside players like soldiers, generals, kings.
Conquering other faction's capitals after long campaigns similar to WAR's idea.
Open FFA arenas and non-instanced tournaments in colliseums.
Political systems with wich players can make their faction ally with other NPC sub-factions and cultures.
With complete quality voice-overs, and a rich lore.
And finally but most importantly, quality. An incredible graphics engine, lag free, relatively balanced classes, solid customizable UI, and all the features you would expect from an AAA million dollar MMO.
Do you think it would succeed in today's market?
Have you learned anything from Warhammer?
Warhammer died becouse bugs and slugish interfrace.
That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict, instead offering a complete, quality RvR experience with things like:
Meaningful and persistent open world PvP.
Three faction design, DAoC style, with an emphasis on your faction gaining territorial domiance and resources by conquest.
Player created buildings, siege engines, barricades, etc., along with NPC towns, castles, and faction main cities.
Destructible environments (think Battlefield 3), where even someone casting a fireball could potentically burn a door, or someone could slash a window open. Siege engines could be used to destroy buildings, creating an ever changing battlefield.
Meaningful crafting systems, and player based economy.
A modern combat system with things like dodging, blocking, etc.
No full loot. And a system put in place to prevent griefing.
Faction NPCs that fight alongside players like soldiers, generals, kings.
Conquering other faction's capitals after long campaigns similar to WAR's idea.
Open FFA arenas and non-instanced tournaments in colliseums.
Political systems with wich players can make their faction ally with other NPC sub-factions and cultures.
With complete quality voice-overs, and a rich lore.
And finally but most importantly, quality. An incredible graphics engine, lag free, relatively balanced classes, solid customizable UI, and all the features you would expect from an AAA million dollar MMO.
Do you think it would succeed in today's market?
Have you learned anything from Warhammer?
Warhammer died becouse bugs and slugish interfrace.
Not to mention the fact they tried to copy WoW by horribly ruining a LOT of content to fit WoW's basic gameplay design. A TRUE Warhammer MMO is nothing like WoW unfortunately for many kids in the genre ! This is why the Warhammer 40k MMO in developement atm will fail HARD. They've already said outright that they're going for a WoW gameplay model.
That being said, EA was the culprit behind Warhammer's failure, and actually CUT a LOT of Mythic's REALLY good RvR ideas. Originally Mythic wanted to do Warhammer in DAOC's "mold", but EA came over and told them NOT to go that route, and instead wanted a more "laid back" WoW model.
People need to understand that a MAJORITY of the Genre do NOT want a WoW-copy, but a true innovative model based on DAOC, SWG, EQ, or Shadowbane. All this nonsense with themeparking is simply the lowest common denominator crowed crying foul in overdrive.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict, instead offering a complete, quality RvR experience with things like:
Meaningful and persistent open world PvP.
Three faction design, DAoC style, with an emphasis on your faction gaining territorial domiance and resources by conquest.
Player created buildings, siege engines, barricades, etc., along with NPC towns, castles, and faction main cities.
Destructible environments (think Battlefield 3), where even someone casting a fireball could potentically burn a door, or someone could slash a window open. Siege engines could be used to destroy buildings, creating an ever changing battlefield.
Meaningful crafting systems, and player based economy.
A modern combat system with things like dodging, blocking, etc.
No full loot. And a system put in place to prevent griefing.
Faction NPCs that fight alongside players like soldiers, generals, kings.
Conquering other faction's capitals after long campaigns similar to WAR's idea.
Open FFA arenas and non-instanced tournaments in colliseums.
Political systems with wich players can make their faction ally with other NPC sub-factions and cultures.
With complete quality voice-overs, and a rich lore.
And finally but most importantly, quality. An incredible graphics engine, lag free, relatively balanced classes, solid customizable UI, and all the features you would expect from an AAA million dollar MMO.
Do you think it would succeed in today's market?
Have you learned anything from Warhammer?
Warhammer died becouse bugs and slugish interfrace.
All MMO have bugs. thats doesnt change anything.
Warhammer's PvP focused MMO with little to no PvE is a niche!!!
Same thing for Vanguard, and its PvE focused theme. that too is also a Niche. thats why Vanguard cant draw attention.
That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict, instead offering a complete, quality RvR experience with things like:
Meaningful and persistent open world PvP.
Three faction design, DAoC style, with an emphasis on your faction gaining territorial domiance and resources by conquest.
Player created buildings, siege engines, barricades, etc., along with NPC towns, castles, and faction main cities.
Destructible environments (think Battlefield 3), where even someone casting a fireball could potentically burn a door, or someone could slash a window open. Siege engines could be used to destroy buildings, creating an ever changing battlefield.
Meaningful crafting systems, and player based economy.
A modern combat system with things like dodging, blocking, etc.
No full loot. And a system put in place to prevent griefing.
Faction NPCs that fight alongside players like soldiers, generals, kings.
Conquering other faction's capitals after long campaigns similar to WAR's idea.
Open FFA arenas and non-instanced tournaments in colliseums.
Political systems with wich players can make their faction ally with other NPC sub-factions and cultures.
With complete quality voice-overs, and a rich lore.
And finally but most importantly, quality. An incredible graphics engine, lag free, relatively balanced classes, solid customizable UI, and all the features you would expect from an AAA million dollar MMO.
Do you think it would succeed in today's market?
Have you learned anything from Warhammer?
Warhammer died becouse bugs and slugish interfrace.
Not to mention the fact they tried to copy WoW by horribly ruining a LOT of content to fit WoW's basic gameplay design. A TRUE Warhammer MMO is nothing like WoW unfortunately for many kids in the genre ! This is why the Warhammer 40k MMO in developement atm will fail HARD. They've already said outright that they're going for a WoW gameplay model.
That being said, EA was the culprit behind Warhammer's failure, and actually CUT a LOT of Mythic's REALLY good RvR ideas. Originally Mythic wanted to do Warhammer in DAOC's "mold", but EA came over and told them NOT to go that route, and instead wanted a more "laid back" WoW model.
People need to understand that a MAJORITY of the Genre do NOT want a WoW-copy, but a true innovative model based on DAOC, SWG, EQ, or Shadowbane. All this nonsense with themeparking is simply the lowest common denominator crowed crying foul in overdrive.
Wow another person blaming the WoW model for failure.
Yet conpletly ignore Rift and LOTRO.
You have any proof that the current Warhammer design wasnt Mythic's decision before EA jumped on the project?
I remeber reading a lot of the blogs back during the hype day. I agree, EA didnt put the money there like they did SWTOR. but really, do we even know the original model behind Warhammer?
also another thing. EQ was unique back in its day, because the genre was fresh. But DAOC and SWG clearly both took concepts from EQ. yet I guess EQ clone is ok,,, but WoW Clone is not? By the way. Is WoW Original enough to have clones?
Which came out first, WoW or EQ2? Strange that EQ2 is a WoW clone..... interesting
That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict, instead offering a complete, quality RvR experience with things like:
Meaningful and persistent open world PvP.
Three faction design, DAoC style, with an emphasis on your faction gaining territorial domiance and resources by conquest.
Player created buildings, siege engines, barricades, etc., along with NPC towns, castles, and faction main cities.
Destructible environments (think Battlefield 3), where even someone casting a fireball could potentically burn a door, or someone could slash a window open. Siege engines could be used to destroy buildings, creating an ever changing battlefield.
Meaningful crafting systems, and player based economy.
A modern combat system with things like dodging, blocking, etc.
No full loot. And a system put in place to prevent griefing.
Faction NPCs that fight alongside players like soldiers, generals, kings.
Conquering other faction's capitals after long campaigns similar to WAR's idea.
Open FFA arenas and non-instanced tournaments in colliseums.
Political systems with wich players can make their faction ally with other NPC sub-factions and cultures.
With complete quality voice-overs, and a rich lore.
And finally but most importantly, quality. An incredible graphics engine, lag free, relatively balanced classes, solid customizable UI, and all the features you would expect from an AAA million dollar MMO.
Do you think it would succeed in today's market?
Have you learned anything from Warhammer?
Warhammer died becouse bugs and slugish interfrace.
All MMO have bugs. thats doesnt change anything.
Warhammer's PvP focused MMO with little to no PvE is a niche!!!
Same thing for Vanguard, and its PvE focused theme. that too is also a Niche. thats why Vanguard cant draw attention.
There is a difference between a leap of logic and a leap beyond logic.
Let's look at all the MMO's ever released in regions beyond Asia. If you really look at it the vast majority of those MMO's had relatively small populations. Remember when EQ was the "king" and only ever hit around 450k for concurrent subscribers?
So there is an entire universe of PvE MMO's that have very small populations. Now can you show me the non Asia based PvP MMO that did as well as the average PVE MMO? That's the problem... sure you can look at a game like Vanguard... but Vanguard has fared better than any (non asian based ) PvP based MMO...
You may notice I keep excluding Asia.. well the reason for that is simple. PvP games do very well there.. L1/L2 type games do extremely well. It seems games that require teamwork and include pvp with fort capture ... yet DAoC failed there... oddly Ultima Online has always done very well in the general area. (UO pre-trammel was my favorite mmo by the way). *edit* Tho I mention DAoC and a lot of us really loved the RvR. DAoC had really good PvE as well... so I don't really see it as a PvP focused MMO.. and it definitely did better than Vanguard.. well maybe not currently but before they did the super merge it was doing pretty good still.
The point being.. even the best PvP focused MMO will have a niche customer base. That is not exactly a bad thing but you don't see many companies simply looking for the niche market... even tho not long ago that same subscriber size made EverQuest a grand success. Heck I'd like a new Ultima Online that was more of everything the original was. Its just the MMO development cycle is about two things now...
1) give customers less and try to convince them its more
2) the concept that they can have 1 million plus subscribers...
I suppose you could also toss in that games like UO and EQ were under funded and people stayed away from the teams... because no one believed the games would do anything. Now they toss 10's of millions into development and micromanage everything.
Customer base to make a profit is there... development company to make a AAA title for it.. not so much.. yet.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict, instead offering a complete, quality RvR experience with things like:
Meaningful and persistent open world PvP.
Three faction design, DAoC style, with an emphasis on your faction gaining territorial domiance and resources by conquest.
Player created buildings, siege engines, barricades, etc., along with NPC towns, castles, and faction main cities.
Destructible environments (think Battlefield 3), where even someone casting a fireball could potentically burn a door, or someone could slash a window open. Siege engines could be used to destroy buildings, creating an ever changing battlefield.
Meaningful crafting systems, and player based economy.
A modern combat system with things like dodging, blocking, etc.
No full loot. And a system put in place to prevent griefing.
Faction NPCs that fight alongside players like soldiers, generals, kings.
Conquering other faction's capitals after long campaigns similar to WAR's idea.
Open FFA arenas and non-instanced tournaments in colliseums.
Political systems with wich players can make their faction ally with other NPC sub-factions and cultures.
With complete quality voice-overs, and a rich lore.
And finally but most importantly, quality. An incredible graphics engine, lag free, relatively balanced classes, solid customizable UI, and all the features you would expect from an AAA million dollar MMO.
Do you think it would succeed in today's market?
Have you learned anything from Warhammer?
Warhammer died becouse bugs and slugish interfrace.
Not to mention the fact they tried to copy WoW by horribly ruining a LOT of content to fit WoW's basic gameplay design. A TRUE Warhammer MMO is nothing like WoW unfortunately for many kids in the genre ! This is why the Warhammer 40k MMO in developement atm will fail HARD. They've already said outright that they're going for a WoW gameplay model.
That being said, EA was the culprit behind Warhammer's failure, and actually CUT a LOT of Mythic's REALLY good RvR ideas. Originally Mythic wanted to do Warhammer in DAOC's "mold", but EA came over and told them NOT to go that route, and instead wanted a more "laid back" WoW model.
People need to understand that a MAJORITY of the Genre do NOT want a WoW-copy, but a true innovative model based on DAOC, SWG, EQ, or Shadowbane. All this nonsense with themeparking is simply the lowest common denominator crowed crying foul in overdrive.
Wow another person blaming the WoW model for failure.
Yet conpletly ignore Rift and LOTRO.
You have any proof that the current Warhammer design wasnt Mythic's decision before EA jumped on the project?
I remeber reading a lot of the blogs back during the hype day. I agree, EA didnt put the money there like they did SWTOR. but really, do we even know the original model behind Warhammer?
also another thing. EQ was unique back in its day, because the genre was fresh. But DAOC and SWG clearly both took concepts from EQ. yet I guess EQ clone is ok,,, but WoW Clone is not? By the way. Is WoW Original enough to have clones?
Which came out first, WoW or EQ2? Strange that EQ2 is a WoW clone..... interesting
What's there to ignore? RIFT lost more than 73% of it's subscriber base after the 2nd month, and isn't even on most people's Radars in regards to a "popular" MMO on the market. Now, if you compare it to all the utter flops & dead end MMOs that is plaguing the genre like AOC or Warhammer, then by that definition EQ1 is smashing RIFT in an unfair comparison.
That being said, what's there to say about LOTRO? It isn't using the "WoW" model, and is it's own seperate entity. If you're talking about it being a linear Quest grinder then yes i'd agree, but it's not JUST a "Linear Quest Grinder", and stands out on it's own. Albeit I hate LOTRO and the incarnation they chose to go with, but it's still not as "Lowest Common Denominator" as World of Warcraft is. The average age of a LOTRO player is something like 41. Compared to 12-17 in WoW.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict, instead offering a complete, quality RvR experience with things like:
Meaningful and persistent open world PvP.
Three faction design, DAoC style, with an emphasis on your faction gaining territorial domiance and resources by conquest.
Player created buildings, siege engines, barricades, etc., along with NPC towns, castles, and faction main cities.
Destructible environments (think Battlefield 3), where even someone casting a fireball could potentically burn a door, or someone could slash a window open. Siege engines could be used to destroy buildings, creating an ever changing battlefield.
Meaningful crafting systems, and player based economy.
A modern combat system with things like dodging, blocking, etc.
No full loot. And a system put in place to prevent griefing.
Faction NPCs that fight alongside players like soldiers, generals, kings.
Conquering other faction's capitals after long campaigns similar to WAR's idea.
Open FFA arenas and non-instanced tournaments in colliseums.
Political systems with wich players can make their faction ally with other NPC sub-factions and cultures.
With complete quality voice-overs, and a rich lore.
And finally but most importantly, quality. An incredible graphics engine, lag free, relatively balanced classes, solid customizable UI, and all the features you would expect from an AAA million dollar MMO.
Do you think it would succeed in today's market?
Have you learned anything from Warhammer?
Warhammer died becouse bugs and slugish interfrace.
Not to mention the fact they tried to copy WoW by horribly ruining a LOT of content to fit WoW's basic gameplay design. A TRUE Warhammer MMO is nothing like WoW unfortunately for many kids in the genre ! This is why the Warhammer 40k MMO in developement atm will fail HARD. They've already said outright that they're going for a WoW gameplay model.
That being said, EA was the culprit behind Warhammer's failure, and actually CUT a LOT of Mythic's REALLY good RvR ideas. Originally Mythic wanted to do Warhammer in DAOC's "mold", but EA came over and told them NOT to go that route, and instead wanted a more "laid back" WoW model.
People need to understand that a MAJORITY of the Genre do NOT want a WoW-copy, but a true innovative model based on DAOC, SWG, EQ, or Shadowbane. All this nonsense with themeparking is simply the lowest common denominator crowed crying foul in overdrive.
Wow another person blaming the WoW model for failure.
Yet conpletly ignore Rift and LOTRO.
You have any proof that the current Warhammer design wasnt Mythic's decision before EA jumped on the project?
I remeber reading a lot of the blogs back during the hype day. I agree, EA didnt put the money there like they did SWTOR. but really, do we even know the original model behind Warhammer?
also another thing. EQ was unique back in its day, because the genre was fresh. But DAOC and SWG clearly both took concepts from EQ. yet I guess EQ clone is ok,,, but WoW Clone is not? By the way. Is WoW Original enough to have clones?
Which came out first, WoW or EQ2? Strange that EQ2 is a WoW clone..... interesting
What's there to ignore? RIFT lost more than 73% of it's subscriber base after the 2nd month, and isn't even on most people's Radars in regards to a "popular" MMO on the market. Now, if you compare it to all the utter flops & dead end MMOs that is plaguing the genre like AOC or Warhammer, then by that definition EQ1 is smashing RIFT in an unfair comparison.
That being said, what's there to say about LOTRO? It isn't using the "WoW" model, and is it's own seperate entity. If you're talking about it being a linear Quest grinder then yes i'd agree, but it's not JUST a "Linear Quest Grinder", and stands out on it's own. Albeit I hate LOTRO and the incarnation they chose to go with, but it's still not as "Lowest Common Denominator" as World of Warcraft is. The average age of a LOTRO player is something like 41. Compared to 12-17 in WoW.
Success is an "imaginary" line that must be reached in the MMO market. Saying that console FPS games sell more Box copies in a year than an MMO is NOT a measure of success for an MMO. An MMO's success is based on the number of concurrent subscribers to the product, or if it's a PayToWin model the product's success is measured by profit each quarter.
With that outlined, MOST PayToWin (aka: "FreeToPlay") games are hardly successful, and are merely staying afloat. World of Tanks is the obvious exclusion simply because Russian Clans in that game are dropping, on average, $92 per month on gold for competitions.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
The thing is that even in the most hardcore of meaningful PVP worlds people still want something to do while playing alone. That means you must have PVE content of some kind. EVE is a great example, even if you end up enjoying the 0.0 PVP or espionage eventually you still do a lot of PVE activities related to that. A good sandbox PVP game would still need that 'day to day' content that was not conflict based to remain interesting.
It would be a MMOFPS and Planetside has shown there is a market for that style of game, question is how large is it really?
I wouldn't play it, I enjoy MMORPG PVE activities (call me a carebear, I can take it) more than PVP but I do like to step out for some combat and frequently play on PVP servers for the extra challenge it brings PVE. (avoiding the gank)
Planetside 2 might be the answer the OP is looking for, though many might argue SOE can't make a AAA game these days.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by Neverdyne That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict Player created buildings, siege engines, barricades, etc., along with NPC towns, castles, and faction main cities. Destructible environments (think Battlefield 3), where even someone casting a fireball could potentically burn a door, or someone could slash a window open. Siege engines could be used to destroy buildings, creating an ever changing battlefield. Meaningful crafting systems, and player based economy. Political systems with wich players can make their faction ally with other NPC sub-factions and cultures. Do you think it would succeed in today's market?
Reposting the relevant parts of the original post for everyone who only read the title of the thread. You can't have a crafting system without PvE. A player based economy requires PvE content. You can't have a destructible environment in an mmorpg unless you can rebuild it which is PvE content. Players are building the buildings in the first place...PvE content. Even the political system would be PvE content because there are NPCs, factions and cultures. If you ally with one faction, you're going to be against another faction. Eventually, you're going to kill an NPC of the other faction at some point. There would be PvE content, it just wouldn't be directed, quest driven leveling PvE content.
Things that would limit your market would be
Open World PvP - even without full loot, and with anti-griefing mechanics in place, many people will not want persistent open world PvP, regardless of how meaningful it is. You would need safe zones or non-combat areas.
Solo Content - this wasn't mentioned in the OP at all, but you'd need content for the solo player. Not having it would severely limit the number of people who would keep playing the game.
I think those are the only real issues, but they're big ones. One of them - Open World PvP - is a core concept of the game, which might be a problem. But again, spend $25 Million dollars (no more), get 75,000 subs and keep them because of the quality of the game and it would be a success.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It would do extremely well if the actual pvp combat/content and server tech was up to the job/good enough and any "grind" to become combat viable was sufficiently short.
Of course if the game followed the GW payment method (i.e. one off with optional additional purchases) then that would also greatly help it's cause.
On a side note it is hilarious that some seem to think WAR failed purely because it is an RvR game. The fact is, it was a BAD RvR game and it did everything else pretty piss poorly as well.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I do not believe this can be achievable. The repeatable nature of a MMO will turn any content meaningless after enough repetitions.
"Meaningul PvP" is a hollow term anyway. It doesn't mean anything or it means something different for everyone. In the end all PvP is equally meaningless or meaningful.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Also at least 3 fintie resources each with their own perks. Land, a resource to upgrade land, a resource to upgrade players.
I got a pretty simple, but fun, game mechanic figured out for diplomacy as well that's rewarding more like how a good game of chess is rather than just sheer ganking.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
Comments
I prefer to only play one MMO at a time and I don't always feel like PvP, sometimes I want to go kill some NPCs, usually while wandering around and exploring. Now questing I can do without, if you want to take that out and just leave free roaming mobs to kill, I'm fine with it. But I don't want to progress solely through pvp.
As it stands right now, I'm looking forward to both GW2 and TSW, so for the first time, I might actually end up playing two MMOs and enjoying both. I hope so. However, GW2 may end up being a primarily pvp game for me, while TSW will be a mix of everything. If one of those was solely pvp, I wouldn't look forward to it as much.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
clearly you haven't played EvE. Is EvE not a smash hit? As I have just recently went on hiatus, I guess it isn't anymore. Darkfall would not be, Lineage 2 had pvp and still is pretty popular. It isn't just the pvp that kills a game. I would say you make a compelling arguement, but it simply doesn't apply to EvE's game mechanics and is not what CCP wanted.
Darkfall could be classified this as well...AV wanted a pvp-centric game with everything else ancillary to that. You could make the argument that DF failed b/c of this and I would not disagree...however...I applaud them for trying. If the game is designed from the beginning as is the OP's example, it can work.
Apparently DAoC was fantastic PvP wise and there are many here that would like to see an updated version of it. As long as everyone knows that the game is centered around PVP from the START...then the wailing and crying can be easily dismissed.
I do agree with some of your points in that most games are PvE-centric and PvP is added on as an afterthought, and then it's done poorly at that.
Playing: BF4/BF:Hardline, Subnautica 7 days to die
Hiatus: EvE
Waiting on: World of Darkness(sigh)
Interested in: better games in general
Wouldn't touch it. I have no taste for ganking PvP play, no thank you.
[edit]
ROTFLMAO Such an enlightened mind we are dealing with here. I guess I better quit all MMOs since I don't play "the right way"./declines PvP invitation
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Elricmerren
The issue is the op said wiithout pve content, meaning you have no quests, or such in it with yoru progression being only thru pvp based actives and such over the norm of pve questing and instances.
From the OP:
That is, no quests or any PvE that does not relate with RvR conflict
There is PvE content, it just supports the RvR/PvP content. Some of the other stuff listed (like crafting) would be impossible without some PvE content. At the very minimum, gathering materials and then turning them into stuff.
The PvE content would be totally unscripted, unless it supports the PvP. It would possibly include PvP by default. For instance, a quest to gather X amount of iron, because your faction or your guild is short on iron for arrow heads. Doing so might require going to places with opposing faction players, but would not include NPCs you'd have to kill a certain number of, even if it included aggressive mobs.
That is not pve if it is not player vs enviroment content, what you discribe is gathering not pve. If a quest has you go to an area where you deal with non player groups then you have pve content in the form of non pvp based conflict, THis would not be a sole pvp game but a pvp game with pve tacked on to it to give more playing options when the population is low in a area. Also what most like in pve is the story and items as wel as fact of a quest in play that is at their own pace and choice. That is would be another issue for it that those pve/pvper whhich are the majority of the players that play mmos would find it worthless like pvper's feel abotu tacked on pvp.
Gathering is a PvE activity. So is exploring. Ditto for mobs in the environment, which may contain some necessary materials. Based on what was posted, PvE would exist in the game, but it would be there to support the PvP side of the game.
A PvP centric game would be less of a draw than the standard PvE based games, but the OP wishes to make sure the PvP is either fair or balanced using RvR style conflict. I'm not reading this as Open World PvP. Minimized 'ganking' type activities would go a long way towards attracting more people.
Rift cost about fifty million dollars to make. SW:ToR cost a hundred million to make. SW:ToR needs roughly 250,000 active subscriptions to be profitable. Rift would probably need 125,000 active subscriptions to be profitable. Spend $25 Million on a game (which is nearly AAA) and pull in 75,000 subscriptions, and you have a successful game. If the game is actually well done (which we are assuming for the sake of the thought experiment) pulling in 75,000 subs shouldn't be too hard.
Dominus the Game (was Prime Online) will have something very similar to the OP, but with faction based open world PvP. It'll be interesting to see how well that turns out.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Ever heard of PLANETSIDE? One of the most memorable and respected "Old" MMOs? It's the first TRUE MMOFPS, and never had ANY PVE.
It was also considered a AAA title, and still technically is.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
The active word is old in the post here. The market base as well as playerbase is moving away from pvp and more to themepark as well as pve games. Lok at wow as well as other game like eq or such. If you braught them back to full life with improved graphics and such, and then launched them many i would think would fail in that they do not fit into what the majority of players want. Many of the games have a group of players that stay with them but then also have a revolving door of players that come and go. Liek if wow were shut down now, and then re launched as vanilla wow after the surges of players shifted to other games, would you think wow would gain back it's playbase? The issue is that thngs that were popular then will fight with these newer mmos for players, and the older mmos with more content win out, on sheer content and volume of players. Just basising this on features leaves out the biggest problem of mmos whch is "why do i want to play and wat for content in this game, when in that game have tons more and people to play with." factor. many great concets as well as gamess died or limped along from lack of players, and the compared pvp/fps to pvp/pve market of mmos is quite different.
Like Planetside (lateral progression, population limits, set factions)? Awesome idea.
Like EVE/Darkfall (vertical progression, zerging, freeform factions)? ...don't spend a lot on it, it's gonna be niche.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Probably not but I'd still love to give it a shot. At least it would be a little different.
If factions were not allowed to speak to one another and there were no emotes then trash talking couldn't happen. Since you can sack cities there would need to be one building, say the inn, that is off limits so players have somewhere to go AFK.
A few other things I'd like to see added...
No global auction house or bank. Each city/town should have it's own market so trading would be a nice way to make money.
No instant travel. Traveling should be dangerous.
No bind on equip or bind on pickup items. Everything should be freely tradeable or sellable.
One can dream.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Have you learned anything from Warhammer?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Warhammer died becouse bugs and slugish interfrace.
Not to mention the fact they tried to copy WoW by horribly ruining a LOT of content to fit WoW's basic gameplay design. A TRUE Warhammer MMO is nothing like WoW unfortunately for many kids in the genre ! This is why the Warhammer 40k MMO in developement atm will fail HARD. They've already said outright that they're going for a WoW gameplay model.
That being said, EA was the culprit behind Warhammer's failure, and actually CUT a LOT of Mythic's REALLY good RvR ideas. Originally Mythic wanted to do Warhammer in DAOC's "mold", but EA came over and told them NOT to go that route, and instead wanted a more "laid back" WoW model.
People need to understand that a MAJORITY of the Genre do NOT want a WoW-copy, but a true innovative model based on DAOC, SWG, EQ, or Shadowbane. All this nonsense with themeparking is simply the lowest common denominator crowed crying foul in overdrive.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
All MMO have bugs. thats doesnt change anything.
Warhammer's PvP focused MMO with little to no PvE is a niche!!!
Same thing for Vanguard, and its PvE focused theme. that too is also a Niche. thats why Vanguard cant draw attention.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Wow another person blaming the WoW model for failure.
Yet conpletly ignore Rift and LOTRO.
You have any proof that the current Warhammer design wasnt Mythic's decision before EA jumped on the project?
I remeber reading a lot of the blogs back during the hype day. I agree, EA didnt put the money there like they did SWTOR. but really, do we even know the original model behind Warhammer?
also another thing. EQ was unique back in its day, because the genre was fresh. But DAOC and SWG clearly both took concepts from EQ. yet I guess EQ clone is ok,,, but WoW Clone is not? By the way. Is WoW Original enough to have clones?
Which came out first, WoW or EQ2? Strange that EQ2 is a WoW clone..... interesting
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
There is a difference between a leap of logic and a leap beyond logic.
Let's look at all the MMO's ever released in regions beyond Asia. If you really look at it the vast majority of those MMO's had relatively small populations. Remember when EQ was the "king" and only ever hit around 450k for concurrent subscribers?
So there is an entire universe of PvE MMO's that have very small populations. Now can you show me the non Asia based PvP MMO that did as well as the average PVE MMO? That's the problem... sure you can look at a game like Vanguard... but Vanguard has fared better than any (non asian based ) PvP based MMO...
You may notice I keep excluding Asia.. well the reason for that is simple. PvP games do very well there.. L1/L2 type games do extremely well. It seems games that require teamwork and include pvp with fort capture ... yet DAoC failed there... oddly Ultima Online has always done very well in the general area. (UO pre-trammel was my favorite mmo by the way). *edit* Tho I mention DAoC and a lot of us really loved the RvR. DAoC had really good PvE as well... so I don't really see it as a PvP focused MMO.. and it definitely did better than Vanguard.. well maybe not currently but before they did the super merge it was doing pretty good still.
The point being.. even the best PvP focused MMO will have a niche customer base. That is not exactly a bad thing but you don't see many companies simply looking for the niche market... even tho not long ago that same subscriber size made EverQuest a grand success. Heck I'd like a new Ultima Online that was more of everything the original was. Its just the MMO development cycle is about two things now...
1) give customers less and try to convince them its more
2) the concept that they can have 1 million plus subscribers...
I suppose you could also toss in that games like UO and EQ were under funded and people stayed away from the teams... because no one believed the games would do anything. Now they toss 10's of millions into development and micromanage everything.
Customer base to make a profit is there... development company to make a AAA title for it.. not so much.. yet.
Too much competition from console FPS games.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
What's there to ignore? RIFT lost more than 73% of it's subscriber base after the 2nd month, and isn't even on most people's Radars in regards to a "popular" MMO on the market. Now, if you compare it to all the utter flops & dead end MMOs that is plaguing the genre like AOC or Warhammer, then by that definition EQ1 is smashing RIFT in an unfair comparison.
That being said, what's there to say about LOTRO? It isn't using the "WoW" model, and is it's own seperate entity. If you're talking about it being a linear Quest grinder then yes i'd agree, but it's not JUST a "Linear Quest Grinder", and stands out on it's own. Albeit I hate LOTRO and the incarnation they chose to go with, but it's still not as "Lowest Common Denominator" as World of Warcraft is. The average age of a LOTRO player is something like 41. Compared to 12-17 in WoW.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
SMH
OK.........
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Success is an "imaginary" line that must be reached in the MMO market. Saying that console FPS games sell more Box copies in a year than an MMO is NOT a measure of success for an MMO. An MMO's success is based on the number of concurrent subscribers to the product, or if it's a PayToWin model the product's success is measured by profit each quarter.
With that outlined, MOST PayToWin (aka: "FreeToPlay") games are hardly successful, and are merely staying afloat. World of Tanks is the obvious exclusion simply because Russian Clans in that game are dropping, on average, $92 per month on gold for competitions.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
I'm in the no camp too, at least partly.
The thing is that even in the most hardcore of meaningful PVP worlds people still want something to do while playing alone. That means you must have PVE content of some kind. EVE is a great example, even if you end up enjoying the 0.0 PVP or espionage eventually you still do a lot of PVE activities related to that. A good sandbox PVP game would still need that 'day to day' content that was not conflict based to remain interesting.
It would be a MMOFPS and Planetside has shown there is a market for that style of game, question is how large is it really?
I wouldn't play it, I enjoy MMORPG PVE activities (call me a carebear, I can take it) more than PVP but I do like to step out for some combat and frequently play on PVP servers for the extra challenge it brings PVE. (avoiding the gank)
Planetside 2 might be the answer the OP is looking for, though many might argue SOE can't make a AAA game these days.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Reposting the relevant parts of the original post for everyone who only read the title of the thread. You can't have a crafting system without PvE. A player based economy requires PvE content. You can't have a destructible environment in an mmorpg unless you can rebuild it which is PvE content. Players are building the buildings in the first place...PvE content. Even the political system would be PvE content because there are NPCs, factions and cultures. If you ally with one faction, you're going to be against another faction. Eventually, you're going to kill an NPC of the other faction at some point. There would be PvE content, it just wouldn't be directed, quest driven leveling PvE content.
Things that would limit your market would be
I think those are the only real issues, but they're big ones. One of them - Open World PvP - is a core concept of the game, which might be a problem. But again, spend $25 Million dollars (no more), get 75,000 subs and keep them because of the quality of the game and it would be a success.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It would do extremely well if the actual pvp combat/content and server tech was up to the job/good enough and any "grind" to become combat viable was sufficiently short.
Of course if the game followed the GW payment method (i.e. one off with optional additional purchases) then that would also greatly help it's cause.
On a side note it is hilarious that some seem to think WAR failed purely because it is an RvR game. The fact is, it was a BAD RvR game and it did everything else pretty piss poorly as well.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I do not believe this can be achievable. The repeatable nature of a MMO will turn any content meaningless after enough repetitions.
"Meaningul PvP" is a hollow term anyway. It doesn't mean anything or it means something different for everyone. In the end all PvP is equally meaningless or meaningful.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
You can not have 3 factions in this type of game.
You have to have player made factions.
Also at least 3 fintie resources each with their own perks. Land, a resource to upgrade land, a resource to upgrade players.
I got a pretty simple, but fun, game mechanic figured out for diplomacy as well that's rewarding more like how a good game of chess is rather than just sheer ganking.
I used to play MMOs like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.