Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
PvP - Going to be instanced junk or heavy duty real sh*t???
Grandtomatoe
Member Posts: 21
I think instanced PvP sucks cuz you dont learn as much about your enemy OR your comrades. In DAOC, if I saw spam from someone I fought often it was exciting to know that they were out there fighting too.
Instanced junk like GW or WOW I could never get into because you had no friends really or knew your enemies, you just ran out there fought , died , and then ran out there again over and over. LAME!
So whats WAR gunna do for us true PvPers who have the patience and skillz to go out and do real battle?
Comments
so, you missed the "create a group" feature?
seems the only explanation why you would not know your comrades at the very least.
that aside, WAR will have full world pvp with conquerable battlefield objectives, ala DAoC.
It will also have plenty of instanced scenarios, kinda best of both worlds if you wish.
"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime"
Create a group is a good way to get to know people but it most of the time people jus pop in and leave without ever saying hi
www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch
Many important Battles will be fought in Scenarios, I'm afraid.
I, too, like open World PvP more than Scenarios/Instaced Battlefields, but I understand the reasons Mythic has to make Scenarios the most important single factor when deteremining Zone Control, Capitol City Entrance for Attackers and so on, the important things.
With PvP/RvR being such an integral Part in WAR, a numerical imbalance between Order and Destruction would otherwise lead to a serious frustration for the underplayed Realm. Imagine you KNOW that you'll NEVER come even close to your enemie's capitol (and thus, the best Equipment and the coolest Trophies), because your enemies are twice as many and every battle will lead to your side being Zerged anyway. Not exactly what would keep me playing for years.
With numerically balanced Scenarios, you put the emphasize on Skill of the single Player again, instead of who got more People. It's a "necessary evil" so to speak. Besides of that, Scenarios don't (and won't) be as bland and boring as WoW ones. Different objectives ranging from Capture the Flag, to hold the Artifact, to the classical Deathmatch, even to Assault Maps (if you ever played Enemy Territory or UT Assault, you should get the idea. One Side is the Attacker, and for example has to take a Castle. To do that, you first need to capture Outposts, then protect NPC Builders to give them time to build up a siege tower, then you have to fight in the siege tower to get in the castle, then you have to breach the Throne room doors, then you have to kill the Leader, all the while the Spawn Points change accordingly, and the other side has to defend it for a set time, for example)...
There will be over 150 different scenarios in the game at release, so you should always have fun and different experiences ^_^
^Winner^
As much as I would love to see hundreds of people stomping the crap out of each other it just isn't feasible. To keep things fair it has to be instanced, to keep lag down you want instances. If they didn't do instances then you would be complaining about lag and the imbalance. So they picked one and IMO it was the better choice.
^Winner^
Thank you, thank you *bows*.I'd like a Beta Spot as reward
I agree with all Elgareth posted above but slighlty disagree this, over the years there has been some massive conflict on a huge scale in the frontiers of DAoC. Even more so for the first couple of years in old Emain. Yes, sometimes Albs had more, sometimes Mid mustered up a good number, Hibs always did, and on the night when everyone turned out and it kicked off, it was simply amazing, 100's of bodies clashing and beating the shite out of each other, awesome fun...
Well thing is, in DAOC you had three Realms. So the two less ones could team up against the third, equaling everything out again. In WAR, you'll have two Realms, so if one seriously lacks numbers (I'm not talking about 60/40 or so, but 70/30 up), that's that, noones gonna help them, because noone else's there.
Nevertheless, we'll have those huge (250vs.250 are planned by Mythic some months ago) Wars for Capitol cities, and those Wars WILL happen in the open world for everyone to participate.
Gain entrance through Scenarios, but once the Doors are Open, you still have to breach the Defenses in the Open World
Can't wait
You mention a good point with imbalance in the numbers, like you said 70/30. But that kind of imbalance is only really visible if the action is focused at one point. With WAR, you may only have two sides, but there are three battlefronts, so the action is split. That's where strategy and team (realm) work comes into play, even if a side is only 30% in population, they can just leave the enemy defend 2/3 of the battlefronts and unload their attacks on the one left. If they get overwhelmed, just switch. The timing and communication will be the key to population imbalance. And the fact that there are three battlefronts instead of only one will reduce the effect of this imbalance. Anyway it'll most likely change over time.
Can't wait to see what happens with this game.
Having 3 battle fronts spreads out the lower populated faction even more so and then the larger population of enemies can just do the same thing to defend against the other 1/3rd mounting a offensive drive.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Game(s) I Am Currently Playing:
GW2 (+LoL and BF3)
Why do people try to defend instancing in the name of fairness? PvP isn't supposed to be fair, especially in MMORPGs. Fair PvP only exists in Yahoo checkers, and first person shooters. I think the instancing has the potential to do a lot of damage to this game in the long term, but I am trying to give this game the benefit of the doubt because its Mythic. I guess time will tell.
TwitchTV Partnered Streamer
MMORPG.com Spotlight Blog Writer
Co-Leader of Inquisition
Youtube Channel
/bow this post is right on
Well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it but I get the feeling that most people would prefer balanced battles to lopsided ones.
If all PvP & RvR in WAR was world based it would probably doom the least popular races to being perennial losers. Mythic would then run the risk of having these races become seriously underpopulated since few people (especially casual players) enjoy having their head kicked in over and over and over again. New toons in the unpopular races would become scarce and Mythic would then be forced to implement racial based buffs in order to balance the game. You know, the kind of buffs that might make toons of those underpopulated races unusually powerful and resilient? Naturally players from the opposing factions who either enjoy or are accustomed to the lack of challenge that comes with kicking newborn puppies would scream bloody murder about the buffs and... shock and horror... would begin cry about balance and Mythic would be up to its eyeballs in e-mails from whiny b1tches who want their easy epics. You see where I'm going with this? Mythic isn't stupid enough to let the dogs off the leash like that and run the risk of seriously affecting its potential subscriber base. Mythic isn't going to get rid of its instanced RvR scenarios in WAR so get over it.
Besides the developers have been quoted as saying that achieving victory in world based battlegrounds will be required for a given race to be able to progress in the the Tier 4 campaign. Basically anyone who desires world based PvP above all else can stick to that and go bananas fighting over victory areas until they pass out on their keyboard from exhaustion.
When it comes down to it what's more exciting, repeated lopsided massacres or constant nail biting, hair raising fights to the finish?
I honestly try to understand people who are adamant against developers implementing these kinds of features in order to maintain some kind of balance. I get the feeling that the more rabid anti-instancing PvP people are closet griefers who are rather sore about not being able to pound on n00bs whenever they feel like it.
Instancing sucks, no matter how you try to spin it, but i'll still give it a chance.
I don't understand your teory OP.
You don't learn to read your enemy in instances? Isn't that much better for getting to know the enemy in a enviourment you can't escape rather than an open incident which can be over in a few seconds with people you probably never saw before noir will see again?
Anyway I don't really like your thread cus it's like you are saying that instanced PVP absolutely sucks which I really don't think. It's more fair and rough/hardcore. Open world PvP only results in lazy ganking and mass attacking which at least leaves me very bored quickly.
It's a matter of taste. Play the game before you judge how it is. Maby this time it is something new for you to like even.
$OE lies list
http://www.rlmmo.com/viewtopic.php?t=424&start=0
"
And I don't want to hear anything about "I don't believe in vampires" because *I* don't believe in vampires, but I believe in my own two eyes, and what *I* saw is ******* vampires! "
You sir certainly have some weird ideals of what PvP is. PvP stands for Player vs Player, basically a competition between players. You can 1vs1 or 1000vs1000, but the point is to see who the winner is. The winner might be established from who is left alive, who has control of the city after the dust settles, or who gets more points. The ESSENCE of PvP is to have a level playing field then beat the other player with skill/luck/tactics/strategy/etc. When you approach Unfair PvP you then call it Ganking or zerging if they can rez there and run out into battle again(swg).
So by all means call it what it is supposed to be called. You do not want PvP you want GANKING. You want the 10vs1 gank squads. You want the lvl 40's vs the lvl 10's. You want the Instant-win button. Sorry but none of that is fun to a majority of players. By all means say you don't want this but that is what FAIRNESS is about. Keeping things at least close. 5 vs 7, or lvl 38's vs lvl 40's. PvP is fairness, Ganking is not. Sure you can say that player vs player means any player vs any player but that is only trying to justify yourself. You don't challenge a one legged man to the 100m dash do you? You don't challenge a non-piano playing person to a piano playing competition. Why? because you wouldn't get satisfaction out of it. So why would you want to play a game where your opponent is basically DOA? or your DOA? you wouldn't because it wouldn't be fun/satisfying. I want to fight a fair battle and distinguish myself as the winner because of my skill, I don't want to be the person bragging because we had more people online for our side at that time.
You have played Wow and I can assume you have played the BG's. Did you ever play WSG when it was 10 vs you? or 15 vs you in AB when everyone would AFK out? Was that fun? Or how about class balance. Since you think games shouldn't be fair you wouldn't care if a class was overly overpowered. Trying playing a Warrior vs a Mage and say that is fun or a warlock vs a mage or any of the other rock paper scissors combos. People at least want a chance or it isn't even worth trying. Would you like a server with 1 side having 1000 people online vs a side with 0? No so they make things a bit more fair with instances.
I will give you a nice example of what I mean.
This is the horde on my old WoW server(yes it is PvP): http://bp1.blogger.com/_7yPKTYIf1nY/RpP7G8fJcbI/AAAAAAAAABc/E3HdzLQscU4/s1600-h/horde.bmp
Horde as far as the eye can see! Then came the night of AQ gate opening: http://bp2.blogger.com/_7yPKTYIf1nY/RpP7GMfJcYI/AAAAAAAAABE/43Y50OAlLhQ/s1600-h/AQ1.bmp
http://bp3.blogger.com/_7yPKTYIf1nY/RpP7GcfJcZI/AAAAAAAAABM/H4LJ_wjylmY/s1600-h/AQ2.bmp
http://bp0.blogger.com/_7yPKTYIf1nY/RpP7GsfJcaI/AAAAAAAAABU/y53SniqPZzc/s1600-h/AQ3.bmp
What is noticeably missing from the last 3 shots? Oh I don't know...HORDE. The server imbalance wasn't even close and horde were getting destroyed when they tried to get near the gate. What fun that was! Lag, death, lag, death, server restart, lag, death, lag, server restart, death...
Now don't take this as my advocation of instancing. I don't like instances and I would love huge battles. However I hate lagging to the point where I can't do anything, tactics are out the window, and strategies cannot be accomplished. If Mythic can come out with 100 vs 100 instances with no lag I will be more than happy. Even a 40 vs 40 would be awesome because it would be at least fun.
Also you only state that instances promote fairness and fairness isn't what you want. What difference does it make if you have a 100vs 100 battle in the world or a 100 vs 100 battle in an instance? if it gets you less lag in the instance who cares? I really just think you want to gank. Your one of those people who would sit in LHC and gank the AFK players, or go to CH and sit up on the bridge to kill people that were trying to repair/quest. You want to gank you don't want to PvP, please get it right.