I agree with ALL of this. I simply LOVED every one of these games except I never played Warhammer. I played SWG (pre-cu), Tabula Rasa ( I played it the last month it was up and it was the most fun FPS MMO I've ever touched). CoH/CoV will always be pretty amazing to me. Shadowbane is the first mmo I introduced to my friends and that is still the only one they ever wanted to play. They've tried so many others, but none even had that group feel and class uniqueness. Rune system to get special skills was also pretty cool.
Someone just needs to take the best part of all of these games and make something worthwhile. Hopefully blizzard is doing that with their complete remake of Titan...lol. I didn't like WoW, but I believe blizzard can make something unique/ atypical.
Originally posted by ste2000 WAR deserved to die as it was the first MMO that gave the start to this WoW clone craze that is plaguing the indudtry.
Warhammer was not the first WoW clone, and it didn't start the craze. However it is good that it's gone and won't be missed, because it was the first of this new wave of DAoC tri-faction PvP-centric PVE mmos that will all follow Warhammer Online to the trash pile shortly after release.
(Mark this post for future reference for it's oracle-like perceptiveness.)
do you truly believe DAoC's PvP was something atrocious and a system to be avoided like the plague
I've edited out the passive/aggressive garbage and just focused on the only discernible question in your post.
PvP in MMOs are a cop out. They remove any need for the game designers to create content and just hand the players a psuedo-FPS environment to run around and fight in. There is no adventure beyond that offered by Call of Duty or Battlefield. There is no story or world to explore, just some quick leveling and then endless, repetitive fights. The best tactics become obvious and are eventually countered with the best defenses and the devs have to nerf and buff and tweak the world to make any of it seem new.
You can't just walk to another part of the world to see something new or get involved in another story, because the world is always the same, a battlefield, and the story is always the same, a roving mass PvP fest... it's boring, and other games do it far better than the MMORPG genre, where level and gear are more important that aim and quick reflexes.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
Originally posted by ste2000 WAR deserved to die as it was the first MMO that gave the start to this WoW clone craze that is plaguing the indudtry.
Warhammer was not the first WoW clone, and it didn't start the craze. However it is good that it's gone and won't be missed, because it was the first of this new wave of DAoC tri-faction PvP-centric PVE mmos that will all follow Warhammer Online to the trash pile shortly after release.
(Mark this post for future reference for it's oracle-like perceptiveness.)
do you truly believe DAoC's PvP was something atrocious and a system to be avoided like the plague
I've edited out the passive/aggressive garbage and just focused on the only discernible question in your post.
PvP in MMOs are a cop out. They remove any need for the game designers to create content and just hand the players a psuedo-FPS environment to run around and fight in. There is no adventure beyond that offered by Call of Duty or Battlefield. There is no story or world to explore, just some quick leveling and then endless, repetitive fights. The best tactics become obvious and are eventually countered with the best defenses and the devs have to nerf and buff and tweak the world to make any of it seem new.
You can't just walk to another part of the world to see something new or get involved in another story, because the world is always the same, a battlefield, and the story is always the same, a roving mass PvP fest... it's boring, and other games do it far better than the MMORPG genre, where level and gear are more important that aim and quick reflexes.
But where, exactly, does that relate to tri-faction, keep siege, land control warfare?
Seems to me that your issue isn't with what made DAoC or tri-faction PvP unique, but what all PvP in MMOs have in common. The environments are static, keeps change hands (nowadays) with little to no consequence to players of each realm in the big picture, and the PvE component has taken a backseat to the PvP. I get your beef with that. Only two of the aforementioned apply to DAoC's lauded RvR system: static environments and PvE taking a backseat. As such, I agree MMO Devs should take a good, hard look at those areas and improve in the future.
Free-form siege warfare was a big thing WAR lacked. Zenimax got that right. However, (at least at release) Zeni forgot to create real and easily measurable consequences to PvP wins and losses. More than likely, because they did not want to scare off PvE players who disdain PvP. That becomes confusing, then, when they place a lot of PvE content inside the PvP area. It also backfires, as PvE players will just end up ganked and angry that said content is in Cyrodiil. I liked the Darkness Falls of DAoC much better; it provided a zone available only to the realm that owned the majority of the frontiers. PvE players could farm and/or grind here with relative impunity from the other realms, only coming out for PvP to help their fellow realmmates take the dungeon. To me, this is much easier to swallow (and overall, more enjoyable) than, "Well, we own the keep up there, so I guess it'd be safe to hit that camp..."
I would argue the PvE backseat countered by ESO's PvE side. Though I don't like the way Zenimax makes soloing the best possible method to progress, I don't think anyone can argue there's not a world to explore or a story to see unfold in the PvE zones.
In short, I just wasn't sure why you decided tri-faction (or the free form siege warfare of DAoC) was the evil to be avoided. I feel the areas to be avoided are more general PvP pitfalls.
I would kill set or and bring back swg in a heartbeat just for jump to lightspeed. NgE is what killed swg nothing else. The crafting features and freedom were just awesome. I mourn the advent of nge it killed my game.
Originally posted by ste2000 WAR deserved to die as it was the first MMO that gave the start to this WoW clone craze that is plaguing the indudtry.
Warhammer was not the first WoW clone, and it didn't start the craze. However it is good that it's gone and won't be missed, because it was the first of this new wave of DAoC tri-faction PvP-centric PVE mmos that will all follow Warhammer Online to the trash pile shortly after release.
(Mark this post for future reference for it's oracle-like perceptiveness.)
do you truly believe DAoC's PvP was something atrocious and a system to be avoided like the plague
I've edited out the passive/aggressive garbage and just focused on the only discernible question in your post.
PvP in MMOs are a cop out. They remove any need for the game designers to create content and just hand the players a psuedo-FPS environment to run around and fight in. There is no adventure beyond that offered by Call of Duty or Battlefield. There is no story or world to explore, just some quick leveling and then endless, repetitive fights. The best tactics become obvious and are eventually countered with the best defenses and the devs have to nerf and buff and tweak the world to make any of it seem new.
You can't just walk to another part of the world to see something new or get involved in another story, because the world is always the same, a battlefield, and the story is always the same, a roving mass PvP fest... it's boring, and other games do it far better than the MMORPG genre, where level and gear are more important that aim and quick reflexes.
But where, exactly, does that relate to tri-faction, keep siege, land control warfare?
Isn't that a subset of MMORPG PvP? If I have a problem with peppers why would I not have a problem with poblanos?
But the reason I called out Warhammer in this thread, is that first of all it was Mythic (or remnants of same) the makers of DAoC, and also this nostalgia for games that failed for reasons that keep being attempted (as if the time has come to repeat failure) spawns more of these attempts to mix oil and water.
Seems to me that your issue isn't with what made DAoC or tri-faction PvP unique, but what all PvP in MMOs have in common. The environments are static, keeps change hands (nowadays) with little to no consequence to players of each realm in the big picture, and the PvE component has taken a backseat to the PvP. I get your beef with that. Only two of the aforementioned apply to DAoC's lauded RvR system: static environments and PvE taking a backseat. As such, I agree MMO Devs should take a good, hard look at those areas and improve in the future.
Of course, I illustrated above that being uninterested in the superset obviously includes being uninterested in the subset.
But, since you bring it up, much of what was lauded about DAoC onvolved them being the only structured MMORPG PvP game at the time. (UO being open-world, and EQ being mostly PvE) And, the memories and nostalgia associated with it are simply the effect of playing any game for a long time.
Free-form siege warfare was a big thing WAR lacked. Zenimax got that right. However, (at least at release) Zeni forgot to create real and easily measurable consequences to PvP wins and losses. More than likely, because they did not want to scare off PvE players who disdain PvP. That becomes confusing, then, when they place a lot of PvE content inside the PvP area. It also backfires, as PvE players will just end up ganked and angry that said content is in Cyrodiil. I liked the Darkness Falls of DAoC much better; it provided a zone available only to the realm that owned the majority of the frontiers. PvE players could farm and/or grind here with relative impunity from the other realms, only coming out for PvP to help their fellow realmmates take the dungeon. To me, this is much easier to swallow (and overall, more enjoyable) than, "Well, we own the keep up there, so I guess it'd be safe to hit that camp..."
"However, (at least at release) Zeni forgot to create real and easily measurable consequences to PvP wins and losses."
Of course they didn't. Those can't be created in an MMORPG setting. you have to have winners and losers, you have to end the game when the situation becomes untenable for the losing side. This is the antithesis of the MMORPG which replicates Tabletop RPGs where they are defined by the fact that there are no winners and loses, and the end of the game isn't assumed as it would be in a more competitive game.
I would argue the PvE backseat countered by ESO's PvE side. Though I don't like the way Zenimax makes soloing the best possible method to progress, I don't think anyone can argue there's not a world to explore or a story to see unfold in the PvE zones.
And yet the existence of the PvP aspect of the game and the tri-faction set up means there were less development resources that could be committed to the PvE aspects of building the world and creating a richer story. Which means that the very nature of MMORPG PvP (ultimately an antithetic gamestyle) diminishes the over all game. Either make a competitive game with all efforts contributing to that, or make a cooperative game with all efforts contributing to that. the hybrid satisfies neither, and as I have shown, the cooperative nature of RPGs and the competitive nature of PvP gaming dilute the attributes of the other.
In short, I just wasn't sure why you decided tri-faction (or the free form siege warfare of DAoC) was the evil to be avoided. I feel the areas to be avoided are more general PvP pitfalls.
Yes, that MMORPGs make poor game types for PvP competition.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
I am not going to copy the post above, but I will address the problems with it.
DAoC still is one of the better pvp environments ever constructed. Mark Jacobs and Matt Frior took a hot commodity and killed it. What they did was put a very long and tedious quest line in one of their expansions that gave ridiculous powers to those that completed it. When a small group of people could control any area they felt like because of this, most of the population left and never returned. Instead of quickly recognizing the problem, they just made minor modifications which did not address the problem with the very overpowered skillsets.
In this genre, when you make a major mistake and don't address it quickly, you will most probably lose most of the people effected and they probably won't be returning as was the case with DAoC
UO killed their game in a similar manner. In UO's case they added equipment that gave major advantages in pvp. People like to play on a even playing field, once you tilt it in someone's favor the majority of your player base will leave.
To this day, the most fun pvp I have ever had in a game was in DAoC. There has yet to be another pvp game that has even come close to it. Even UO pvp prior to the Age of Shadows expansion was a lot more fun than most of the current pvp offerings. Every time I see a new pvp game come out I end up wondering why the developers are so clueless to not grasp the fun aspects of pvp that were in prior games.
Getting back to Warhammer, Mystic just completely ignored what was fun in DAoC, now there is a caveat to this, GamesWorkshop was responsible for the design direction. So it was not all Mythic's fault Warhammer never lived up to DAoC's reputation.
Lesson to be learned here, don't play any game that has GamesWorkshop's stamp on it.
I agree with CoX and SWG on that list being #1 and 2.. I had forgotten about E&B.. and not sure if Vanguard.. In any case I think most of the games on this list died because of POOR devs, not poor games ideas.. I think CoX , SWG, E&B and Vanguard could all survive today under the direction of skilled and competent developers..
That said, I fully agree with Shadowbane. The game had a lot of issues, yes. But despite those issues, people enjoyed it and it was quite an active game. The character creation and development is/was among the deepest I've ever seen in a RPG period, much less a MMO. Would be great if someone were somehow able to bring back at least one server for folks. It wouldn't have a huge, booming population, but it would be sufficient for those people to have a game back that they enjoy. Turbine managed it with AC2. I'm sure whom ever owns SB at this point could do the same; or sell it to someone else who could.
It's a damn shame about CoH/CoV. I still can't believe the game wasn't doing well enough for NC to keep it going in any capacity. Though, I've been seeing murmurs about some deal being made to bring it back... as in officially.. not as a private server so.. perhaps its demise was temporary...
One that's not on this list, whose death rattle began long before the plug was pulled was MxO. If Monolith had been able to keep up with the game, squash the bugs and improve on the parts that hindered it (rather clunky implementation of an otherwise awesome combat system, and extremely repetitive mission areas, to name two), MxO could have grown to become an amazing game. It had the Wachowskis writing the continuing storyline. It captured the Matrix feel very well, it had Monolith staff playing the roles of various key characters and engaging in on-going events and activities with the players, it had an awesome crafting system, it had the 3 faction system people seem to love (Zion, Machines and Merv). It had an awesome community (one of the best I've ever seen in a MMO, hands-down, by miles) that actually participated in a lot of events in-game that had nothing to do with leveling or grinding, such as combat tournaments, parties with live DJ's streaming, "fashion" contests, etc. It was just an awesome experience, and it just sucks what happened to it.
I say it had an extended death rattle because it got the SOE treatment: they bought it, sat on it for a few years while making few, if any, improvements to it, and basically let it die on the vine. Pretty much the same thing they did with Vanguard for a while, except for their half-hearted attempt to revive it at the end.
Tabula Rasa was not running for 4 months. It was running for 16 months from 10, 2007 to 02, 2009. The author of the article did obviously not play the game AT ALL, and just glimpsed the years without even bothering to get it right.
Couldn't agree more with this list except I hardly played Tabula Rasa, pretty sure its being remade though? almost certain I found somewhere that was doing alpha/beta and paid for access to it. Didn't stick around though cus it was barely different from before and I wasn't that ito it as I said.
But where, exactly, does that relate to tri-faction, keep siege, land control warfare?
Isn't that a subset of MMORPG PvP? If I have a problem with peppers why would I not have a problem with poblanos?
But the reason I called out Warhammer in this thread, is that first of all it was Mythic (or remnants of same) the makers of DAoC, and also this nostalgia for games that failed for reasons that keep being attempted (as if the time has come to repeat failure) spawns more of these attempts to mix oil and water.
Seems to me that your issue isn't with what made DAoC or tri-faction PvP unique, but what all PvP in MMOs have in common. The environments are static, keeps change hands (nowadays) with little to no consequence to players of each realm in the big picture, and the PvE component has taken a backseat to the PvP. I get your beef with that. Only two of the aforementioned apply to DAoC's lauded RvR system: static environments and PvE taking a backseat. As such, I agree MMO Devs should take a good, hard look at those areas and improve in the future.
Of course, I illustrated above that being uninterested in the superset obviously includes being uninterested in the subset.
But, since you bring it up, much of what was lauded about DAoC onvolved them being the only structured MMORPG PvP game at the time. (UO being open-world, and EQ being mostly PvE) And, the memories and nostalgia associated with it are simply the effect of playing any game for a long time.
Free-form siege warfare was a big thing WAR lacked. Zenimax got that right. However, (at least at release) Zeni forgot to create real and easily measurable consequences to PvP wins and losses. More than likely, because they did not want to scare off PvE players who disdain PvP. That becomes confusing, then, when they place a lot of PvE content inside the PvP area. It also backfires, as PvE players will just end up ganked and angry that said content is in Cyrodiil. I liked the Darkness Falls of DAoC much better; it provided a zone available only to the realm that owned the majority of the frontiers. PvE players could farm and/or grind here with relative impunity from the other realms, only coming out for PvP to help their fellow realmmates take the dungeon. To me, this is much easier to swallow (and overall, more enjoyable) than, "Well, we own the keep up there, so I guess it'd be safe to hit that camp..."
"However, (at least at release) Zeni forgot to create real and easily measurable consequences to PvP wins and losses."
Of course they didn't. Those can't be created in an MMORPG setting. you have to have winners and losers, you have to end the game when the situation becomes untenable for the losing side. This is the antithesis of the MMORPG which replicates Tabletop RPGs where they are defined by the fact that there are no winners and loses, and the end of the game isn't assumed as it would be in a more competitive game.
I would argue the PvE backseat countered by ESO's PvE side. Though I don't like the way Zenimax makes soloing the best possible method to progress, I don't think anyone can argue there's not a world to explore or a story to see unfold in the PvE zones.
And yet the existence of the PvP aspect of the game and the tri-faction set up means there were less development resources that could be committed to the PvE aspects of building the world and creating a richer story. Which means that the very nature of MMORPG PvP (ultimately an antithetic gamestyle) diminishes the over all game. Either make a competitive game with all efforts contributing to that, or make a cooperative game with all efforts contributing to that. the hybrid satisfies neither, and as I have shown, the cooperative nature of RPGs and the competitive nature of PvP gaming dilute the attributes of the other.
In short, I just wasn't sure why you decided tri-faction (or the free form siege warfare of DAoC) was the evil to be avoided. I feel the areas to be avoided are more general PvP pitfalls.
Yes, that MMORPGs make poor game types for PvP competition.
There are many things in life in which I have particular tastes. General disinterest in a superset does not always mean complete disinterest.
Case in point: I do not like instanced MMO PvP. The CTF type game modes need to remain with the genre they were borrowed from, in my opinion. I do enjoy large-scale, siege warfare in an MMO. I think it fits the IPs, the flavor, and is a great way to create a massive-scale PvP environment with today's technology. If Battlefield could manage huge battlefields with hundreds of players on either side without it becoming a total mess of latency, they would. It's the sheer scale of MMOs that provide one of its main advantages over other genres. Why not apply this to PvP in said genre? Those that enjoy PvP and RPGs can enjoy both.
A winner or loser does not require the game to end. If a realm takes a keep, they were the winners of that siege. The defenders were the losers. If defenders don't see a reason to defend the keep (going back to our conversation about real consequences to PvP), they won't bother. Keep trading runs rampant, because it's all about grinding those sweet, sweet PvP points. However, when there are, say, access to entire zones at stake (zones that provide resources and additional content to be experienced by the players of that realm), players tend to put more effort into holding previously taken keeps. Then, winners and losers become tiered: a realm may lose a keep, but still be winning the war (and enjoying the benefits of winning). This does not require either side to eventually surrender unconditionally to another and create peace (though in some MMOs it may).
There is no end to most MMO wars, because that would normally imply the developers arbitrarily removd an entire game system simply to finish a story they were not scripting in the first place. I don't think that would ever be a good idea. Best to let the war rage on, only stepping in to help struggling realm populations or fix broken things.
I'm also not understanding how large-scale PvP is the antithesis to cooperation in an MMO. Sure, there are notoriously rude folks out and about in the PvP lands of the MMO horizon, but there isn't a lack of cooperation. Players need not be in TeamSpeak chatting strategy or typing out a plan to one another to cooperate. By definition, PvP requires competition. But, also by definition, PvP also requires or, at the very least, encourages cooperation (unless it's a duel). Where there's a team, and "us and them," there's cooperation. The levels can be debated, but any level qualifies.
Not everyone wants to PvP. Those players don't have to. But to say that it's an antithesis is to say your definition of what the game should be is the only right one. PvE can be learned. It can be memorized, entire dungeons can be planned down to the smallest detail because AI responds the same way to the same stimulus. People do not. People are (relatively) unpredictable. This is one of the core reasons folks enjoy PvPing. And I don't believe wanting an opponent who isn't on rails defined by the developers makes for an antithesis to an entire genre.
A winner or loser does not require the game to end. If a realm takes a keep, they were the winners of that siege. The defenders were the losers. If defenders don't see a reason to defend the keep (going back to our conversation about real consequences to PvP), they won't bother. Keep trading runs rampant, because it's all about grinding those sweet, sweet PvP points. However, when there are, say, access to entire zones at stake (zones that provide resources and additional content to be experienced by the players of that realm), players tend to put more effort into holding previously taken keeps. Then, winners and losers become tiered: a realm may lose a keep, but still be winning the war (and enjoying the benefits of winning). This does not require either side to eventually surrender unconditionally to another and create peace (though in some MMOs it may).
In your first reply, you mentioned meaningful changes to the game based on player actions in PvP. Now you deny the importance of a final win or loss bringing an end to the game (The game, not the MMO)
These are irreconcilable goals. If you have meaningful changes to the game in favor of the winner then the losing side becomes perpetually disadvantaged. Only calling an end to the game and labeling a winner with a reset in the game will fix that situation.
What happens in an unregulated open world PvP MMO when one guild takes over the territory of all the other players? (Which could happen as more players leave their disadvantaged and losing guild to jump on the winning team. Because if they can't change sides and they are always losing they will leave the game period.) When this happens, you are left with meaningful changes (the guild owns the entire game world) and also the situation will never change because there will never be an end and a winner declared.
Territory claiming, meaningful changes and MMORPGs do not mix as I stated in the last post. You have to either give up meaningful changes, or have a definite win/lose ending.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
A winner or loser does not require the game to end. If a realm takes a keep, they were the winners of that siege. The defenders were the losers. If defenders don't see a reason to defend the keep (going back to our conversation about real consequences to PvP), they won't bother. Keep trading runs rampant, because it's all about grinding those sweet, sweet PvP points. However, when there are, say, access to entire zones at stake (zones that provide resources and additional content to be experienced by the players of that realm), players tend to put more effort into holding previously taken keeps. Then, winners and losers become tiered: a realm may lose a keep, but still be winning the war (and enjoying the benefits of winning). This does not require either side to eventually surrender unconditionally to another and create peace (though in some MMOs it may).
In your first reply, you mentioned meaningful changes to the game based on player actions in PvP. Now you deny the importance of a final win or loss bringing an end to the game (The game, not the MMO)
These are irreconcilable goals. If you have meaningful changes to the game in favor of the winner then the losing side becomes perpetually disadvantaged. Only calling an end to the game and labeling a winner with a reset in the game will fix that situation.
What happens in an unregulated open world PvP MMO when one guild takes over the territory of all the other players? (Which could happen as more players leave their disadvantaged and losing guild to jump on the winning team. Because if they can't change sides and they are always losing they will leave the game period.) When this happens, you are left with meaningful changes (the guild owns the entire game world) and also the situation will never change because there will never be an end and a winner declared.
Territory claiming, meaningful changes and MMORPGs do not mix as I stated in the last post. You have to either give up meaningful changes, or have a definite win/lose ending.
You're right; so long as the winning side gains an advantage in that same PvP system, it creates a positive feedback loop in which the losing side is continually discouraged from resisting the winning side. That is a poisonous effect for a PvP in an MMO.
This is where I found the brilliance of a little zone called Darkness Falls to be most evident. In effect, Darkness Falls created a sort of negative feedback loop: once it opened, players who had been PvPing in order to gain access left the PvP grounds to go enjoy the spoils, as it were. This helped to create a shift in the realm PvP population share, meaning the losing side gained a small advantage in terms of numbers to fight back.
I'm not even sure Mythic considered this when including the dungeon and the system for accessing it. But it was a step in the right direction. Groups would descend upon the zone as soon as it changed hands to wipe the other realms from it and pave the way for lower level or PvE farming groups to enter and gather experience and/or resources. It was a beautiful thing.
I think this is the type of system that should be used constantly in PvP-focused MMOs. Content that draws players away form the PvP arena, but only while they are winning against the other realm(s). It's a catch-22 that helps equalize the playing field. Players can continue to dominate the PvP field, but doing so requires an abnormally large percentage of their realm continuing to participate. These players choose not to take advantage of the extra content they unlocked through their conquest, or many choose to leave the PvP areas to enjoy them. The larger the territory owned by the realm, the more manning needed to defend it. Throw in 2 other realms that will be attacking on different fronts (most of the time), and no realm can hold such a majority as to discourage the other two realms from participating (without gross population imbalances). Adjust both the content and the territories to create a war in which a realm can gain the advantage, but in which it becomes cumbersome to keep after a certain point.
There need not be a final winner or loser. Only the current winner and loser, and the effects built into the game to help equalize these participants in the overall scheme of things. The advantages to winning need not be permanent. Only worth the effort.
However, this system requires the developers to avoid using megaservers. I'm not sure how popular that is anymore, but for such an enjoyable and far-reaching PvP-focused MMO, I think it's worth foregoing.
I would love to see a progression based game like SWG "used" to be before it was killed by the NGE. Sci-Fi or Fantasy, i don't care. The skill progression system was and still is my favorite way to level. TSW does a fairly decent job of that. Warhammer to me was a great game that wasn't really given a chance by people who didn't want to grind out the pve levels. PvP was a blast in that game.
Comments
I agree with ALL of this. I simply LOVED every one of these games except I never played Warhammer. I played SWG (pre-cu), Tabula Rasa ( I played it the last month it was up and it was the most fun FPS MMO I've ever touched). CoH/CoV will always be pretty amazing to me. Shadowbane is the first mmo I introduced to my friends and that is still the only one they ever wanted to play. They've tried so many others, but none even had that group feel and class uniqueness. Rune system to get special skills was also pretty cool.
Someone just needs to take the best part of all of these games and make something worthwhile. Hopefully blizzard is doing that with their complete remake of Titan...lol. I didn't like WoW, but I believe blizzard can make something unique/ atypical.
I've edited out the passive/aggressive garbage and just focused on the only discernible question in your post.
PvP in MMOs are a cop out. They remove any need for the game designers to create content and just hand the players a psuedo-FPS environment to run around and fight in. There is no adventure beyond that offered by Call of Duty or Battlefield. There is no story or world to explore, just some quick leveling and then endless, repetitive fights. The best tactics become obvious and are eventually countered with the best defenses and the devs have to nerf and buff and tweak the world to make any of it seem new.
You can't just walk to another part of the world to see something new or get involved in another story, because the world is always the same, a battlefield, and the story is always the same, a roving mass PvP fest... it's boring, and other games do it far better than the MMORPG genre, where level and gear are more important that aim and quick reflexes.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
But where, exactly, does that relate to tri-faction, keep siege, land control warfare?
Seems to me that your issue isn't with what made DAoC or tri-faction PvP unique, but what all PvP in MMOs have in common. The environments are static, keeps change hands (nowadays) with little to no consequence to players of each realm in the big picture, and the PvE component has taken a backseat to the PvP. I get your beef with that. Only two of the aforementioned apply to DAoC's lauded RvR system: static environments and PvE taking a backseat. As such, I agree MMO Devs should take a good, hard look at those areas and improve in the future.
Free-form siege warfare was a big thing WAR lacked. Zenimax got that right. However, (at least at release) Zeni forgot to create real and easily measurable consequences to PvP wins and losses. More than likely, because they did not want to scare off PvE players who disdain PvP. That becomes confusing, then, when they place a lot of PvE content inside the PvP area. It also backfires, as PvE players will just end up ganked and angry that said content is in Cyrodiil. I liked the Darkness Falls of DAoC much better; it provided a zone available only to the realm that owned the majority of the frontiers. PvE players could farm and/or grind here with relative impunity from the other realms, only coming out for PvP to help their fellow realmmates take the dungeon. To me, this is much easier to swallow (and overall, more enjoyable) than, "Well, we own the keep up there, so I guess it'd be safe to hit that camp..."
I would argue the PvE backseat countered by ESO's PvE side. Though I don't like the way Zenimax makes soloing the best possible method to progress, I don't think anyone can argue there's not a world to explore or a story to see unfold in the PvE zones.
In short, I just wasn't sure why you decided tri-faction (or the free form siege warfare of DAoC) was the evil to be avoided. I feel the areas to be avoided are more general PvP pitfalls.
The crafting features and freedom were just awesome. I mourn the advent of nge it killed my game.
Isn't that a subset of MMORPG PvP? If I have a problem with peppers why would I not have a problem with poblanos?
But the reason I called out Warhammer in this thread, is that first of all it was Mythic (or remnants of same) the makers of DAoC, and also this nostalgia for games that failed for reasons that keep being attempted (as if the time has come to repeat failure) spawns more of these attempts to mix oil and water.
Of course, I illustrated above that being uninterested in the superset obviously includes being uninterested in the subset.
But, since you bring it up, much of what was lauded about DAoC onvolved them being the only structured MMORPG PvP game at the time. (UO being open-world, and EQ being mostly PvE) And, the memories and nostalgia associated with it are simply the effect of playing any game for a long time.
"However, (at least at release) Zeni forgot to create real and easily measurable consequences to PvP wins and losses."
Of course they didn't. Those can't be created in an MMORPG setting. you have to have winners and losers, you have to end the game when the situation becomes untenable for the losing side. This is the antithesis of the MMORPG which replicates Tabletop RPGs where they are defined by the fact that there are no winners and loses, and the end of the game isn't assumed as it would be in a more competitive game.
And yet the existence of the PvP aspect of the game and the tri-faction set up means there were less development resources that could be committed to the PvE aspects of building the world and creating a richer story. Which means that the very nature of MMORPG PvP (ultimately an antithetic gamestyle) diminishes the over all game. Either make a competitive game with all efforts contributing to that, or make a cooperative game with all efforts contributing to that. the hybrid satisfies neither, and as I have shown, the cooperative nature of RPGs and the competitive nature of PvP gaming dilute the attributes of the other.
Yes, that MMORPGs make poor game types for PvP competition.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
I am not going to copy the post above, but I will address the problems with it.
DAoC still is one of the better pvp environments ever constructed. Mark Jacobs and Matt Frior took a hot commodity and killed it. What they did was put a very long and tedious quest line in one of their expansions that gave ridiculous powers to those that completed it. When a small group of people could control any area they felt like because of this, most of the population left and never returned. Instead of quickly recognizing the problem, they just made minor modifications which did not address the problem with the very overpowered skillsets.
In this genre, when you make a major mistake and don't address it quickly, you will most probably lose most of the people effected and they probably won't be returning as was the case with DAoC
UO killed their game in a similar manner. In UO's case they added equipment that gave major advantages in pvp. People like to play on a even playing field, once you tilt it in someone's favor the majority of your player base will leave.
To this day, the most fun pvp I have ever had in a game was in DAoC. There has yet to be another pvp game that has even come close to it. Even UO pvp prior to the Age of Shadows expansion was a lot more fun than most of the current pvp offerings. Every time I see a new pvp game come out I end up wondering why the developers are so clueless to not grasp the fun aspects of pvp that were in prior games.
Getting back to Warhammer, Mystic just completely ignored what was fun in DAoC, now there is a caveat to this, GamesWorkshop was responsible for the design direction. So it was not all Mythic's fault Warhammer never lived up to DAoC's reputation.
Lesson to be learned here, don't play any game that has GamesWorkshop's stamp on it.
I'll forever miss CoX... It spent a number of years as a game home for me.
I'm currently playing MH2015 and getting a bit of the feel I got in CoX, but it's still a pale imitation.
CoX is definitely an IP that I wish hadn't tied itself to NCSoft... It would still be alive and kicking had it not.
Hmm.. Just wanted to add this before I post my response to the thread:
Ryzom is still running.
That said, I fully agree with Shadowbane. The game had a lot of issues, yes. But despite those issues, people enjoyed it and it was quite an active game. The character creation and development is/was among the deepest I've ever seen in a RPG period, much less a MMO. Would be great if someone were somehow able to bring back at least one server for folks. It wouldn't have a huge, booming population, but it would be sufficient for those people to have a game back that they enjoy. Turbine managed it with AC2. I'm sure whom ever owns SB at this point could do the same; or sell it to someone else who could.
It's a damn shame about CoH/CoV. I still can't believe the game wasn't doing well enough for NC to keep it going in any capacity. Though, I've been seeing murmurs about some deal being made to bring it back... as in officially.. not as a private server so.. perhaps its demise was temporary...
One that's not on this list, whose death rattle began long before the plug was pulled was MxO. If Monolith had been able to keep up with the game, squash the bugs and improve on the parts that hindered it (rather clunky implementation of an otherwise awesome combat system, and extremely repetitive mission areas, to name two), MxO could have grown to become an amazing game. It had the Wachowskis writing the continuing storyline. It captured the Matrix feel very well, it had Monolith staff playing the roles of various key characters and engaging in on-going events and activities with the players, it had an awesome crafting system, it had the 3 faction system people seem to love (Zion, Machines and Merv). It had an awesome community (one of the best I've ever seen in a MMO, hands-down, by miles) that actually participated in a lot of events in-game that had nothing to do with leveling or grinding, such as combat tournaments, parties with live DJ's streaming, "fashion" contests, etc. It was just an awesome experience, and it just sucks what happened to it.
I say it had an extended death rattle because it got the SOE treatment: they bought it, sat on it for a few years while making few, if any, improvements to it, and basically let it die on the vine. Pretty much the same thing they did with Vanguard for a while, except for their half-hearted attempt to revive it at the end.
REALITY CHECK
There are many things in life in which I have particular tastes. General disinterest in a superset does not always mean complete disinterest.
Case in point: I do not like instanced MMO PvP. The CTF type game modes need to remain with the genre they were borrowed from, in my opinion. I do enjoy large-scale, siege warfare in an MMO. I think it fits the IPs, the flavor, and is a great way to create a massive-scale PvP environment with today's technology. If Battlefield could manage huge battlefields with hundreds of players on either side without it becoming a total mess of latency, they would. It's the sheer scale of MMOs that provide one of its main advantages over other genres. Why not apply this to PvP in said genre? Those that enjoy PvP and RPGs can enjoy both.
A winner or loser does not require the game to end. If a realm takes a keep, they were the winners of that siege. The defenders were the losers. If defenders don't see a reason to defend the keep (going back to our conversation about real consequences to PvP), they won't bother. Keep trading runs rampant, because it's all about grinding those sweet, sweet PvP points. However, when there are, say, access to entire zones at stake (zones that provide resources and additional content to be experienced by the players of that realm), players tend to put more effort into holding previously taken keeps. Then, winners and losers become tiered: a realm may lose a keep, but still be winning the war (and enjoying the benefits of winning). This does not require either side to eventually surrender unconditionally to another and create peace (though in some MMOs it may).
There is no end to most MMO wars, because that would normally imply the developers arbitrarily removd an entire game system simply to finish a story they were not scripting in the first place. I don't think that would ever be a good idea. Best to let the war rage on, only stepping in to help struggling realm populations or fix broken things.
I'm also not understanding how large-scale PvP is the antithesis to cooperation in an MMO. Sure, there are notoriously rude folks out and about in the PvP lands of the MMO horizon, but there isn't a lack of cooperation. Players need not be in TeamSpeak chatting strategy or typing out a plan to one another to cooperate. By definition, PvP requires competition. But, also by definition, PvP also requires or, at the very least, encourages cooperation (unless it's a duel). Where there's a team, and "us and them," there's cooperation. The levels can be debated, but any level qualifies.
Not everyone wants to PvP. Those players don't have to. But to say that it's an antithesis is to say your definition of what the game should be is the only right one. PvE can be learned. It can be memorized, entire dungeons can be planned down to the smallest detail because AI responds the same way to the same stimulus. People do not. People are (relatively) unpredictable. This is one of the core reasons folks enjoy PvPing. And I don't believe wanting an opponent who isn't on rails defined by the developers makes for an antithesis to an entire genre.
In your first reply, you mentioned meaningful changes to the game based on player actions in PvP. Now you deny the importance of a final win or loss bringing an end to the game (The game, not the MMO)
These are irreconcilable goals. If you have meaningful changes to the game in favor of the winner then the losing side becomes perpetually disadvantaged. Only calling an end to the game and labeling a winner with a reset in the game will fix that situation.
What happens in an unregulated open world PvP MMO when one guild takes over the territory of all the other players? (Which could happen as more players leave their disadvantaged and losing guild to jump on the winning team. Because if they can't change sides and they are always losing they will leave the game period.) When this happens, you are left with meaningful changes (the guild owns the entire game world) and also the situation will never change because there will never be an end and a winner declared.
Territory claiming, meaningful changes and MMORPGs do not mix as I stated in the last post. You have to either give up meaningful changes, or have a definite win/lose ending.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
You're right; so long as the winning side gains an advantage in that same PvP system, it creates a positive feedback loop in which the losing side is continually discouraged from resisting the winning side. That is a poisonous effect for a PvP in an MMO.
This is where I found the brilliance of a little zone called Darkness Falls to be most evident. In effect, Darkness Falls created a sort of negative feedback loop: once it opened, players who had been PvPing in order to gain access left the PvP grounds to go enjoy the spoils, as it were. This helped to create a shift in the realm PvP population share, meaning the losing side gained a small advantage in terms of numbers to fight back.
I'm not even sure Mythic considered this when including the dungeon and the system for accessing it. But it was a step in the right direction. Groups would descend upon the zone as soon as it changed hands to wipe the other realms from it and pave the way for lower level or PvE farming groups to enter and gather experience and/or resources. It was a beautiful thing.
I think this is the type of system that should be used constantly in PvP-focused MMOs. Content that draws players away form the PvP arena, but only while they are winning against the other realm(s). It's a catch-22 that helps equalize the playing field. Players can continue to dominate the PvP field, but doing so requires an abnormally large percentage of their realm continuing to participate. These players choose not to take advantage of the extra content they unlocked through their conquest, or many choose to leave the PvP areas to enjoy them. The larger the territory owned by the realm, the more manning needed to defend it. Throw in 2 other realms that will be attacking on different fronts (most of the time), and no realm can hold such a majority as to discourage the other two realms from participating (without gross population imbalances). Adjust both the content and the territories to create a war in which a realm can gain the advantage, but in which it becomes cumbersome to keep after a certain point.
There need not be a final winner or loser. Only the current winner and loser, and the effects built into the game to help equalize these participants in the overall scheme of things. The advantages to winning need not be permanent. Only worth the effort.
However, this system requires the developers to avoid using megaservers. I'm not sure how popular that is anymore, but for such an enjoyable and far-reaching PvP-focused MMO, I think it's worth foregoing.