What happens if you pick the wrong side ?

delete5230

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?  

Difference between Guild Wars2 and Ashes of Creation is GW2 was instanced PvP and the world activities for PvE didn't change for better/worst !  

This may effect how much fun PvE is for the loosing side. 

Sovrath

delete5230 said:

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?

get people together to make it the winning side?

Ungood

I have not played this game, so I do not know intimately how the PvP system works, but, every game I have played where I picked the wrong side.. kinda sucks. Never stopped me from fighting to the death and beyond, but.. still, kinda sucked.

Albatroes

Well, one thing that is supposedly in development for Pantheon is the ability to become friendly with "enemy" factions through rep or something I do believe (someone can clarify if I'm wrong) which will be excellent for the game's longevity if true. The main issue with faction systems over time is that 75% of a game's general population does pve more so than pvp, which is kind of why I respect how blade and soul does some things via the costume system. In there, you're able to just put on a costume representing your faction if you want to do pvp but it doesn't split the general population for pve. You're also able to switch between factions every so often incase you prefer one over the other. Personally, I feel that is the best way to do things or something similar.

Bladeburaiba

Most often for me, picking the wrong side has been picking the least populous side, by a factor of 2.

I'm going to get in trouble for advocating "realism" here.  You can overcome numbers often because in real life, there are real disadvantages when you have a lot of numbers.  Less coordination, starvation, pay, less mobility, harder to communicate, longer training, etc.

In games, numbers advantage is multiplied exponentially, with none of the weaknesses.  You actually move faster than small groups because of more people, more buffs.  No communication problem, because just chat in region.  I can go on and on.

It gets boring for both sides when the smaller side has a 10% chance to win.

TheScavenger

Sovrath said:

delete5230 said:

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?

get people together to make it the winning side?

When has that ever worked? In DAOC, there was a side that won the vast majority of time. Lots of people moved to the faction that won the majority of the time. That made the other two factions far less populated, even when they both allied together they were too outnumbered (most of the time).

In GW2, people choose the "winning" server and win the majority of the time

In ESO, same thing

The vast majority of people are going to choose the side that wins. Or the side that is most populated (as seen in WoW, most people choose the popular faction of whatever is popular on that server)

No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.

delete5230

Sovrath said:

delete5230 said:

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?

get people together to make it the winning side?

Not to be sarcastic but then the winning side will then be the loosing side, will the game suck for them....... In other words, it's gonna suck for a lot of people ! 

TheScavenger

delete5230 said:

Sovrath said:

delete5230 said:

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?

get people together to make it the winning side?

Not to be sarcastic but then the winning side will then be the loosing side, will the game suck for them....... In other words, it's gonna suck for a lot of people ! 

Planetside 1 and 2 it works pretty well. Its a game about true player skill, not overpowered items or overpowered characters. Its real true PvP. But the way they made it is really good. One side can win in one planet, but lose on another planet. Then if one side conquers all, it gets "reset" so everyone has a chance. Its best PvP I've encountered in an MMO.

If AoC does something like how Planetside works, then I can see it working really well. 

Bladeburaiba

TheScavenger said:

No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.

I did actually, when I played Regnum.  I said "Let me find the losing realm and help them become a winner."  Hubris, and hackers.

Ungood

@TheScavenger

Yup.. Alibon.. the only side that Zerg as a class.

Galadourn

there aren't any losing or winning sides...just different content locked behind the dominant culture in each node. On a player level it should make almost no difference.

TheScavenger

Bladeburaiba said:

TheScavenger said:

No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.

I did actually, when I played Regnum.  I said "Let me find the losing realm and help them become a winner."  Hubris, and hackers.

Well, I'll give you an awesome cause I'm in a good mood today. Plus. Cause most people are going to join the most populated side or/and the winning side. Which end up in huge overpowering zergs lol. 

At least it sounds like you just play the game and have fun and TRY to win. Instead of going all easy mode lol.

Dvora

I always liked being on the lower populated side in open world pvp at least.  Often if you're on the bandwagoning winning side you have a much harder time finding a worthy target.  Of course if it goes too far and the zones are too small and have too many chokepoints it may always be 10 vs 1 which is not fun. 

Unless the game is extremely poorly balanced though it rarely goes that far.  If it does the game is probably dead anyway.

Dvora

Bladeburaiba said:

TheScavenger said:

No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.

I did actually, when I played Regnum.  I said "Let me find the losing realm and help them become a winner."  Hubris, and hackers.

Ya more people than TheScavenger thinks do actually choose the lesser populated side intentionally.  It's certainly not nobody.

Tiller

"Which side to choose? Halp" I remember back when Aion launched this was a thing and it didn't work out well.

Dagon13

TheScavenger said:

Sovrath said:

delete5230 said:

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?

get people together to make it the winning side?

When has that ever worked? In DAOC, there was a side that won the vast majority of time. Lots of people moved to the faction that won the majority of the time. That made the other two factions far less populated, even when they both allied together they were too outnumbered (most of the time).

In GW2, people choose the "winning" server and win the majority of the time

In ESO, same thing

The vast majority of people are going to choose the side that wins. Or the side that is most populated (as seen in WoW, most people choose the popular faction of whatever is popular on that server)

No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.

Doesn't this kind of represent real human behavior?

I think there is a problem with relevancy of PvP in MMOs.  Sure, it's fun to slug it out sometimes but the real "suck" kicks in when you've had one "static" fight after another.  If a faction is so overwhelmed, it should disappear.  It's members should be absorbed by the conqueror, allowed to escape to another faction, or forced into small rebel sub-factions.

I just feel like PvP in MMOs has been limited by arcade-y win/loss conditions when it could be so much more.  

Wizardry

I feel more sorry if you pick this game at all.This game burst onto the scene with nothing more than paid marketing.People get caught up in hyped crap far too often,i mean nobody has played the game and TOO many already can't wait to play it.
The intelligent thing to do is WAIT and see,see if there is really anything there that we haven't already seen and played too much of.One or two hyped systems does not make a game and i am not even sure those systems are any good.

Poster above mentions arcade=pvp,you are pretty much dead on with that statement but this is what so many pvpr's constantly cry for.Arcade silliness ruins it completely for me,somersaults and super fast spammy combat,NO THANKS.There is a whole new wave of gamer's come out the last 5 or so years with a very different mindset for GOOD quality gaming,they seem to me to be a very superficial bunch,just give them pvp and they are all giddy.

Just look at what has become popular,VERY cheap low budget games that support pvp and are all one trick ponies.I have known for a long time but devs are just now cashing in on players intellect to pay a lot more money in pvp games,way more than a rpg gamer.

Tiller

DMKano said:

Present day USA is what happens.

At least in games choosing badly doesn't have any real life repercussions

Sovrath

delete5230 said:

Sovrath said:

delete5230 said:

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?

get people together to make it the winning side?

Not to be sarcastic but then the winning side will then be the loosing side, will the game suck for them....... In other words, it's gonna suck for a lot of people ! 

Maybe I'm spoiled by all the excellent people on the Hindemith server in Lineage 2, but when there was a castle lord/clan that was throwing its weight around, eventually the server would get together and remove them.

Maybe people don't understand that these games aren't about the developer playing them for you. They when you have more open pvp, when you have clashes between groups, the game is for you to be a part of the world, the politics and actually do something about it.

So, to comment on your remark, then that "losing side will plot in order to overthrow your 'now' winning side".

Sovrath

TheScavenger said:

Sovrath said:

delete5230 said:

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?

get people together to make it the winning side?

When has that ever worked? In DAOC, there was a side that won the vast majority of time. Lots of people moved to the faction that won the majority of the time. That made the other two factions far less populated, even when they both allied together they were too outnumbered (most of the time).

In GW2, people choose the "winning" server and win the majority of the time

In ESO, same thing

The vast majority of people are going to choose the side that wins. Or the side that is most populated (as seen in WoW, most people choose the popular faction of whatever is popular on that server)

No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.

Well, we had it in Lineage 2. And as I mentioned, it was the Hindemith server. Elder Scrolls Online? Guild wars 2? Sorry I don't think they make the grade there. Can't comment on Dark Age of Camelot but when you have a game that isn't realm vs realm, where there are clans/guilds who are all fighting each other and plotting then the power is more fluid. And eventually those larger groups break up and start fighting each other.

I mean, you pick games where there are artificial sides created for you. I highly suspect you have never played Lineage 2 or EVE for that matter.

And again, to punctuate the point, there are powers that rise and eventually they fall and it continues. Now, if you want perfect balance you will never get this. This doesn't happen.

Ungood

Sovrath said:

TheScavenger said:

Sovrath said:

delete5230 said:

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?

get people together to make it the winning side?

When has that ever worked? In DAOC, there was a side that won the vast majority of time. Lots of people moved to the faction that won the majority of the time. That made the other two factions far less populated, even when they both allied together they were too outnumbered (most of the time).

In GW2, people choose the "winning" server and win the majority of the time

In ESO, same thing

The vast majority of people are going to choose the side that wins. Or the side that is most populated (as seen in WoW, most people choose the popular faction of whatever is popular on that server)

No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.

Well, we had it in Lineage 2. And as I mentioned, it was the Hindemith server. Elder Scrolls Online? Guild wars 2? Sorry I don't think they make the grade there. Can't comment on Dark Age of Camelot but when you have a game that isn't realm vs realm, where there are clans/guilds who are all fighting each other and plotting then the power is more fluid. And eventually those larger groups break up and start fighting each other.

I mean, you pick games where there are artificial sides created for you. I highly suspect you have never played Lineage 2 or EVE for that matter.

And again, to punctuate the point, there are powers that rise and eventually they fall and it continues. Now, if you want perfect balance you will never get this. This doesn't happen.

Agreed.. but how is this game set up.. will be the real question.

Sovrath

Ungood said:

Sovrath said:

TheScavenger said:

Sovrath said:

delete5230 said:

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?

get people together to make it the winning side?

When has that ever worked? In DAOC, there was a side that won the vast majority of time. Lots of people moved to the faction that won the majority of the time. That made the other two factions far less populated, even when they both allied together they were too outnumbered (most of the time).

In GW2, people choose the "winning" server and win the majority of the time

In ESO, same thing

The vast majority of people are going to choose the side that wins. Or the side that is most populated (as seen in WoW, most people choose the popular faction of whatever is popular on that server)

No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.

Well, we had it in Lineage 2. And as I mentioned, it was the Hindemith server. Elder Scrolls Online? Guild wars 2? Sorry I don't think they make the grade there. Can't comment on Dark Age of Camelot but when you have a game that isn't realm vs realm, where there are clans/guilds who are all fighting each other and plotting then the power is more fluid. And eventually those larger groups break up and start fighting each other.

I mean, you pick games where there are artificial sides created for you. I highly suspect you have never played Lineage 2 or EVE for that matter.

And again, to punctuate the point, there are powers that rise and eventually they fall and it continues. Now, if you want perfect balance you will never get this. This doesn't happen.

Agreed.. but how is this game set up.. will be the real question.

Well, in this 2nd video about the node system (which sounds great by the way) they mention that at some point the leader might have buildings that defend against a siege.

So maybe it will be more like a Lineage 2? Probably not to be honest but if players can siege other players and then that gives some idea as too what we can expect. I imagine players will be tethered to the node they help grow/pledge allegiance to.

The thing is, can that node be brought down to lower levels (from the high metropolis stage)?

Slapshot1188

delete5230 said:

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?

Not if you like losing!

Ungood

Sovrath said:

Ungood said:

Sovrath said:

TheScavenger said:

Sovrath said:

delete5230 said:

Say you pick the loosing side, will the game suck for you ?

get people together to make it the winning side?

When has that ever worked? In DAOC, there was a side that won the vast majority of time. Lots of people moved to the faction that won the majority of the time. That made the other two factions far less populated, even when they both allied together they were too outnumbered (most of the time).

In GW2, people choose the "winning" server and win the majority of the time

In ESO, same thing

The vast majority of people are going to choose the side that wins. Or the side that is most populated (as seen in WoW, most people choose the popular faction of whatever is popular on that server)

No one is going to join a game and go "I wonder what side is losing, I LOVE to lose" no, they are going to go and search what side wins the most and choose that side.

Well, we had it in Lineage 2. And as I mentioned, it was the Hindemith server. Elder Scrolls Online? Guild wars 2? Sorry I don't think they make the grade there. Can't comment on Dark Age of Camelot but when you have a game that isn't realm vs realm, where there are clans/guilds who are all fighting each other and plotting then the power is more fluid. And eventually those larger groups break up and start fighting each other.

I mean, you pick games where there are artificial sides created for you. I highly suspect you have never played Lineage 2 or EVE for that matter.

And again, to punctuate the point, there are powers that rise and eventually they fall and it continues. Now, if you want perfect balance you will never get this. This doesn't happen.

Agreed.. but how is this game set up.. will be the real question.

Well, in this 2nd video about the node system (which sounds great by the way) they mention that at some point the leader might have buildings that defend against a siege.

So maybe it will be more like a Lineage 2? Probably not to be honest but if players can siege other players and then that gives some idea as too what we can expect. I imagine players will be tethered to the node they help grow/pledge allegiance to.

The thing is, can that node be brought down to lower levels (from the high metropolis stage)?

Ok fair point, but GW2 had siege war in it as well, and their system was Server based and costly to move around, assuming you could, as some of the servers were closed, so, just the existence of Siege does not give me the sense of fluid teams. DaoC also had Siege and you literally could not change sides in that game, afaik.

delete5230

Difference between Guild Wars2 and Ashes of Creation is GW2 was instanced PvP and the world activities didn't change for better/worst !  

This may effect how much fun PvE is for the loosing side.

k61977

A way that devs could fix issues like this is after so long the other factions get boost every so often until they can stand toe to toe with the faction that is always winning and dethrone them.  Then you have the buff start to wear off at the same rate until they lose again and have it start all over.  I have played a game that did this, can't remember which it was but it worked.  It gives people motivation to play what they want not what everyone else is playing.