10 people are kicking the guy, guess I should too

Sovrath

Originally posted by Maelwydd

How about another way?

 

Exactly the same design as now but faction choice is made after character creation.

Faction choice is done by choice and THEN you are faction locked by territory.

Freely explore the world (except Cyrodil) until faction choice is made.

That would be a better compromise than the current one. I would still "prefer" more open blah blah blah but at least you could have three armies, all recruting to their cause.

They would be more like warlords since it would be mixed races.

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Maelwydd

How about another way?

 

Exactly the same design as now but faction choice is made after character creation.

Faction choice is done by choice and THEN you are faction locked by territory.

Freely explore the world (except Cyrodil) until faction choice is made.

That would be a better compromise than the current one. I would still "prefer" more open blah blah blah but at least you could have three armies, all recruting to their cause.

They would be more like warlords since it would be mixed races.

Made at creation or after it still the same thing and I dont see you getting anything more out of doing so. I still think the current compermise is the best one yet and for 2 reasons. Does not mess with the 5-6 years of development. But most of all is how the maps are done. Each factions area as its designed now will haves its level 1-5 areas and 6-10 so on and so on till you get 50. IF they just made its FFA go anywhere how much would you really explore on 1 char?

How many starter zones do you need to see as a sea of grey mobs? When your level 20 do you really wana go see all the level 10 maps and kill grey mobs? Going back to them as 50+ and 50++ where its challenge to do every quest on every map. That speaks more to the gamer in me. Sure I have to wait till level 50 but IMO its worth the wait. As for a level down system to do the same thing. I have yet to see it done well. Maybe someone can do it better then GW2 but is it worth the risk? Would you not rather be rewarded for your level?

Sovrath

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Maelwydd

How about another way?

 

Exactly the same design as now but faction choice is made after character creation.

Faction choice is done by choice and THEN you are faction locked by territory.

Freely explore the world (except Cyrodil) until faction choice is made.

That would be a better compromise than the current one. I would still "prefer" more open blah blah blah but at least you could have three armies, all recruting to their cause.

They would be more like warlords since it would be mixed races.

Made at creation or after it still the same thing and I dont see you getting anything more out of doing so. I still think the current compermise is the best one yet and for 2 reasons. Does not mess with the 5-6 years of development. But most of all is how the maps are done. Each factions area as its designed now will haves its level 1-5 areas and 6-10 so on and so on till you get 50. IF they just made its FFA go anywhere how much would you really explore on 1 char?

How many starter zones do you need to see as a sea of grey mobs? When your level 20 do you really wana go see all the level 10 maps and kill grey mobs? Going back to them as 50+ and 50++ where its challenge to do every quest on every map. That speaks more to the gamer in me. Sure I have to wait till level 50 but IMO its worth the wait. As for a level down system to do the same thing. I have yet to see it done well. Maybe someone can do it better then GW2 but is it worth the risk? Would you not rather be rewarded for your level?

What you are saying doesn't make sense.

Each "faction" would be set up in their own faction area. Players would flock to their banner and it would mean that it's possible for an argonian to be in a non argonian at the start. they would just be an ex-patriot.

Then each faction can level up and players of that faction would choose the one of the other faction areas to continue.

The only difference is that players would choose their faction.

It's no different other than to allow players to choose their race. Once they hit "faction" they can be flagged in the sytem as "being of that faction".

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Maelwydd

How about another way?

 

Exactly the same design as now but faction choice is made after character creation.

Faction choice is done by choice and THEN you are faction locked by territory.

Freely explore the world (except Cyrodil) until faction choice is made.

That would be a better compromise than the current one. I would still "prefer" more open blah blah blah but at least you could have three armies, all recruting to their cause.

They would be more like warlords since it would be mixed races.

Made at creation or after it still the same thing and I dont see you getting anything more out of doing so. I still think the current compermise is the best one yet and for 2 reasons. Does not mess with the 5-6 years of development. But most of all is how the maps are done. Each factions area as its designed now will haves its level 1-5 areas and 6-10 so on and so on till you get 50. IF they just made its FFA go anywhere how much would you really explore on 1 char?

How many starter zones do you need to see as a sea of grey mobs? When your level 20 do you really wana go see all the level 10 maps and kill grey mobs? Going back to them as 50+ and 50++ where its challenge to do every quest on every map. That speaks more to the gamer in me. Sure I have to wait till level 50 but IMO its worth the wait. As for a level down system to do the same thing. I have yet to see it done well. Maybe someone can do it better then GW2 but is it worth the risk? Would you not rather be rewarded for your level?

What you are saying doesn't make sense.

Each "faction" would be set up in their own faction area. Players would flock to their banner and it would mean that it's possible for an argonian to be in a non argonian at the start. they would just be an ex-patriot.

Then each faction can level up and players of that faction would choose the one of the other faction areas to continue.

The only difference is that players would choose their faction.

It's no different other than to allow players to choose their race. Once they hit "faction" they can be flagged in the sytem as "being of that faction".

I get that... but what do you gain over it being done at char creation. In the end you are still picking one faction over another. Not like we dont know what each faction is now and what they stand for.

Sovrath

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Maelwydd

How about another way?

 

Exactly the same design as now but faction choice is made after character creation.

Faction choice is done by choice and THEN you are faction locked by territory.

Freely explore the world (except Cyrodil) until faction choice is made.

That would be a better compromise than the current one. I would still "prefer" more open blah blah blah but at least you could have three armies, all recruting to their cause.

They would be more like warlords since it would be mixed races.

Made at creation or after it still the same thing and I dont see you getting anything more out of doing so. I still think the current compermise is the best one yet and for 2 reasons. Does not mess with the 5-6 years of development. But most of all is how the maps are done. Each factions area as its designed now will haves its level 1-5 areas and 6-10 so on and so on till you get 50. IF they just made its FFA go anywhere how much would you really explore on 1 char?

How many starter zones do you need to see as a sea of grey mobs? When your level 20 do you really wana go see all the level 10 maps and kill grey mobs? Going back to them as 50+ and 50++ where its challenge to do every quest on every map. That speaks more to the gamer in me. Sure I have to wait till level 50 but IMO its worth the wait. As for a level down system to do the same thing. I have yet to see it done well. Maybe someone can do it better then GW2 but is it worth the risk? Would you not rather be rewarded for your level?

What you are saying doesn't make sense.

Each "faction" would be set up in their own faction area. Players would flock to their banner and it would mean that it's possible for an argonian to be in a non argonian at the start. they would just be an ex-patriot.

Then each faction can level up and players of that faction would choose the one of the other faction areas to continue.

The only difference is that players would choose their faction.

It's no different other than to allow players to choose their race. Once they hit "faction" they can be flagged in the sytem as "being of that faction".

I get that... but what do you gain over it being done at char creation. In the end you are still picking one faction over another. Not like we dont know what each faction is now and what they stand for.

Well we are talking about compromise here and, in this case, I get to play the character I want and a buddy of mine gets to play the character he wants.

This just allows some to become ex-patriots.

Other than that  would prefer ffa pvp but that's not going to happen.

Nanfoodle

More ESO news if anyone cares =-)

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5687741/thread/383141#5687741

ShakyMo

No having ffa shards and pure pve shards and stuff would break the game.

As would letting players pick a faction later. Lots of lame gits will just pile on the big one.

Much better to have different servers for different players. Letting people chose playstyle shards on a single server is a recipie for disaster in terms of cheats and exploits.

Sovrath

Originally posted by ShakyMo
No having ffa shards and pure pve shards and stuff would break the game.

As would letting players pick a faction later. Lots of lame gits will just pile on the big one.

Much better to have different servers for different players. Letting people chose playstyle shards on a single server is a recipie for disaster in terms of cheats and exploits.

works for me.

nationalcity

Originally posted by steuss

People are rightly pissed because the TESO devs basically said, we're gonna make TES a MMO, and everyone was happy, but then people see the actual gameplay and think, "Wtf? this is tab, target, WoW clone bullshit, again. This is NOTHING like TES.

 

I'm pissed. Why aren't you? Are you happy with mediocrity and green text?

You and others knew this going in though that the game wouldn't be skyrim the mmo it seems that what people expected........

As for the Wow clone I guess holding your left mouse button to attack and right click to block was in WoW I don't seem to remember it there but then again been years since I played it..

It's got a hotbar and tab targetting that makes it a WoW clone? Oh yes, don't forget about the skill tree and classes oh wait I'm basically talking about every MMO on the market except for what a handful I mean this Wow clone shit gets old........

Now while I agree they could have went a better route with the combat instead of tab target.I can live with it if the gameplay is good. People act like they could really tell from a twenty minute video with some random person just hopping around basically he does like one quest and the rest of the time stood around so it sounds to me he got what he was hoping for a terrible reaction from the community......

The game is still in beta do I think it will drastically change because all the people bitching NO I think what you see is what you get but a more prettier version you either like it or you don't what else is there to say....

Do people think there gonna radically change the game from this point on, if you do keep dreaming.........

ShakyMo

It's like this. Say your an eve style player, and your in a ffa shard. Some git is greifing you. You call your guild mates and "poof" he disappears in a cloud of smoke to a pve shard.

Or you have a group of players in a pve shard from 2 separate factions, they group up regularly for pve, eventually it develops into a huge guild across all 3 factions. Then they think "hey we could enter that rvr shard and keep trade amongst ourselves to get a nice set of free gear / annoy the hell out of pvpers"

I'm fine with rvr servers, ffa servers and pve servers. But if you just have a single server where players can swap channels to different playstyles when the hell they like it will be a disaster.

Plus aren't pure pveers always moaning about "childish pvpers". If they have their own server, they don't have to mix with the ruffians.

Maelwydd

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Much better to have different servers for different players. Letting people chose playstyle shards on a single server is a recipie for disaster in terms of cheats and exploits.

That might have been better had they not designed the game around 3 faction RvR with faction locked territories.

Even now the compromises they are making are not really that great because their original design is so restrictive and not open to being adjusted with ease.

But yes, if they had designed an open world then sperate playstyle servers would be a good compromise.

Instead they decided upon a restrictive design and a single megaserver. their wisdom in doing so will be judged after release.

ShakyMo

How do you work that out Mael?

Daoc had 3 faction rvr servers.

It also had pure pve servers and pure pvp servers, where you could go anywhere and group with anyone.

It's not that hard to do.
To make a coop server you remove all the pvp elements in cyrodil and flag it pve. Then allow players to go anywhere and make a guild with anyone.

Job done.

Much simpler than trying to make a fudged design where players can hop in and out of shards with different rulesets. There are lots of unintended (or perhaps secretly intended) consequences with such a system. It would be a cowards dream for a start, level in pve shards, then switch to a ffa shard to gank low levels, then disappear back to pve when "the police" turn up.

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Maelwydd

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Much better to have different servers for different players. Letting people chose playstyle shards on a single server is a recipie for disaster in terms of cheats and exploits.

That might have been better had they not designed the game around 3 faction RvR with faction locked territories.

Even now the compromises they are making are not really that great because their original design is so restrictive and not open to being adjusted with ease.

But yes, if they had designed an open world then sperate playstyle servers would be a good compromise.

Instead they decided upon a restrictive design and a single megaserver. their wisdom in doing so will be judged after release.

IMO Morrowind was the best TES game to date and its for one big reason. Because when you made choices in the game it removed other options on that char you were playing when it came to game play and story. Your choices mattered and because of that it added something very speical we are missing in many modern games. Replay value. Why? Because you wanted to go back and see all the other options and how the played out different. Already because of the "Compermise" Thats been watered down and if ZM bends again, it will be watered down more and more till we have whats common today. Play threw once game that we had fun but replying it is not a big deal and most pass up on. I say make a real RPG where choices matter right from char creation and on. 

Trudge34

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

Originally posted by Maelwydd

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Much better to have different servers for different players. Letting people chose playstyle shards on a single server is a recipie for disaster in terms of cheats and exploits.

That might have been better had they not designed the game around 3 faction RvR with faction locked territories.

Even now the compromises they are making are not really that great because their original design is so restrictive and not open to being adjusted with ease.

But yes, if they had designed an open world then sperate playstyle servers would be a good compromise.

Instead they decided upon a restrictive design and a single megaserver. their wisdom in doing so will be judged after release.

IMO Morrowind was the best TES game to date and its for one big reason. Because when you made choices in the game it removed other options on that char you were playing when it came to game play and story. Your choices mattered and because of that it added something very speical we are missing in many modern games. Replay value. Why? Because you wanted to go back and see all the other options and how the played out different. Already because of the "Compermise" Thats been watered down and if ZM bends again, it will be watered down more and more till we have whats common today. Play threw once game that we had fun but replying it is not a big deal and most pass up on. I say make a real RPG where choices matter right from char creation and on. 

I still don't see a reason they couldn't have made the alliance part a choice done in game. Taking Skyrim for example, the choice between joining the Stormcloaks and the Imperial Legion. Joining one excludes you from doing anything with the other. Here they could have made you KOS to the other 3 factions while implementing some of the cities as harder group or raid content. Keeps the PvE players engaged in the 3 faction fight part of the game as well even though they aren't directly in the middle of the PvP in Cyrodill. 

jmcdermottuk

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Caliburn101

Originally posted by Maelwydd

So other then that is just how it is, why do you think there are faction locks?

There isn't a credible reason except that this is the way it was designed.

Indeed the counter argument to 'lets have freedom to explore' didn't have a 'gameworld' justification - it was merely based on the 'it's too late to change anything now/too much has already been programmed to redo it' argument.

This was of course deftly sidestepped by Zenimax who came up with a very clever compromise solution, proving the contention wrong.

It would have been just as valid to justify (in game world terms) no faction lock being in place due to the same kind of unbeleivable 'gentlemans agreement' which limits a thronewar to one area as the game stands.

But making gameworld sense of the war was never the point - putting in a previosuly successful PvP model was the round gameplay whole for the square plot peg.

Well, I think the reason is that in order to create a successful RvRvR (and this was suggested by others, including Nanfoodle) they went back to the one example of a "successful" game and are trying to capture the things that made DAoC successful.

part of this is the faction locks in order to "create realm pride".

But as I've said elsewhere, it's a bit ridiculous because it just doesn't feel like they wanted to make an Elder Scrolls game but wanted to make a RvR game. I mean, they didn't go back to what made the Elder Scrolls games successful and draw there there did they? They just used the built in lore so that they didn't have to creat an entirely new setting.

 

Something else to consider while we look at the success of DAoC and the decision to use it's RvR model:

At it's peak DAoC had almost 250k subs, less than half those of EQ, and also less than AC. This doesn't inspire confidence that a 3 faction RvR system is a guarentee of success.

One of DAoC's creators, Mark Jacobs, is currently trying to get funding for a new project. I'm sure you're all seen the many posts about it on the site. He's making a RvR centric game without the PvE and is fully aware that it's going to be a niche game with low sub numbers. While that's probably going to be due to the lack of PvE content, it also implies, again, that a 3 faction RvR system isn't the great saviour everyone makes it out to be.

It could be inferred from the above that 3 faction RvR lacks mass appeal. Is it really the best design choice they could have made?

GW2's recent success can't be laid at the feet of it's W v W v W either, basically due to the long queues people see. This tells us that the majority of GW2 players aren't actually playing in WvW but are doing something else, either PvE or SPvP. This isn't speculation, it's fact because of the limits placed on the numbers of players that are allowed into WvW at any one time.

Just more useless information to throw into the melting pot.

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by jmcdermottuk

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Caliburn101

Originally posted by Maelwydd

So other then that is just how it is, why do you think there are faction locks?

There isn't a credible reason except that this is the way it was designed.

Indeed the counter argument to 'lets have freedom to explore' didn't have a 'gameworld' justification - it was merely based on the 'it's too late to change anything now/too much has already been programmed to redo it' argument.

This was of course deftly sidestepped by Zenimax who came up with a very clever compromise solution, proving the contention wrong.

It would have been just as valid to justify (in game world terms) no faction lock being in place due to the same kind of unbeleivable 'gentlemans agreement' which limits a thronewar to one area as the game stands.

But making gameworld sense of the war was never the point - putting in a previosuly successful PvP model was the round gameplay whole for the square plot peg.

Well, I think the reason is that in order to create a successful RvRvR (and this was suggested by others, including Nanfoodle) they went back to the one example of a "successful" game and are trying to capture the things that made DAoC successful.

part of this is the faction locks in order to "create realm pride".

But as I've said elsewhere, it's a bit ridiculous because it just doesn't feel like they wanted to make an Elder Scrolls game but wanted to make a RvR game. I mean, they didn't go back to what made the Elder Scrolls games successful and draw there there did they? They just used the built in lore so that they didn't have to creat an entirely new setting.

 

Something else to consider while we look at the success of DAoC and the decision to use it's RvR model:

At it's peak DAoC had almost 250k subs, less than half those of EQ, and also less than AC. This doesn't inspire confidence that a 3 faction RvR system is a guarentee of success.

One of DAoC's creators, Mark Jacobs, is currently trying to get funding for a new project. I'm sure you're all seen the many posts about it on the site. He's making a RvR centric game without the PvE and is fully aware that it's going to be a niche game with low sub numbers. While that's probably going to be due to the lack of PvE content, it also implies, again, that a 3 faction RvR system isn't the great saviour everyone makes it out to be.

It could be inferred from the above that 3 faction RvR lacks mass appeal. Is it really the best design choice they could have made?

GW2's recent success can't be laid at the feet of it's W v W v W either, basically due to the long queues people see. This tells us that the majority of GW2 players aren't actually playing in WvW but are doing something else, either PvE or SPvP. This isn't speculation, it's fact because of the limits placed on the numbers of players that are allowed into WvW at any one time.

Just more useless information to throw into the melting pot.

Long Q times show not many are playing GW2 WvW? lol think on that for moment. The 2 servers I have played on in GW2 its a big deal for many guilds on the server. Its part of their reg guild events. 

ShakyMo

Jmc

I like ac too.

Ac NEVER had more subs than daoc.

It was always EQ number one, with daoc and swg battling it out for second place

Also EQ never had 500,000 subs. And it actually lost subs when daoc came out, as many vanilla EQ players switched to daoc as it had the same inclusive pve model (which EQ had lost due to instancing and tiered gear progression)

Vorthanion

Originally posted by Nanfoodle

Originally posted by jmcdermottuk

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Caliburn101

Originally posted by Maelwydd

So other then that is just how it is, why do you think there are faction locks?

There isn't a credible reason except that this is the way it was designed.

Indeed the counter argument to 'lets have freedom to explore' didn't have a 'gameworld' justification - it was merely based on the 'it's too late to change anything now/too much has already been programmed to redo it' argument.

This was of course deftly sidestepped by Zenimax who came up with a very clever compromise solution, proving the contention wrong.

It would have been just as valid to justify (in game world terms) no faction lock being in place due to the same kind of unbeleivable 'gentlemans agreement' which limits a thronewar to one area as the game stands.

But making gameworld sense of the war was never the point - putting in a previosuly successful PvP model was the round gameplay whole for the square plot peg.

Well, I think the reason is that in order to create a successful RvRvR (and this was suggested by others, including Nanfoodle) they went back to the one example of a "successful" game and are trying to capture the things that made DAoC successful.

part of this is the faction locks in order to "create realm pride".

But as I've said elsewhere, it's a bit ridiculous because it just doesn't feel like they wanted to make an Elder Scrolls game but wanted to make a RvR game. I mean, they didn't go back to what made the Elder Scrolls games successful and draw there there did they? They just used the built in lore so that they didn't have to creat an entirely new setting.

 

Something else to consider while we look at the success of DAoC and the decision to use it's RvR model:

At it's peak DAoC had almost 250k subs, less than half those of EQ, and also less than AC. This doesn't inspire confidence that a 3 faction RvR system is a guarentee of success.

One of DAoC's creators, Mark Jacobs, is currently trying to get funding for a new project. I'm sure you're all seen the many posts about it on the site. He's making a RvR centric game without the PvE and is fully aware that it's going to be a niche game with low sub numbers. While that's probably going to be due to the lack of PvE content, it also implies, again, that a 3 faction RvR system isn't the great saviour everyone makes it out to be.

It could be inferred from the above that 3 faction RvR lacks mass appeal. Is it really the best design choice they could have made?

GW2's recent success can't be laid at the feet of it's W v W v W either, basically due to the long queues people see. This tells us that the majority of GW2 players aren't actually playing in WvW but are doing something else, either PvE or SPvP. This isn't speculation, it's fact because of the limits placed on the numbers of players that are allowed into WvW at any one time.

Just more useless information to throw into the melting pot.

Long Q times show not many are playing GW2 WvW? lol think on that for moment. The 2 servers I have played on in GW2 its a big deal for many guilds on the server. Its part of their reg guild events. 

There can be a lot more factors to long queue times than having too many players.  In fact, having too many players should reduce the time it takes to find matches as they are instanced and are not subject to a previous instance ending first before they can start another.

ShakyMo

Trudge.
Because...
A) lame easymoders would all choose the current biggest faction.
because huge zerg guilds would develop making the game lob-sided, as everyone they recruit would end up picking that faction.

ShakyMo

Long queue times in gw2 WvW suggest it is over subscribed.

The game doesn't spawn multiple instances. There is 1 single copy of each zone. Making it instanced would defeat the purpose of it.

ShakyMo

P.s. WvW isn't a match.

Vorthanion

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Jmc

I like ac too.

Ac NEVER had more subs than daoc.

It was always EQ number one, with daoc and swg battling it out for second place

Also EQ never had 500,000 subs. And it actually lost subs when daoc came out, as many vanilla EQ players switched to daoc as it had the same inclusive pve model (which EQ had lost due to instancing and tiered gear progression)

According to wiki, EQ most likely peaked back in 2004 with more than 230,000 active subscriptions at about the time of the Planes of Power expansion.  That expansion by the way has been historically and anecdotally held responsible for the main decline of the game's population with its hardcore adherence to raiding and the addition of the plane of knowledge with its centralized market and teleport hub and the whole space kitties theme.   I know that Smedley had mentioned that the game had more than 2 million people try and leave the game, hence their efforts to capture those lost gamers with EQ2.

Nanfoodle

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Trudge.
Because...
A) lame easymoders would all choose the current biggest faction.
because huge zerg guilds would develop making the game lob-sided, as everyone they recruit would end up picking that faction.

That happened in DAoC as well. People jumpping servers to join the winning side. After a little time guilds started working together and tatics formed and we leanred to deal with zergs. The Abalonian faction I was part of was outnumbered by Midguards 3 and sometimes 4 to 1. Like I said in time we learned to deal with them. What a rush when 20-40 players wipe out 100+ players. It is down right fun.

ESO will have the same problem but given time it will balance out because people are smart and Zergs are dumb numbers.

Trudge34

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Trudge.
Because...
A) lame easymoders would all choose the current biggest faction.
because huge zerg guilds would develop making the game lob-sided, as everyone they recruit would end up picking that faction.

So what's stopping that from happening with the current model? Instead of in game recruiting they'll use the forums to see where everyone is going and pick a race from that faction. Not good enough reason for me.

ShakyMo

Yes nanfoodle a little bit

But it will happen a hell of a lot more if players levelled neutral then picked a faction later. They wouldn't have to reroll for a start.