So true. I am finding my "open worlds" in single player games these days. Valhiem, Mist Survival (unable to et far here lol), Humankind, and Paradox games like Stellaris and Europa Universalis. I used to find this kinds of gameplay with MMPRPGs
I'm finding the things I like usually in survival games these days, or roguelikes/roguelites. They have these mechanics similar to what the older MMORPG's had, like losing loot on death etc etc. Usually more thrill and atmosphere.
I don't really see any reason why they can't exist in newer MMORPG's... It is just I think that no one has hit the spot yet.
It would be cool perhaps to have something which is more of a hybrid where it is a fair bit larger than a survival game so there are lots of players, contains the same type of thrill and difficulty, and open world, but isn't as giant as others at the beginning. The development afterwards if successful would go into content creation rather than needing to tweak much of the game or adding on feature after feature (because it is the core mechanics, the core game, that actually matters and creates the thrill).
I look at a game like 7 Days to Die...Exploring a 13 story building filled with zombies and danger all over the place...That would be fun with other people (If I didnt have to worry about them killing me too)
You need to make friends with a group who pays for their own private servers.
I know some who had a great time cooperatively created bases to hold back the zombie horses and were able to set the rules exactly as they wanted to.
From what I was told it was all pretty much big fun until the guy who was the owner of the server they shared got miffed about something and shut it all down.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
A game where it is harder to see at night, where you get the atmosphere of a survival game.
Shroud of the Avatar, Mortal 2, Gloria Victis
A game where you don't see people running around everywhere following quest markers.
Shroud of the Avatar, Mortal 2, Gloria Victis
A game that doesn't have ui everywhere making you know for sure you are just playing a game.
Every game has a ui off
A game that actually has some difficulty, there is proper risk vs reward.
Shroud of the Avatar, Mortal 2, Gloria Victis
A game where certain items are incredibly rare.
Crafting Rare ? World Rare ? Raid rare ?
A game where crafting actually matters and being a master is rare and respected.
Shroud of the Avatar, Mortal 2, Gloria Victis
A game where certain skills are hard to attain and valued if you go down that particular route.
No game will ever have this. Time doesn't equal difficulty
A game which is open and not on rails, this is what a proper RPG should be like in my opinion, as it isn't an arcade game.
Shroud of the Avatar, Mortal 2, Gloria Victis
Pantheon will hit some of that list. My last comment on thread. games exsist.
You just quoted 3 games that have major flaws and/or no playerbase and haven't been very successful. There are reasons for this... It is because they are unfortunately not actually that good for a variety of reasons which I could explain, but shouldn't have to.
If they were, there would be more people playing them. Simple as that. Also, I'm saying there is way more scope to create many more MMORPG's with these mechanics I mentioned, that could be very succesful.
If you don't believe so, you are literally one of the people that can't see beyond the current formula imo.
If you start saying these games are not popular "because of the oldschool mechanics". Give me some good arguments and I will take you seriously (though you can't use that argument anyway, because the gaming industry is already proving you wrong!). Otherwise, go away silly troll.
That is why I say games people describe exist but the game isn't good(at least in their eyes), so people don't play.
And I'm surprise you said crowfall follow some generic mmorpg formula. We never have much mmorpg focused completely on large group combat. But I get what you mean, probably the pace of combat is what you are refering to.
I think action combat, fast pace game is probably the mainstream. It's especially true if you play the game addictively for a very long period of time and slow pace game kind of drag out for some people. So to be fair, you are right to say that is the trend right now.
I don't want arcade action where everyone runs at 50 miles an hour,
where everyone is a God hero, and where there are unicorns farting out
rainbows everywhere....
What's the old saying? "If isn't hard or you don't have to work for it. It usually isn't worth getting."
You just quoted 3 games that have major flaws and/or no playerbase and haven't been very successful. There are reasons for this... It is because they are unfortunately not actually that good for a variety of reasons which I could explain, but shouldn't have to.
If they were, there would be more people playing them. Simple as that. Also, I'm saying there is way more scope to create many more MMORPG's with these mechanics I mentioned, that could be very succesful.
If you don't believe so, you are literally one of the people that can't see beyond the current formula imo.
If you start saying these games are not popular "because of the oldschool mechanics". Give me some good arguments and I will take you seriously (though you can't use that argument anyway, because the gaming industry is already proving you wrong!). Otherwise, go away silly troll.
That is why I say games people describe exist but the game isn't good(at least in their eyes), so people don't play.
And I'm surprise you said crowfall follow some generic mmorpg formula. We never have much mmorpg focused completely on large group combat. But I get what you mean, probably the pace of combat is what you are refering to.
I think action combat, fast pace game is probably the mainstream. It's especially true if you play the game addictively for a very long period of time and slow pace game kind of drag out for some people. So to be fair, you are right to say that is the trend right now.
Yep you hit on what I was saying with Crowfall.
Crowfall tried something a bit different, it had some unique features (well one anyway which is the full scale PvP...), but the core mechanics (as you said, the combat system etc) ended up largely being very similar to other generic MMORPG's. The way it was tuned too, was very similar.
I thought initially it would have a totally different feel, and it seemed to me like it was going to, only to find out the combat was pretty much a clone of most other generic MMORPG's but tuned slightly differently.
So instead of thinking in macro terms of well the game was unique because we had no large scale PvP MMORPG. I'm saying what the issue was, and is with most other games too, was the tuning of the combat system and other systems. Because they chose to do this, it became just like every other MMORPG in that it feels the same way to play and I don't think this recipe is good. It was just like a generic MMORPG but much smaller in scale with way less features, that just "happened" to have a full scale PvP focus, which just isn't enough and I don't think it is really what people are after.
They needed a very different combat system that was tuned way differently imo to compliment their main focus which was PvP. It needs to be way more tactile, quicker fights (that doesn't mean more buttons or faster actions, it means tuned so people aren't bullet sponges and there are counters), more thrill, and really tbh, just a very different style of game but with the overall feature of full scale PvP.
I think people just need to stop tuning MMORPG's and creating systems which copy all these old MMORPG's. They should come up with their own unique systems. Stop copying the same combat system formula.
Just to go against what you said about the faster combat... I don't believe the faster combat makes for better gameplay. Well at least faster as in more buttons and faster actions. It is actually more about impact and how tactile it feels, which can also be done with slower combat, the combat needs "weight" to it, and you do this by tuning appropriately like not making people bullet sponges, and having good animations.
For example I preferred the more Rock/Paper/Scissors combat of original WoW to modern, where you could kill someone really quick if you got the jump, very quick, even in 1/2 hits sometimes when lucky, and it was hilarious. Even getting the big numbers that were slightly delayed after a swing made it feel way more tactile and like you have way more impact. It is actually small things often that contribute here. It gave the hilariousness of when you get a big old crit and slapped a gnome mage down in one hit to where they started scurrying along on 10% hp... but then sometimes they blinked away and took you out with a sudden Pyro crit!
What devs these days seem to be unable to do, is think about the actual "experience" of the system they are using, and tune it to be more impactful, more tactile, and more psychologically entertaining for the player.
But then that is not surprising, as devs are often terrible when it comes to psychology. (btw I'd know, I'm a dev with a degree in both software engineering and psychology! With 20 years of music guitar playing/composition and a bit of sound engineering thrown in).
It was way better than later versions where everyone became a bullet sponge. I think the WoW devs actually didn't understand what made their initial combat system fun in the first place for PvP, how the tuning of it made it fun, and they ruined it completely. They changed the core tuning of their combat system and how the statistics worked in the game. It wasn't broken, it didn't need to be changed, only very minorly tweaked if something was particularly too overpowered.
So really what a lot of this comes down to is thinking of different types of systems, particularly combat systems, and not just the system itself, but how it is tuned. Make sure people don't become bullet sponges because it dumbs the game down.
I think many devs need to go back to the drawing board and re-imagine and understand the psychology and tactileness of these systems... because many dont seem to be able to create tactile combat systems at all. They should stop copying the mainstream way. Most devs seem stuck in modern WoW combat land (yes I know ofc there are games out there that have deviated, but most haven't).
Post edited by Graveblade on
Started playing mmorpg's in 1996 and have been hooked ever since. It began with Kingdom of Drakkar, Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, WoW...
Didnt Warhammer also go with full scale PVP? I dont know what is so unique about this. So many games do full scale PVP. Darkfall, Mortal Online, Wurm, Dark and Light. All flops.
There is nothing unique about open world large scale PVP MMO's at all. 95% of the MMO's that come out try this formula. They keep rolling them out, and they all keep flopping then dieing. The only 2 I know of to actually stick is EVE and Albion, although that went down to 450 players and had to go completely FREE. So EVE is the only sub based one to actually thrive. 1 out of hundreds of flops.
Even New World has large 50x50 battles. Their PVE propped up the game some, but the focus on PVP still dragged it down. Guess what all these games have in common? No PVE only servers at launch, or ever probably.
Not sure why people think another large scale PVP focused MMO is such a unique idea. The concept is totally incompatible with MMO's. The topic has been debated over and over again. Keep taking that hopium I guess.
Didnt Warhammer also go with full scale PVP? I dont know what is so unique about this. So many games do full scale PVP. Darkfall, Mortal Online, Wurm, Dark and Light. All flops.
There is nothing unique about open world large scale PVP MMO's at all. 95% of the MMO's that come out try this formula. They keep rolling them out, and they all keep flopping then dieing. The only 2 I know of to actually stick is EVE and Albion, although that went down to 450 players and had to go completely FREE. So EVE is the only sub based one to actually thrive. 1 out of hundreds of flops.
Even New World has large 50x50 battles. Their PVE propped up the game some, but the focus on PVP still dragged it down. Guess what all these games have in common? No PVE only servers at launch, or ever probably.
Not sure why people think another large scale PVP focused MMO is such a unique idea. The concept is totally incompatible with MMO's. The topic has been debated over and over again. Keep taking that hopium I guess.
Yeah it isn't really. I guess he meant it in the sense that it was pretty much entirely focused on large scale PvP. That is how I took it.
I don't think the large scale PvP in itself is a problem. Warhammer was a weird one because I actually enjoyed it, and I have seen lots of other people say so too. I think it just got overshadowed by the other large games or something. Also it copied a ton from other generic games, it was pretty close to WoW in a lot of ways apart from the PvP.
Remember DAoC had a large focus on PvP too and that did pretty well I believe. People still play it today even. Yep Eve and UO are still about, there is PvP in UO too but sure it isn't really a focus I guess. There was also Shadowbane that did decently I think and was around for 6 years or so. BDO is another that has large scale PvP as quite a large component of the game, and that has done pretty well. GW2 has RvR stuff I believe too.
There are lots of games, including succesful games, that have large(r) scale PvP. So it isn't that type of PvP that isn't interesting or fun of itself. It is the other aspects of the games that let them down usually, or if PvP is really the main focus, it is definitely the way it is tuned and the systems around it that let it down I think.
Started playing mmorpg's in 1996 and have been hooked ever since. It began with Kingdom of Drakkar, Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, WoW...
I don't want arcade action where everyone runs at 50 miles an hour,
where everyone is a God hero, and where there are unicorns farting out
rainbows everywhere....
What's the old saying? "If isn't hard or you don't have to work for it. It usually isn't worth getting."
I would consider it well worth it if some kind, rich forum member found it in their heart to buy me a 2023 mid engine Corvette.
Blue is my preferred color, but other colors would be considered.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Didnt Warhammer also go with full scale PVP? I dont know what is so unique about this. So many games do full scale PVP. Darkfall, Mortal Online, Wurm, Dark and Light. All flops.
There is nothing unique about open world large scale PVP MMO's at all. 95% of the MMO's that come out try this formula. They keep rolling them out, and they all keep flopping then dieing. The only 2 I know of to actually stick is EVE and Albion, although that went down to 450 players and had to go completely FREE. So EVE is the only sub based one to actually thrive. 1 out of hundreds of flops.
Even New World has large 50x50 battles. Their PVE propped up the game some, but the focus on PVP still dragged it down. Guess what all these games have in common? No PVE only servers at launch, or ever probably.
Not sure why people think another large scale PVP focused MMO is such a unique idea. The concept is totally incompatible with MMO's. The topic has been debated over and over again. Keep taking that hopium I guess.
The concept is not incompatible with mmo's.
Also, Warhammer used a segregated system where there were pvp happened in specific zones or "lakes of conflict."
The reason so many pvp games don't work out is that they just aren't good games. There is an audience for pvp games. But they have to be given a good game.
Part of the issue is that so many are expecting AAA quality and that might be a hard sell as the audience for certain types of pvp mmo's is most likely smaller so developers don't really make them.
Except ... the small indy developers who don't have enough funding, don't have the leadership, don't have the experience or know how.
Then you get all sorts of attempts, they fail, and we get people saying "they don't work because they fail."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
To your point of good games. I agree with that. So here is the magic formula to have the BIGGEST ACTIVE PVP MMO EVER made.
Make the best PVE MMO ever, focus entirely on PVE. Then add in the following servers:
PVE Only Servers PVP Servers with Safe Areas PVP FFA full loot Servers (including instances)
Presto you now have the biggest active PVP MMO population ever. Thats it, thats all that has to be done for the biggest PVP game ever. Seems simple enough.
MMORPGs are not Battlefield or Call of duty where everyone is exactly the same and it's a race to the best weapons on the map. MMORPGs have too many variables to be compared. Levels being the top one, armor/weapons is another. Numbers (of players on each other) is fairly consistent with battlegrounds and FPSs limited. A player in either case be find themselves in a 2+ vs 1 fight.
I'll do simple math for my point. 1/3 of the players want to PvP. another 1/3 want to do PvE. The last 1/3 want BOTH PvP and PvE. PvP players comp[lain about "having to do PvE." PvE players complain about PvP and how it MAY effect their PvE gameplay. Players who enjoy BOTH, usually want those activities on their own terms, like PvP areas or toggle-able PvP.
As I've said before, PvP is not an activity I enjoy, unless it's with real life friends. I want cooperative gameplay where players WANT to work together to overcome obstacles, where help is a natural response not a hindrance.
That's my take and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying the situation, but it was easier to convey my thoughts in a simpler way. I'm stupid, you know
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Also, Warhammer used a segregated system where there were pvp happened in specific zones or "lakes of conflict."
The reason so many pvp games don't work out is that they just aren't good games. There is an audience for pvp games. But they have to be given a good game.
Part of the issue is that so many are expecting AAA quality and that might be a hard sell as the audience for certain types of pvp mmo's is most likely smaller so developers don't really make them.
Except ... the small indy developers who don't have enough funding, don't have the leadership, don't have the experience or know how.
Then you get all sorts of attempts, they fail, and we get people saying "they don't work because they fail."
Geez, what a joke, Warhammer large budget, Crowfall large budget. These games are huge and yet nobody wants to play them. There have been pleny of big budget PVP mmo's launched and they all just die. Sick of hearing all the excuses from people talking about why the PVP mmo failed, because combat, or xxx or didnt have this mode blah blah blah.
The only reason people think there are alot of PVE focused MMO's is because they are all still around. Even the tiny budget PVE focused MMO's are still around. I cant even think of a MMORPG that was PVE focused that actually failed fully. Maybe there is one, but I cant think of it. There is really very few PVE MMO's released but they all stay active.
PVP MMO's have a design problem, its not based on fair PVP but domination. Every single one I have played, I have seen 1 side totally dominate another, where people leave the lesser side to join the domination side. The domination side just crushes everyone else if the MMO will let them. Whether its small scale griefing newbs, or 100 vs 8 large PVP battles, this is what happens eventually.
Also, Warhammer used a segregated system where there were pvp happened in specific zones or "lakes of conflict."
The reason so many pvp games don't work out is that they just aren't good games. There is an audience for pvp games. But they have to be given a good game.
Part of the issue is that so many are expecting AAA quality and that might be a hard sell as the audience for certain types of pvp mmo's is most likely smaller so developers don't really make them.
Except ... the small indy developers who don't have enough funding, don't have the leadership, don't have the experience or know how.
Then you get all sorts of attempts, they fail, and we get people saying "they don't work because they fail."
Geez, what a joke, Warhammer large budget, Crowfall large budget. These games are huge and yet nobody wants to play them. There have been pleny of big budget PVP mmo's launched and they all just die. Sick of hearing all the excuses from people talking about why the PVP mmo failed, because combat, or xxx or didnt have this mode blah blah blah.
The only reason people think there are alot of PVE focused MMO's is because they are all still around. Even the tiny budget PVE focused MMO's are still around. I cant even think of a MMORPG that was PVE focused that actually failed fully. Maybe there is one, but I cant think of it. There is really very few PVE MMO's released but they all stay active.
PVP MMO's have a design problem, its not based on fair PVP but domination. Every single one I have played, I have seen 1 side totally dominate another, where people leave the lesser side to join the domination side. The domination side just crushes everyone else if the MMO will let them. Whether its small scale griefing newbs, or 100 vs 8 large PVP battles, this is what happens eventually.
Well, Warhammer closed down. Though there is a seemingly successful private server.
Also, we know of two currently successful pvp games. One of them more hardcore and has been going for a while.
There is an audience for pvp mmorg's. We know this becasue people ask for them. We know this because developers develop them.
Perhaps the issue is that the people who are making them don't quite understand what they should be doing.
Just look at a few of them. Darkfall. Developers were not professional, seemed petulant, they created what seemed a decent enough game but with odd, sort of laggy game play. When I swing at an enemy and I have no idea if I hit or not that's an issue. It felt janky. Not great. Same with Mortal Online.
Aion? Their marketing was that "you could play as you want to" even though that was only partially true. You could just quest. You could just pvp. But you had to deal with both as that was part of the game.
Dark Age of Camelot was successful for its time, I dare say Lineage and Lineage 2 were successful for their time.
I agree that there is a domination problem. Aion tried to make it so there was a pve faction but it really didn't seem implemented well.
In Lineage 2 it would sometimes work as there was always a group that wanted to take some other group down. On Hindemith if there was a dominating alliance abusing the server, the server would rise up and take their castles away. But that required server cooperation and it was my understanding that all servers weren't that way.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Dark Age of Camelot was successful for its time, I dare say Lineage and Lineage 2 were successful for their time.
I agree that there is a domination problem. Aion tried to make it so there was a pve faction but it really didn't seem implemented well.
In Lineage 2 it would sometimes work as there was always a group that wanted to take some other group down. On Hindemith if there was a dominating alliance abusing the server, the server would rise up and take their castles away. But that required server cooperation and it was my understanding that all servers weren't that way.
Interesting you say DAOC, but DAOC completely separated its PVE and PVP zones. People could PVE without ever PVPing in that game if they wanted to, therefore PVP was totally optional. General chat was dominated by PVE. Additionally DAOC had PVE servers.
The most popular PVP zone in DAOC was this little Arena called Thidranke which was only level 24. It was wildly popular because everyone had the same gear, same skills, noboby outclassed anyone. It put all the players into 1 tiny little zone, so it was easy to get PVP.
In the RVR zone, I was on a decently popular server, and I was in a PVP group that roamed Emain (main rvr zone) 8+ hours a day looking for anyone to kill. We could easily go a 1+ hours with Skald speed, without finding another group. Very occassionally like a few times a month there would be huge RVR battles for keeps.
I think DAOC had the best PVP, but it also had popular PVE that supported it.
I don't want arcade action where everyone runs at 50 miles an hour,
where everyone is a God hero, and where there are unicorns farting out
rainbows everywhere....
What's the old saying? "If isn't hard or you don't have to work for it. It usually isn't worth getting."
I would consider it well worth it if some kind, rich forum member found it in their heart to buy me a 2023 mid engine Corvette.
Blue is my preferred color, but other colors would be considered.
Just one? You have changed.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Dark Age of Camelot was successful for its time, I dare say Lineage and Lineage 2 were successful for their time.
I agree that there is a domination problem. Aion tried to make it so there was a pve faction but it really didn't seem implemented well.
In Lineage 2 it would sometimes work as there was always a group that wanted to take some other group down. On Hindemith if there was a dominating alliance abusing the server, the server would rise up and take their castles away. But that required server cooperation and it was my understanding that all servers weren't that way.
Interesting you say DAOC, but DAOC completely separated its PVE and PVP zones. People could PVE without ever PVPing in that game if they wanted to, therefore PVP was totally optional. General chat was dominated by PVE. Additionally DAOC had PVE servers.
The most popular PVP zone in DAOC was this little Arena called Thidranke which was only level 24. It was wildly popular because everyone had the same gear, same skills, noboby outclassed anyone. It put all the players into 1 tiny little zone, so it was easy to get PVP.
In the RVR zone, I was on a decently popular server, and I was in a PVP group that roamed Emain (main rvr zone) 8+ hours a day looking for anyone to kill. We could easily go a 1+ hours with Skald speed, without finding another group. Very occassionally like a few times a month there would be huge RVR battles for keeps.
I think DAOC had the best PVP, but it also had popular PVE that supported it.
I think Kyleran would agree with you.
People don’t like to lose so given the choice to have more equity in pvp or risk being steamrolled, your example makes sense.
I absolutely loved lineage 2 pvp but it was predicated on the idea of being higher level and better geared. The sieges were the highlight and what many worked toward. Sadly for me I would have to give up my real life if I was to stay competitive so stopped. I wonder if others felt the same.
I do like the idea of segregated pvp and pve if only to keep people on the same servers. But I don’t think developers have been able to make a great game like that since DAoC.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Dark Age of Camelot was successful for its time, I dare say Lineage and Lineage 2 were successful for their time.
I agree that there is a domination problem. Aion tried to make it so there was a pve faction but it really didn't seem implemented well.
In Lineage 2 it would sometimes work as there was always a group that wanted to take some other group down. On Hindemith if there was a dominating alliance abusing the server, the server would rise up and take their castles away. But that required server cooperation and it was my understanding that all servers weren't that way.
Interesting you say DAOC, but DAOC completely separated its PVE and PVP zones. People could PVE without ever PVPing in that game if they wanted to, therefore PVP was totally optional. General chat was dominated by PVE. Additionally DAOC had PVE servers.
The most popular PVP zone in DAOC was this little Arena called Thidranke which was only level 24. It was wildly popular because everyone had the same gear, same skills, noboby outclassed anyone. It put all the players into 1 tiny little zone, so it was easy to get PVP.
In the RVR zone, I was on a decently popular server, and I was in a PVP group that roamed Emain (main rvr zone) 8+ hours a day looking for anyone to kill. We could easily go a 1+ hours with Skald speed, without finding another group. Very occassionally like a few times a month there would be huge RVR battles for keeps.
I think DAOC had the best PVP, but it also had popular PVE that supported it.
I sometimes get people wondering why I draw a direct link from MMORPGs to the MOBA's that partially replaced them, that arena is part of the reason why. In the same vein the scenarios in Warhammer Online and the similar activity (can't remember what they called it) in AC. Elements of MMORPG gameplay were so good at what they did they sowed the seeds for their own downfall.
I am going to agree to differ on what we talked about before, no point in going over it again and again.
Dark Age of Camelot was successful for its time, I dare say Lineage and Lineage 2 were successful for their time.
I agree that there is a domination problem. Aion tried to make it so there was a pve faction but it really didn't seem implemented well.
In Lineage 2 it would sometimes work as there was always a group that wanted to take some other group down. On Hindemith if there was a dominating alliance abusing the server, the server would rise up and take their castles away. But that required server cooperation and it was my understanding that all servers weren't that way.
Interesting you say DAOC, but DAOC completely separated its PVE and PVP zones. People could PVE without ever PVPing in that game if they wanted to, therefore PVP was totally optional. General chat was dominated by PVE. Additionally DAOC had PVE servers.
The most popular PVP zone in DAOC was this little Arena called Thidranke which was only level 24. It was wildly popular because everyone had the same gear, same skills, noboby outclassed anyone. It put all the players into 1 tiny little zone, so it was easy to get PVP.
In the RVR zone, I was on a decently popular server, and I was in a PVP group that roamed Emain (main rvr zone) 8+ hours a day looking for anyone to kill. We could easily go a 1+ hours with Skald speed, without finding another group. Very occassionally like a few times a month there would be huge RVR battles for keeps.
I think DAOC had the best PVP, but it also had popular PVE that supported it.
I sometimes get people wondering why I draw a direct link from MMORPGs to the MOBA's that partially replaced them, that arena is part of the reason why. In the same vein the scenarios in Warhammer Online and the similar activity (can't remember what they called it) in AC. Elements of MMORPG gameplay were so good at what they did they sowed the seeds for their own downfall.
I am going to agree to differ on what we talked about before, no point in going over it again and again.
Yea the scenarios played a substantial part in Wars downfall , you do not develop an entire RvR lake system. Then insert another system to remove players from the Main feature of your game.
Now I agree with the small scale practice area , but it should not yield xp and gear on the same level as your actual RvR .
War made alot of mistakes , but I still loved it , got RR 90 on live and currently at 83 on the Emu. I'll add I did this without doing any Scenarios.The current version of the Emu is actually much better than the version. EA shut down ..
Dark Age of Camelot was successful for its time, I dare say Lineage and Lineage 2 were successful for their time.
I agree that there is a domination problem. Aion tried to make it so there was a pve faction but it really didn't seem implemented well.
In Lineage 2 it would sometimes work as there was always a group that wanted to take some other group down. On Hindemith if there was a dominating alliance abusing the server, the server would rise up and take their castles away. But that required server cooperation and it was my understanding that all servers weren't that way.
Interesting you say DAOC, but DAOC completely separated its PVE and PVP zones. People could PVE without ever PVPing in that game if they wanted to, therefore PVP was totally optional. General chat was dominated by PVE. Additionally DAOC had PVE servers.
The most popular PVP zone in DAOC was this little Arena called Thidranke which was only level 24. It was wildly popular because everyone had the same gear, same skills, noboby outclassed anyone. It put all the players into 1 tiny little zone, so it was easy to get PVP.
In the RVR zone, I was on a decently popular server, and I was in a PVP group that roamed Emain (main rvr zone) 8+ hours a day looking for anyone to kill. We could easily go a 1+ hours with Skald speed, without finding another group. Very occassionally like a few times a month there would be huge RVR battles for keeps.
I think DAOC had the best PVP, but it also had popular PVE that supported it.
I sometimes get people wondering why I draw a direct link from MMORPGs to the MOBA's that partially replaced them, that arena is part of the reason why. In the same vein the scenarios in Warhammer Online and the similar activity (can't remember what they called it) in AC. Elements of MMORPG gameplay were so good at what they did they sowed the seeds for their own downfall.
I am going to agree to differ on what we talked about before, no point in going over it again and again.
Yea the scenarios played a substantial part in Wars downfall , you do not develop an entire RvR lake system. Then insert another system to remove players from the Main feature of your game.
Now I agree with the small scale practice area , but it should not yield xp and gear on the same level as your actual RvR .
War made alot of mistakes , but I still loved it , got RR 90 on live and currently at 83 on the Emu. I'll add I did this without doing any Scenarios.The current version of the Emu is actually much better than the version. EA shut down ..
I mentioned that myself on here back in the day, everybody talked positively about the scenarios in WO but the actual RvR got a very mixed reception. The best set up would be total separation, scenarios give say xp and gold, RvR alone yields PvP gear. That way you have to do both if you want to do scenarios or you will be at a big disadvantage, but keep players at the same level in a scenario.
WO was a good MMORPG, I think it was highly underrated myself but remember when it launched players still thought a new Western AAA MMORPG was going to come out every year or two, we were spoilt for choice.
So when you examine Warhammer Online, why did it fail? Once you figure this out you will see why PVP MMO games fail or are very niche in MMO space.
Personally from my perspective me and most of my close friends around me didnt even play Warhammer, I should have been a prime customer as I was an avid DAOC fan.
My thoughts just based on the messaging at the time, was that I remember the creators saying Warhammer was going to put more focus on PVP and less on PVE than DAOC. People at release were telling me this also, I immediately knew it would flop so I didnt want to waste my time in a game I thought would flop.
What it eventually turned out to be I dont know, but you cant take back a first impression. I remember having many discussions with people about whether we should bother with Warhammer or not.
Interestingly if it would have come out now, I probably would play since I am so starved for anything decent.
Dark Age of Camelot was successful for its time, I dare say Lineage and Lineage 2 were successful for their time.
I agree that there is a domination problem. Aion tried to make it so there was a pve faction but it really didn't seem implemented well.
In Lineage 2 it would sometimes work as there was always a group that wanted to take some other group down. On Hindemith if there was a dominating alliance abusing the server, the server would rise up and take their castles away. But that required server cooperation and it was my understanding that all servers weren't that way.
Interesting you say DAOC, but DAOC completely separated its PVE and PVP zones. People could PVE without ever PVPing in that game if they wanted to, therefore PVP was totally optional. General chat was dominated by PVE. Additionally DAOC had PVE servers.
The most popular PVP zone in DAOC was this little Arena called Thidranke which was only level 24. It was wildly popular because everyone had the same gear, same skills, noboby outclassed anyone. It put all the players into 1 tiny little zone, so it was easy to get PVP.
In the RVR zone, I was on a decently popular server, and I was in a PVP group that roamed Emain (main rvr zone) 8+ hours a day looking for anyone to kill. We could easily go a 1+ hours with Skald speed, without finding another group. Very occassionally like a few times a month there would be huge RVR battles for keeps.
I think DAOC had the best PVP, but it also had popular PVE that supported it.
I sometimes get people wondering why I draw a direct link from MMORPGs to the MOBA's that partially replaced them, that arena is part of the reason why. In the same vein the scenarios in Warhammer Online and the similar activity (can't remember what they called it) in AC. Elements of MMORPG gameplay were so good at what they did they sowed the seeds for their own downfall.
I am going to agree to differ on what we talked about before, no point in going over it again and again.
Yea the scenarios played a substantial part in Wars downfall , you do not develop an entire RvR lake system. Then insert another system to remove players from the Main feature of your game.
Now I agree with the small scale practice area , but it should not yield xp and gear on the same level as your actual RvR .
War made alot of mistakes , but I still loved it , got RR 90 on live and currently at 83 on the Emu. I'll add I did this without doing any Scenarios.The current version of the Emu is actually much better than the version. EA shut down ..
Not trying to be offensive here, but honestly the fact you like games that flop, if I was a dev I would not build a game towards your playstyle. Obviously your playstyle is not mainstream enough.
I believe this is the main problem with Dev Teams currently. They listen to extreme voices from both sides that are not in touch with the larger player base.
If I was going to setup a Feedback AI for a dev team, I would ask players to rank their top 10 games. Anyone that likes games that flop or were superlow pop, I would just ghost their feedback. I think this would solve much of the problem with the MMO genre in general.
Dark Age of Camelot was successful for its time, I dare say Lineage and Lineage 2 were successful for their time.
I agree that there is a domination problem. Aion tried to make it so there was a pve faction but it really didn't seem implemented well.
In Lineage 2 it would sometimes work as there was always a group that wanted to take some other group down. On Hindemith if there was a dominating alliance abusing the server, the server would rise up and take their castles away. But that required server cooperation and it was my understanding that all servers weren't that way.
Interesting you say DAOC, but DAOC completely separated its PVE and PVP zones. People could PVE without ever PVPing in that game if they wanted to, therefore PVP was totally optional. General chat was dominated by PVE. Additionally DAOC had PVE servers.
The most popular PVP zone in DAOC was this little Arena called Thidranke which was only level 24. It was wildly popular because everyone had the same gear, same skills, noboby outclassed anyone. It put all the players into 1 tiny little zone, so it was easy to get PVP.
In the RVR zone, I was on a decently popular server, and I was in a PVP group that roamed Emain (main rvr zone) 8+ hours a day looking for anyone to kill. We could easily go a 1+ hours with Skald speed, without finding another group. Very occassionally like a few times a month there would be huge RVR battles for keeps.
I think DAOC had the best PVP, but it also had popular PVE that supported it.
I sometimes get people wondering why I draw a direct link from MMORPGs to the MOBA's that partially replaced them, that arena is part of the reason why. In the same vein the scenarios in Warhammer Online and the similar activity (can't remember what they called it) in AC. Elements of MMORPG gameplay were so good at what they did they sowed the seeds for their own downfall.
I am going to agree to differ on what we talked about before, no point in going over it again and again.
Yea the scenarios played a substantial part in Wars downfall , you do not develop an entire RvR lake system. Then insert another system to remove players from the Main feature of your game.
Now I agree with the small scale practice area , but it should not yield xp and gear on the same level as your actual RvR .
War made alot of mistakes , but I still loved it , got RR 90 on live and currently at 83 on the Emu. I'll add I did this without doing any Scenarios.The current version of the Emu is actually much better than the version. EA shut down ..
Not trying to be offensive here, but honestly the fact you like games that flop, if I was a dev I would not build a game towards your playstyle. Obviously your playstyle is not mainstream enough.
I believe this is the main problem with Dev Teams currently. They listen to extreme voices from both sides that are not in touch with the larger player base.
If I was going to setup a Feedback AI for a dev team, I would ask players to rank their top 10 games. Anyone that likes games that flop or were superlow pop, I would just ghost their feedback. I think this would solve much of the problem with the MMO genre in general.
What foolish and broad sweeping assumption to make . If it helps you , I play/played near every single mainstream mmo and some indies to end game. Actively playing 4 atm .. I imagine all flops by your logic
What foolish and broad sweeping assumption to make . If it helps you , I play/played near every single mainstream mmo and some indies to end game. Actively playing 4 atm .. I imagine all flops by your logic
Yeah I get it you want to be heard. Its logicial to focus on success and not failure. The statement you play all the mainstream MMO's means that if this game makes a mainstream MMO means you will play it regardless. Add this to the fact you like MMO's that fail, pretty much invalidates your opinion IMO. How is a dev to know the mechanic you like is not a flop mechanic, compared to a well liked mechanic when admit you like games that flop?
So the reality is, your opinion is not one they need to listen too. They need to listen to players that have a good track record of liking games that are successful, players that are part of their base, but are more picky in their tastes. They need to understand customers that want a certain qaulity that appeals to people outside their extremely niche core.
Dev's have a limited amount of time to read feedback, they need to be hearing the voices that matter to make the game successful and not listen to players that push their game mechanics down a death spiral. If its just reporting a bug or something, fine that thread can get pushed through, but any "ideas" they need to really discern which is the best veiwpoints to be focusing on.
Explain why they should listen to people that like games that flop? Why does that opinion deserve to be heard over people that like successful games?
Dark Age of Camelot was successful for its time, I dare say Lineage and Lineage 2 were successful for their time.
I agree that there is a domination problem. Aion tried to make it so there was a pve faction but it really didn't seem implemented well.
In Lineage 2 it would sometimes work as there was always a group that wanted to take some other group down. On Hindemith if there was a dominating alliance abusing the server, the server would rise up and take their castles away. But that required server cooperation and it was my understanding that all servers weren't that way.
Interesting you say DAOC, but DAOC completely separated its PVE and PVP zones. People could PVE without ever PVPing in that game if they wanted to, therefore PVP was totally optional. General chat was dominated by PVE. Additionally DAOC had PVE servers.
The most popular PVP zone in DAOC was this little Arena called Thidranke which was only level 24. It was wildly popular because everyone had the same gear, same skills, noboby outclassed anyone. It put all the players into 1 tiny little zone, so it was easy to get PVP.
In the RVR zone, I was on a decently popular server, and I was in a PVP group that roamed Emain (main rvr zone) 8+ hours a day looking for anyone to kill. We could easily go a 1+ hours with Skald speed, without finding another group. Very occassionally like a few times a month there would be huge RVR battles for keeps.
I think DAOC had the best PVP, but it also had popular PVE that supported it.
I sometimes get people wondering why I draw a direct link from MMORPGs to the MOBA's that partially replaced them, that arena is part of the reason why. In the same vein the scenarios in Warhammer Online and the similar activity (can't remember what they called it) in AC. Elements of MMORPG gameplay were so good at what they did they sowed the seeds for their own downfall.
I am going to agree to differ on what we talked about before, no point in going over it again and again.
Yea the scenarios played a substantial part in Wars downfall , you do not develop an entire RvR lake system. Then insert another system to remove players from the Main feature of your game.
Now I agree with the small scale practice area , but it should not yield xp and gear on the same level as your actual RvR .
War made alot of mistakes , but I still loved it , got RR 90 on live and currently at 83 on the Emu. I'll add I did this without doing any Scenarios.The current version of the Emu is actually much better than the version. EA shut down ..
Not trying to be offensive here, but honestly the fact you like games that flop, if I was a dev I would not build a game towards your playstyle. Obviously your playstyle is not mainstream enough.
I believe this is the main problem with Dev Teams currently. They listen to extreme voices from both sides that are not in touch with the larger player base.
If I was going to setup a Feedback AI for a dev team, I would ask players to rank their top 10 games. Anyone that likes games that flop or were superlow pop, I would just ghost their feedback. I think this would solve much of the problem with the MMO genre in general.
So everything that's made has to cater to lowest common denominator?
What a horrid world.
No, what they need to do is make the game they want, try to do a great job, and budget accordingly. That might mean lesser graphics, or fewer components but components done well enough to keep players.
Now, the more extreme one is the more difficult selling a project will be. But "ugh" just making things that cater to the masses? That's not a bad thing, and certainly not a bad thing if you want to make a lot of money, but it does mean that NOTHING unique will ever be considered.
And sometimes Unique can lead to success.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
What foolish and broad sweeping assumption to make . If it helps you , I play/played near every single mainstream mmo and some indies to end game. Actively playing 4 atm .. I imagine all flops by your logic
Yeah I get it you want to be heard. Its logicial to focus on success and not failure. The statement you play all the mainstream MMO's means that if this game makes a mainstream MMO means you will play it regardless. Add this to the fact you like MMO's that fail, pretty much invalidates your opinion IMO. How is a dev to know the mechanic you like is not a flop mechanic, compared to a well liked mechanic when admit you like games that flop?
So the reality is, your opinion is not one they need to listen too. They need to listen to players that have a good track record of liking games that are successful, players that are part of their base, but are more picky in their tastes. They need to understand customers that want a certain qaulity that appeals to people outside their extremely niche core.
Dev's have a limited amount of time to read feedback, they need to be hearing the voices that matter to make the game successful and not listen to players that push their game mechanics down a death spiral. If its just reporting a bug or something, fine that thread can get pushed through, but any "ideas" they need to really discern which is the best veiwpoints to be focusing on.
Explain why they should listen to people that like games that flop? Why does that opinion deserve to be heard over people that like successful games?
Lets take the heat down a notch.
While both PvP and PvE can put of players the best MMORPG's are made with both, WO has hardly been the only MMO to do less well than it should have done. We gave you two reasons, the RvR had the shine taken of it by the scenarios and that was the period when everyone thought another AAA was just around the corner.
Also what MMOs did it lose out to, other AAA's already out with PvP, unless you can name the AAA only PvE MMO that was sucking the playerbase dry?
I don't know much about WO development, the PvE seemed decent to me, but if they did weight it too much to PvP then that was a mistake, a solid MMORPG has to be balanced.
So when you examine Warhammer Online, why did it fail? Once you figure this out you will see why PVP MMO games fail or are very niche in MMO space.
Personally from my perspective me and most of my close friends around me didnt even play Warhammer, I should have been a prime customer as I was an avid DAOC fan.
My thoughts just based on the messaging at the time, was that I remember the creators saying Warhammer was going to put more focus on PVP and less on PVE than DAOC. People at release were telling me this also, I immediately knew it would flop so I didnt want to waste my time in a game I thought would flop.
What it eventually turned out to be I dont know, but you cant take back a first impression. I remember having many discussions with people about whether we should bother with Warhammer or not.
Interestingly if it would have come out now, I probably would play since I am so starved for anything decent.
I think Warhammer Online failed because it was basically a copy of WoW and the other generic MMORPG's at its core. I enjoyed it for a while, and I know a lot of other people who enjoyed it too... But it didn't really do anything that special. Even though it was marketed to be PvP centric, it copied many systems and styles from other MMORPG's that actually had PvE at their core, not PvP.
I think there needed to be a much different 'vision'
for their PvP. Much more incentive to engage in it, and a
different combat system that didn't make it just feel like WoW. It basically needed to not feel like other MMORPG's, it needed to be its own PvP centric thing.
I think to make a good PvP centric MMORPG, you need a good tactile combat system that feels like it has weight to it, and have some really solid risk vs reward mechanics in there too to keep it fresh for long.
Part of the reason I think many PvP MMORPG's fail is because they copy these systems that originated from PvE MMORPG's, and they expect that to be enough to entice players, but it really isn't.
PvP also has more technical challenges though, and building it based on these older PvE combat systems (tab targetting for example) makes things a bit easier. It was tried and tested and worked. But I'd argue is definitely not preffered for a PvP centric MMORPG.
Unfortunately, there are not many actual purely PvP centric MMORPG games out there. It does make sense because there are harder technical challenges regarding combat and networking. These days though, tech has got quite a bit better so maybe over the years to come there will be some good PvP centric MMORRPG's coming out that will break the mold. People obviously like PvP because there are tons of PvP games in other genre's, but it has not yet translated over to MMORPG's. People still often make PvP MMORPG's with a mindset that came from PvE MMORPG's.
Started playing mmorpg's in 1996 and have been hooked ever since. It began with Kingdom of Drakkar, Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, WoW...
Comments
I know some who had a great time cooperatively created bases to hold back the zombie horses and were able to set the rules exactly as they wanted to.
From what I was told it was all pretty much big fun until the guy who was the owner of the server they shared got miffed about something and shut it all down.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
That is why I say games people describe exist but the game isn't good(at least in their eyes), so people don't play.
And I'm surprise you said crowfall follow some generic mmorpg formula. We never have much mmorpg focused completely on large group combat. But I get what you mean, probably the pace of combat is what you are refering to.
I think action combat, fast pace game is probably the mainstream. It's especially true if you play the game addictively for a very long period of time and slow pace game kind of drag out for some people. So to be fair, you are right to say that is the trend right now.
There is nothing unique about open world large scale PVP MMO's at all. 95% of the MMO's that come out try this formula. They keep rolling them out, and they all keep flopping then dieing. The only 2 I know of to actually stick is EVE and Albion, although that went down to 450 players and had to go completely FREE. So EVE is the only sub based one to actually thrive. 1 out of hundreds of flops.
Even New World has large 50x50 battles. Their PVE propped up the game some, but the focus on PVP still dragged it down. Guess what all these games have in common? No PVE only servers at launch, or ever probably.
Not sure why people think another large scale PVP focused MMO is such a unique idea. The concept is totally incompatible with MMO's. The topic has been debated over and over again. Keep taking that hopium I guess.
Blue is my preferred color, but other colors would be considered.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Also, Warhammer used a segregated system where there were pvp happened in specific zones or "lakes of conflict."
The reason so many pvp games don't work out is that they just aren't good games. There is an audience for pvp games. But they have to be given a good game.
Part of the issue is that so many are expecting AAA quality and that might be a hard sell as the audience for certain types of pvp mmo's is most likely smaller so developers don't really make them.
Except ... the small indy developers who don't have enough funding, don't have the leadership, don't have the experience or know how.
Then you get all sorts of attempts, they fail, and we get people saying "they don't work because they fail."
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Make the best PVE MMO ever, focus entirely on PVE. Then add in the following servers:
PVE Only Servers
PVP Servers with Safe Areas
PVP FFA full loot Servers (including instances)
Presto you now have the biggest active PVP MMO population ever. Thats it, thats all that has to be done for the biggest PVP game ever. Seems simple enough.
MMORPGs are not Battlefield or Call of duty where everyone is exactly the same and it's a race to the best weapons on the map. MMORPGs have too many variables to be compared. Levels being the top one, armor/weapons is another. Numbers (of players on each other) is fairly consistent with battlegrounds and FPSs limited. A player in either case be find themselves in a 2+ vs 1 fight.
I'll do simple math for my point. 1/3 of the players want to PvP. another 1/3 want to do PvE. The last 1/3 want BOTH PvP and PvE. PvP players comp[lain about "having to do PvE." PvE players complain about PvP and how it MAY effect their PvE gameplay. Players who enjoy BOTH, usually want those activities on their own terms, like PvP areas or toggle-able PvP.
As I've said before, PvP is not an activity I enjoy, unless it's with real life friends. I want cooperative gameplay where players WANT to work together to overcome obstacles, where help is a natural response not a hindrance.
That's my take and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying the situation, but it was easier to convey my thoughts in a simpler way. I'm stupid, you know
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
The only reason people think there are alot of PVE focused MMO's is because they are all still around. Even the tiny budget PVE focused MMO's are still around. I cant even think of a MMORPG that was PVE focused that actually failed fully. Maybe there is one, but I cant think of it. There is really very few PVE MMO's released but they all stay active.
PVP MMO's have a design problem, its not based on fair PVP but domination. Every single one I have played, I have seen 1 side totally dominate another, where people leave the lesser side to join the domination side. The domination side just crushes everyone else if the MMO will let them. Whether its small scale griefing newbs, or 100 vs 8 large PVP battles, this is what happens eventually.
Also, we know of two currently successful pvp games. One of them more hardcore and has been going for a while.
There is an audience for pvp mmorg's. We know this becasue people ask for them. We know this because developers develop them.
Perhaps the issue is that the people who are making them don't quite understand what they should be doing.
Just look at a few of them. Darkfall. Developers were not professional, seemed petulant, they created what seemed a decent enough game but with odd, sort of laggy game play. When I swing at an enemy and I have no idea if I hit or not that's an issue. It felt janky. Not great. Same with Mortal Online.
Aion? Their marketing was that "you could play as you want to" even though that was only partially true. You could just quest. You could just pvp. But you had to deal with both as that was part of the game.
Dark Age of Camelot was successful for its time, I dare say Lineage and Lineage 2 were successful for their time.
I agree that there is a domination problem. Aion tried to make it so there was a pve faction but it really didn't seem implemented well.
In Lineage 2 it would sometimes work as there was always a group that wanted to take some other group down. On Hindemith if there was a dominating alliance abusing the server, the server would rise up and take their castles away. But that required server cooperation and it was my understanding that all servers weren't that way.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Interesting you say DAOC, but DAOC completely separated its PVE and PVP zones. People could PVE without ever PVPing in that game if they wanted to, therefore PVP was totally optional. General chat was dominated by PVE. Additionally DAOC had PVE servers.
The most popular PVP zone in DAOC was this little Arena called Thidranke which was only level 24. It was wildly popular because everyone had the same gear, same skills, noboby outclassed anyone. It put all the players into 1 tiny little zone, so it was easy to get PVP.
In the RVR zone, I was on a decently popular server, and I was in a PVP group that roamed Emain (main rvr zone) 8+ hours a day looking for anyone to kill. We could easily go a 1+ hours with Skald speed, without finding another group. Very occassionally like a few times a month there would be huge RVR battles for keeps.
I think DAOC had the best PVP, but it also had popular PVE that supported it.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I do like the idea of segregated pvp and pve if only to keep people on the same servers. But I don’t think developers have been able to make a great game like that since DAoC.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I am going to agree to differ on what we talked about before, no point in going over it again and again.
Now I agree with the small scale practice area , but it should not yield xp and gear on the same level as your actual RvR .
War made alot of mistakes , but I still loved it , got RR 90 on live and currently at 83 on the Emu. I'll add I did this without doing any Scenarios.The current version of the Emu is actually much better than the version. EA shut down ..
WO was a good MMORPG, I think it was highly underrated myself but remember when it launched players still thought a new Western AAA MMORPG was going to come out every year or two, we were spoilt for choice.
Personally from my perspective me and most of my close friends around me didnt even play Warhammer, I should have been a prime customer as I was an avid DAOC fan.
My thoughts just based on the messaging at the time, was that I remember the creators saying Warhammer was going to put more focus on PVP and less on PVE than DAOC. People at release were telling me this also, I immediately knew it would flop so I didnt want to waste my time in a game I thought would flop.
What it eventually turned out to be I dont know, but you cant take back a first impression. I remember having many discussions with people about whether we should bother with Warhammer or not.
Interestingly if it would have come out now, I probably would play since I am so starved for anything decent.
I believe this is the main problem with Dev Teams currently. They listen to extreme voices from both sides that are not in touch with the larger player base.
If I was going to setup a Feedback AI for a dev team, I would ask players to rank their top 10 games. Anyone that likes games that flop or were superlow pop, I would just ghost their feedback. I think this would solve much of the problem with the MMO genre in general.
So the reality is, your opinion is not one they need to listen too. They need to listen to players that have a good track record of liking games that are successful, players that are part of their base, but are more picky in their tastes. They need to understand customers that want a certain qaulity that appeals to people outside their extremely niche core.
Dev's have a limited amount of time to read feedback, they need to be hearing the voices that matter to make the game successful and not listen to players that push their game mechanics down a death spiral. If its just reporting a bug or something, fine that thread can get pushed through, but any "ideas" they need to really discern which is the best veiwpoints to be focusing on.
Explain why they should listen to people that like games that flop? Why does that opinion deserve to be heard over people that like successful games?
What a horrid world.
No, what they need to do is make the game they want, try to do a great job, and budget accordingly. That might mean lesser graphics, or fewer components but components done well enough to keep players.
Now, the more extreme one is the more difficult selling a project will be. But "ugh" just making things that cater to the masses? That's not a bad thing, and certainly not a bad thing if you want to make a lot of money, but it does mean that NOTHING unique will ever be considered.
And sometimes Unique can lead to success.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
While both PvP and PvE can put of players the best MMORPG's are made with both, WO has hardly been the only MMO to do less well than it should have done. We gave you two reasons, the RvR had the shine taken of it by the scenarios and that was the period when everyone thought another AAA was just around the corner.
Also what MMOs did it lose out to, other AAA's already out with PvP, unless you can name the AAA only PvE MMO that was sucking the playerbase dry?
I don't know much about WO development, the PvE seemed decent to me, but if they did weight it too much to PvP then that was a mistake, a solid MMORPG has to be balanced.
PvP also has more technical challenges though, and building it based on these older PvE combat systems (tab targetting for example) makes things a bit easier. It was tried and tested and worked. But I'd argue is definitely not preffered for a PvP centric MMORPG.