5 of the 7 had been lost of the Dwarven rings, but not all 7 The rings never did much good to Sauron, as Dwarves were so stubborn and hard willed, that not even Sauron could bend the dwarves to his will. The most malice he could do was to increase the natural greed of the Dwarves until it became a problem.
There was a suspicion that the ring was present at that time by Gandalf that they all went nutso for the gold. The last two bearers of the last of the Seven to be retaken by Sauron, Thrór and Thráin, did not stay uninfluenced by the Ring. Intriguingly it is said in the LoTR Appendix A III regarding Thrórs motivation to lead the expedition to regain Moria:
“He was a little crazed perhaps with age and misfortune and long brooding on the splendour of Moria in his forefathers’ days; or the Ring, it may be, was turning to evil now that its master was awake, driving him to folly and destruction.”
Of Thráin, the following is said:
“It was therefore perhaps partly by the malice of the Ring that Thráin after some years became restless and discontented. The lust for gold was ever in his mind.”
Originally posted by NoVu5 5 of the 7 had been lost of the Dwarven rings, but not all 7 The rings never did much good to Sauron, as Dwarves were so stubborn and hard willed, that not even Sauron could bend the dwarves to his will. The most malice he could do was to increase the natural greed of the Dwarves until it became a problem.
There was a suspicion that the ring was present at that time by Gandalf that they all went nutso for the gold. The last two bearers of the last of the Seven to be retaken by Sauron, Thrór and Thráin, did not stay uninfluenced by the Ring. Intriguingly it is said in the LoTR Appendix A III regarding Thrórs motivation to lead the expedition to regain Moria:
“He was a little crazed perhaps with age and misfortune and long brooding on the splendour of Moria in his forefathers’ days; or the Ring, it may be, was turning to evil now that its master was awake, driving him to folly and destruction.”
Of Thráin, the following is said:
“It was therefore perhaps partly by the malice of the Ring that Thráin after some years became restless and discontented. The lust for gold was ever in his mind.”
This was thrain not thorin that the ring influenced this way and thrain ended up in the dungoen of sauron when he was hiding in mirkwood in Dol guldur. That is were gandalf found thrain and got the key and the map from him that he gave to thorin. It does not say what happened to his ring but i would imagine that sauron took it from him.
I do not recall the any ring other than the one bilbo found being mentioned in the hobbit. I do know that the dragon horde had an affect on thorin and company other than bilbo who could care less about the gold.
This is what the encyclopedia of arda has to say about the seven dwarven rings.
Those of the Rings of Power that Sauron gave to the Dwarves to seduce them to his service. The Dwarves proved too hardy to be lured in this way, though, and the Rings did little more than increase their native lust for gold. By the end of the Third Age, Sauron had recovered three of the Seven Rings to himself, and the other four had been consumed by dragons.
Well if nothing else they should have PvP because its FUN. and if ur someone who just wants to sit around and site-see the graphics that were made up then u can do that... but they could easily make PvP and do somthing similar to SWG where u can be overt (able to PvP) or covert (unable to PvP or be attacked). Theres no reason they should not have it just for the sake of some people who dont want to.
And as to small PvP battles in LOTR there were a few... like when Eowyn killed the Witch King, and gollum fought with Frodo and Sam a couple times, and when Aragorn takes on the Ring Wraiths on Weathertop. Now i know that is just a few examples of small PvP but it happens and people should be able to chose if they want to, because above all else, the purpose of the game is to HAVE FUN.... thats all i have.
There is still no mention of a dwarven ring in the hobbit. I have just recently re read the hobbit and think i would of remembered one being mentioned. The fact remains thorin did not have his father's ring cause gandalf only got the map and the key for the door from thrain.
In his old age, Thrór set out to wander the lands of Middle-earth, but before departing he gave the heirlooms of his house to his son Thráin, including his Map. Years later, Thráin too set out into Middle-earth, seeking to recover Erebor himself, and taking with him the Map to guide his way. He was captured in the Wild by the servants of Sauron, but Sauron captured Thráin for the Ring of Power he bore, and so overlooked the Map he carried too. This proved to be a serious oversight, because Gandalf secretly entered Sauron's lair at Dol Guldur while Thráin was a prisoner there, and managed to escape with the Map and the key that opened the secret door.
Regardless of when sauron got the three rings he came to possess, he got the one that would of passed on to thorin. The other rings were in a dragon's gullet or sauron had them by now.
I think the OP should read the LOTRO FAQ. For a start this game is based on the books LOTR and to some degree the Hobbit. Turbine don't have the rights to the movies, so this 'pvp and loot' rubbish is, well, rubbish... While the books are indeed focused during the war of the ring, it isn't all war. Tolkien only wrote 1 chapter on the actual battle of the pelennor fields (or the 'huge battle' in return of the king) unlike in the film it lasted a fair while.
No, but its in the Fellowship of the Ring, at the counsel of Elrond, when Gloin admits that it was partially in hunt for the dwarven Ring that Thror was belived to have lost in Moria, that Balin whent on his expedition. However Thror passed the Ring to Thain who under torture in the dungeons of Barad Dur gave away the Ring to Sauron before Gandalf arived.
Originally posted by NoVu5 That's cause it's not in the Hobbit.
No exciting, meaningful PvP in LOTR, one of the most bloodiest and combat centric tales? Even the death grip of carebears have reached this far to ruin a perfectly fun game. Be prepared for grinding, raiding, grinding.
Such a sad day.
-------------------------------------------
Steelarm, Doctor of MMO gaming, ethics, and ideas.
Originally posted by Steelarm011 No exciting, meaningful PvP in LOTR, one of the most bloodiest and combat centric tales? Even the death grip of carebears have reached this far to ruin a perfectly fun game. Be prepared for grinding, raiding, grinding. Such a sad day.
So says the greatest game designer in history. Oh wait you have never designed a game have you. You just another frustrated pvper who can't gank people in this game. The lord of the rings is not a combat centric tale. You can count the number of major battles on one hand. Helm's deep, Minas tirith, Black gate, all the other battles were nothing more than skirmishes. That is in the books, Now the movies was a combat centric tale i will give you that. But this is not based off of the movies, wich peter jackson changed so much from the original books that if tolkien was alive today he would of throttled him.
If you are looking for what you call meenigful pvp, and i am taking that as FFA gankfest pvp. Look towards Warhammer, Age of conan and if it ever comes out Darkfall. Not every game has to be a pvp gankfest. At least one game can be a story driven PvE game for all of those who desire such a game.
Originally posted by Grindalyx Originally posted by Steelarm011 No exciting, meaningful PvP in LOTR, one of the most bloodiest and combat centric tales? Even the death grip of carebears have reached this far to ruin a perfectly fun game. Be prepared for grinding, raiding, grinding. Such a sad day.
So says the greatest game designer in history. Oh wait you have never designed a game have you. You just another frustrated pvper who can't gank people in this game. The lord of the rings is not a combat centric tale. You can count the number of major battles on one hand. Helm's deep, Minas tirith, Black gate, all the other battles were nothing more than skirmishes. That is in the books, Now the movies was a combat centric tale i will give you that. But this is not based off of the movies, wich peter jackson changed so much from the original books that if tolkien was alive today he would of throttled him.
If you are looking for what you call meenigful pvp, and i am taking that as FFA gankfest pvp. Look towards Warhammer, Age of conan and if it ever comes out Darkfall. Not every game has to be a pvp gankfest. At least one game can be a story driven PvE game for all of those who desire such a game.
Hahahahahaha. Theyre not combat centric?
bwhahahaah!!!!! My friend, LOTR is a war. Its a WAR. There are battles all the time. Yes, LOTR was also more intimate with characters, but then why are you making a game with combat at all? LOTR was the War of the Ring, and it doesnt matter if its based off the movies or the books, either way they have the battles in them and the "skirmishes" you talk about.
And dont put words in my mouth. When did I say that I wanted FFA PvP? Coincidentally, it is you who said that FFA PvP is "meaningful" not me. You want a story driven PvE game? Get WoW. LOTR is one of the bloodiest, exciting tales there is. The fate of Middle Earth hangs in the balance, and yet the game is being developed as a "story". Dont ruin a perfectly exciting game too. In my opinion, if you make a game PvE centric, its ruined, because theres nothing to do.
But go ahead and pay to play with bots. Its not coming out of my pocket.
I can imagine the scene now....
*tons of players are gathered in front of the Black Gate in LOTR, doing the story mode*
Guildmaster: "Okay guys, lets get this run going. Joe, get the mages ready. Jack, get the tanks all buffed up."
Originally posted by Steelarm011 Originally posted by Grindalyx Originally posted by Steelarm011 No exciting, meaningful PvP in LOTR, one of the most bloodiest and combat centric tales? Even the death grip of carebears have reached this far to ruin a perfectly fun game. Be prepared for grinding, raiding, grinding. Such a sad day.
So says the greatest game designer in history. Oh wait you have never designed a game have you. You just another frustrated pvper who can't gank people in this game. The lord of the rings is not a combat centric tale. You can count the number of major battles on one hand. Helm's deep, Minas tirith, Black gate, all the other battles were nothing more than skirmishes. That is in the books, Now the movies was a combat centric tale i will give you that. But this is not based off of the movies, wich peter jackson changed so much from the original books that if tolkien was alive today he would of throttled him.
If you are looking for what you call meenigful pvp, and i am taking that as FFA gankfest pvp. Look towards Warhammer, Age of conan and if it ever comes out Darkfall. Not every game has to be a pvp gankfest. At least one game can be a story driven PvE game for all of those who desire such a game.
Hahahahahaha. Theyre not combat centric?
bwhahahaah!!!!! My friend, LOTR is a war. Its a WAR. There are battles all the time. Yes, LOTR was also more intimate with characters, but then why are you making a game with combat at all? LOTR was the War of the Ring, and it doesnt matter if its based off the movies or the books, either way they have the battles in them and the "skirmishes" you talk about.
And dont put words in my mouth. When did I say that I wanted FFA PvP? Coincidentally, it is you who said that FFA PvP is "meaningful" not me. You want a story driven PvE game? Get WoW. LOTR is one of the bloodiest, exciting tales there is. The fate of Middle Earth hangs in the balance, and yet the game is being developed as a "story". Dont ruin a perfectly exciting game too. In my opinion, if you make a game PvE centric, its ruined, because theres nothing to do.
But go ahead and pay to play with bots. Its not coming out of my pocket.
I can imagine the scene now....
*tons of players are gathered in front of the Black Gate in LOTR, doing the story mode*
Guildmaster: "Okay guys, lets get this run going. Joe, get the mages ready. Jack, get the tanks all buffed up."
Have you even read the books. The war of the rings is a backdrop in the over 1000 pages written in all of the books to set the mode for the urgency of destroying the ring. In over 1000 pages there is very little fighting. Tolkien himself even said the books were not about war but about finding in oneselve to over comeing the impossible odds and winning. The books are about setting aside differances to stand against a common foe.
I have read the books more times than i can remember over the years and i have never gotten out of the books that it was a bloody war, The evil races are the antogonist put in there to give the protaganists a purpose. As the war of the ring fills the same role. To give the destruction of the ring a purpose. Otherwise there would be no reason to destroy the ring.
Monster play will be the form of pvp in this game. Now it is not everyones idea of pvp but it also fits many other peoples idea of a pvp they like to try. I am sorry that it does not suit you. This game is pve centric and that is how it is. I like pvp, it is exilihilarting and in the proper setting it can thrive. I see monster play as the solution to haveing pvp in LOTRO.
I owe you an apology, I just assumed you thought FFA pvp was meeningful from your post. My bad for doing that. Most people who use carebear in my exp are looking for that kind of pvp. I also apologize for the way i opened my last post, i just don't agree with your view of the books. I let a part of me i usually keep under control get the better of me.
Hahahahahaha. Theyre not combat centric? bwhahahaah!!!!! My friend, LOTR is a war. Its a WAR. There are battles all the time. Yes, LOTR was also more intimate with characters, but then why are you making a game with combat at all? LOTR was the War of the Ring, and it doesnt matter if its based off the movies or the books, either way they have the battles in them and the "skirmishes" you talk about. And dont put words in my mouth. When did I say that I wanted FFA PvP? Coincidentally, it is you who said that FFA PvP is "meaningful" not me. You want a story driven PvE game? Get WoW. LOTR is one of the bloodiest, exciting tales there is. The fate of Middle Earth hangs in the balance, and yet the game is being developed as a "story". Dont ruin a perfectly exciting game too. In my opinion, if you make a game PvE centric, its ruined, because theres nothing to do. But go ahead and pay to play with bots. Its not coming out of my pocket. I can imagine the scene now.... *tons of players are gathered in front of the Black Gate in LOTR, doing the story mode* Guildmaster: "Okay guys, lets get this run going. Joe, get the mages ready. Jack, get the tanks all buffed up." *Instance starts* 1st wave comes. *guild kills it* second wave *guild kills it* *guild kills boss* Ooo, Glamdring *people roll* Anyone want to do the instance over guys? ----- ...How meaningless. Such sadness.
Now, come back and you'll be allowed to speak when you've read the books, and have passed a reading comprehension course. As a matter of fact, I'll thrown in Tolkiens letters, that's a must read as well.
"The books are about war, flat out". Okaaay there buddy. Stop watching the movies, and pick up a book. There were NOT battles all of the time. The first one didn't happen until Weathertop, which lasted all of 2 pages. The next? Moria, which was less of a battle and more of a "let's get our ****s out of here!". Then there was Amon Hen. Helms deep was 9 pages. That's it in TTT. 9 pages out of over 400. In the movie, it's practically the entire thing.
Noob.
You make it worse by talking about the "War of the Ring", and the "Lord of the Rings", as if it was the same single book. :: shakes head :: Sigh. People who've seen a movie, can do internet searches, and now believe themselves to be Tolkien experts.
bwhahahaah!!!!! My friend, LOTR is a war. Its a WAR. There are battles all the time. Yes, LOTR was also more intimate with characters, but then why are you making a game with combat at all? LOTR was the War of the Ring, and it doesnt matter if its based off the movies or the books, either way they have the battles in them and the "skirmishes" you talk about.
And dont put words in my mouth. When did I say that I wanted FFA PvP? Coincidentally, it is you who said that FFA PvP is "meaningful" not me. You want a story driven PvE game? Get WoW. LOTR is one of the bloodiest, exciting tales there is. The fate of Middle Earth hangs in the balance, and yet the game is being developed as a "story". Dont ruin a perfectly exciting game too. In my opinion, if you make a game PvE centric, its ruined, because theres nothing to do.
But go ahead and pay to play with bots. Its not coming out of my pocket.
I can imagine the scene now....
*tons of players are gathered in front of the Black Gate in LOTR, doing the story mode*
Guildmaster: "Okay guys, lets get this run going. Joe, get the mages ready. Jack, get the tanks all buffed up."
Now, come back and you'll be allowed to speak when you've read the books, and have passed a reading comprehension course. As a matter of fact, I'll thrown in Tolkiens letters, that's a must read as well.
"The books are about war, flat out". Okaaay there buddy. Stop watching the movies, and pick up a book. There were NOT battles all of the time. The first one didn't happen until Weathertop, which lasted all of 2 pages. The next? Moria, which was less of a battle and more of a "let's get our ****s out of here!". Then there was Amon Hen. Helms deep was 9 pages. That's it in TTT. 9 pages out of over 400. In the movie, it's practically the entire thing.
Noob.
You make it worse by talking about the "War of the Ring", and the "Lord of the Rings", as if it was the same single book. :: shakes head :: Sigh. People who've seen a movie, can do internet searches, and now believe themselves to be Tolkien experts.
I have read the books. Just because maybe youre a Tolkien fanatic who read his "letters" doesnt make you an expert in the field.
First of all, I never said that "The books are about war, flat out" The books arent just about war, that would be impossible. Tolkien has to put in character interaction, development etc. It would be boring to read a book that was about killing 100% of the time. Youve put words in my mouth that I havent said. However, war was the main focus of LOTR. It would be impossible to say that it wasnt. It doesnt matter if you "count" the pages of how much Tolkien describes the battles, because it doesnt matter. If you look on the events of LOTR, most of it was war or pertained to it. War was the main focus of LOTR, and it doesnt matter whether or not he describes it in 9 pages or 10. In fact, alot of theorists say that LOTR and Middle Earth was a microchasm of WWII. Its not my fault the movie picked the most exciting parts of the book and put it together to appease the masses.
How about thinking before you post? I think that would be a good idea.
*sigh* I love it how people think theyre on higher ground and more intelligent because theyve read the books.
Nub.
-------------------------------------------
Steelarm, Doctor of MMO gaming, ethics, and ideas.
Originally posted by Steelarm011 Originally posted by NoVu5 Originally posted by Steelarm011
Hahahahahaha. Theyre not combat centric? bwhahahaah!!!!! My friend, LOTR is a war. Its a WAR. There are battles all the time. Yes, LOTR was also more intimate with characters, but then why are you making a game with combat at all? LOTR was the War of the Ring, and it doesnt matter if its based off the movies or the books, either way they have the battles in them and the "skirmishes" you talk about. And dont put words in my mouth. When did I say that I wanted FFA PvP? Coincidentally, it is you who said that FFA PvP is "meaningful" not me. You want a story driven PvE game? Get WoW. LOTR is one of the bloodiest, exciting tales there is. The fate of Middle Earth hangs in the balance, and yet the game is being developed as a "story". Dont ruin a perfectly exciting game too. In my opinion, if you make a game PvE centric, its ruined, because theres nothing to do. But go ahead and pay to play with bots. Its not coming out of my pocket. I can imagine the scene now.... *tons of players are gathered in front of the Black Gate in LOTR, doing the story mode* Guildmaster: "Okay guys, lets get this run going. Joe, get the mages ready. Jack, get the tanks all buffed up." *Instance starts* 1st wave comes. *guild kills it* second wave *guild kills it* *guild kills boss* Ooo, Glamdring *people roll* Anyone want to do the instance over guys? ----- ...How meaningless. Such sadness.
Now, come back and you'll be allowed to speak when you've read the books, and have passed a reading comprehension course. As a matter of fact, I'll thrown in Tolkiens letters, that's a must read as well.
"The books are about war, flat out". Okaaay there buddy. Stop watching the movies, and pick up a book. There were NOT battles all of the time. The first one didn't happen until Weathertop, which lasted all of 2 pages. The next? Moria, which was less of a battle and more of a "let's get our ****s out of here!". Then there was Amon Hen. Helms deep was 9 pages. That's it in TTT. 9 pages out of over 400. In the movie, it's practically the entire thing.
Noob.
You make it worse by talking about the "War of the Ring", and the "Lord of the Rings", as if it was the same single book. :: shakes head :: Sigh. People who've seen a movie, can do internet searches, and now believe themselves to be Tolkien experts.
I have read the books. Just because maybe youre a Tolkien fanatic who read his "letters" doesnt make you an expert in the field.
First of all, I never said that "The books are about war, flat out" The books arent just about war, that would be impossible. Tolkien has to put in character interaction, development etc. It would be boring to read a book that was about killing 100% of the time. Youve put words in my mouth that I havent said. However, war was the main focus of LOTR. It would be impossible to say that it wasnt. It doesnt matter if you "count" the pages of how much Tolkien describes the battles, because it doesnt matter. If you look on the events of LOTR, most of it was war or pertained to it. War was the main focus of LOTR, and it doesnt matter whether or not he describes it in 9 pages or 10. In fact, alot of theorists say that LOTR and Middle Earth was a microchasm of WWII. Its not my fault the movie picked the most exciting parts of the book and put it together to appease the masses.
How about thinking before you post? I think that would be a good idea.
*sigh* I love it how people think theyre on higher ground and more intelligent because theyve read the books.
Nub.
First of i was just asking if you read the books. From your post to me it didn't appear as you did. I was not putting words into your mouth you took it that way. I was pointing out what tolkien himself said about his writings and what the books were about. For the record tolkien flat out denied WWII haveing anything to do with his writings.
I do not think i am on a higher ground or more intelligent than anyone. I am just posting my opinions on the subject as are you. That does not make me or you any less valid in our opinions. You have your view and i have mine. There is alot more to the books as i see it than that of war. There is a bigger message that tolkien was trying to relate to his readers and i had already outlined that message as i see it.
Best thing to do is agree to disagree on this subject. It will get us no were bickering about it. I am thru with this post i have stated my opinion and i leave you to yours.
I have to disagree, I think most of the story is about a quest to destroy the most eveil object in Middle Earth - the One Ring. Everything revolves around that - including the armed conflicts. As to the scholars who claim the story is an allegory about WWII - tolkien stated quite clearly he did not in any way write his material to reflect or comment or elude to current events - his intent was to create a mythos for the people of Britain.
You might want to look at the authors of those posts you have there Grindalyx. Not once is your name mentioned. Steelarm's contention that words were put in his/her mouth was directed at Novu5(who by the way DID misquote him, if you look at the post), and had nothing to do with you at all. You might want to read through the post before you let yourself get offended by it.
As far as the PvP/warfare in the books argument goes, no, the story wasn't about warfare, but to deny that warfare existed as a major part of the story is silly. It is an account of the war of the ring, and while there aren't many major battles in the book(I would at the least put the Ent invasion of Isengard among your list of major battles), there was a LOT of conflict in the book, and the lore of Middle Earth is a fairly violent one, and not completely restricted to "Good vs. Evil". So to say that PvP has no basis for justification is just wrong(there is even justification for PvP in a purely good vs evil setup, aka Bill Ferny being in league with the dark forces).
For myself, I can live with a non PvP MMO, but it's not my first choice. I played everquest for years and never once was involved in a duel. But I also played the original lineage and remember the castle sieges(which were PvP for the most part) as some of the best parts of that game.
I think it would have been an exciting element to bring to a game based on Middle Earth though, and I think that the setup of Middle Earth lends itself to a rich PvP environment(I could imagine a game where you choose a player controlled race, goblin, dwarf, rohirrim, ect. and those races choose who to ally themselves with/go to war with/trade with...it could be a great setup for a MMO world I think).
As far as the people who say,"All PVPers are kids who want to be able to gank anyone they want", that's just not true at all. PvP adds an element of excitement and unpredictability to a game that npc's (no matter how good the AI) just can't add. When you see another player coming to engage you, there's just no way you can predict what that person is going to do, or what strategy they are going to use. With a computer generated foe that just can't be said. PvP can be a viable, exciting and enjoyable part of an MMO, not just a gankfest.
Comments
There was a suspicion that the ring was present at that time by Gandalf that they all went nutso for the gold. The last two bearers of the last of the Seven to be retaken by Sauron,
Thrór and Thráin, did not stay uninfluenced
by the Ring. Intriguingly it is said in the LoTR Appendix A III
regarding Thrórs motivation to lead the expedition to regain Moria:
“He was a little crazed perhaps with age and misfortune and long
brooding on the splendour of Moria in his forefathers’ days; or the
Ring, it may be, was turning to evil now that its master was awake,
driving him to folly and destruction.”
Of Thráin, the following
is said:
“It was therefore perhaps partly by the malice of the Ring that Thráin
after some years became restless and discontented. The lust for gold
was ever in his mind.”
This was thrain not thorin that the ring influenced this way and thrain ended up in the dungoen of sauron when he was hiding in mirkwood in Dol guldur. That is were gandalf found thrain and got the key and the map from him that he gave to thorin. It does not say what happened to his ring but i would imagine that sauron took it from him.
I do not recall the any ring other than the one bilbo found being mentioned in the hobbit. I do know that the dragon horde had an affect on thorin and company other than bilbo who could care less about the gold.
This is what the encyclopedia of arda has to say about the seven dwarven rings.
Those of the Rings of Power that Sauron gave to the Dwarves to seduce them to his service. The Dwarves proved too hardy to be lured in this way, though, and the Rings did little more than increase their native lust for gold. By the end of the Third Age, Sauron had recovered three of the Seven Rings to himself, and the other four had been consumed by dragons.
Precisely. By the end of the third age. 3018-19 T.A. of LOTR.
In addition, as good as The Encyclopedia of Arda is, I always prefer straight quotes out of the books.
Well if nothing else they should have PvP because its FUN. and if ur someone who just wants to sit around and site-see the graphics that were made up then u can do that... but they could easily make PvP and do somthing similar to SWG where u can be overt (able to PvP) or covert (unable to PvP or be attacked). Theres no reason they should not have it just for the sake of some people who dont want to.
And as to small PvP battles in LOTR there were a few... like when Eowyn killed the Witch King, and gollum fought with Frodo and Sam a couple times, and when Aragorn takes on the Ring Wraiths on Weathertop. Now i know that is just a few examples of small PvP but it happens and people should be able to chose if they want to, because above all else, the purpose of the game is to HAVE FUN.... thats all i have.
There is still no mention of a dwarven ring in the hobbit. I have just recently re read the hobbit and think i would of remembered one being mentioned. The fact remains thorin did not have his father's ring cause gandalf only got the map and the key for the door from thrain.
In his old age, Thrór set out to wander the lands of Middle-earth, but before departing he gave the heirlooms of his house to his son Thráin, including his Map. Years later, Thráin too set out into Middle-earth, seeking to recover Erebor himself, and taking with him the Map to guide his way. He was captured in the Wild by the servants of Sauron, but Sauron captured Thráin for the Ring of Power he bore, and so overlooked the Map he carried too. This proved to be a serious oversight, because Gandalf secretly entered Sauron's lair at Dol Guldur while Thráin was a prisoner there, and managed to escape with the Map and the key that opened the secret door.
Regardless of when sauron got the three rings he came to possess, he got the one that would of passed on to thorin. The other rings were in a dragon's gullet or sauron had them by now.
While the books are indeed focused during the war of the ring, it isn't all war. Tolkien only wrote 1 chapter on the actual battle of the pelennor fields (or the 'huge battle' in return of the king) unlike in the film it lasted a fair while.
No exciting, meaningful PvP in LOTR, one of the most bloodiest and combat centric tales? Even the death grip of carebears have reached this far to ruin a perfectly fun game. Be prepared for grinding, raiding, grinding.
Such a sad day.
-------------------------------------------
Steelarm, Doctor of MMO gaming, ethics, and ideas.
So says the greatest game designer in history. Oh wait you have never designed a game have you. You just another frustrated pvper who can't gank people in this game. The lord of the rings is not a combat centric tale. You can count the number of major battles on one hand. Helm's deep, Minas tirith, Black gate, all the other battles were nothing more than skirmishes. That is in the books, Now the movies was a combat centric tale i will give you that. But this is not based off of the movies, wich peter jackson changed so much from the original books that if tolkien was alive today he would of throttled him.
If you are looking for what you call meenigful pvp, and i am taking that as FFA gankfest pvp. Look towards Warhammer, Age of conan and if it ever comes out Darkfall. Not every game has to be a pvp gankfest. At least one game can be a story driven PvE game for all of those who desire such a game.
So says the greatest game designer in history. Oh wait you have never designed a game have you. You just another frustrated pvper who can't gank people in this game. The lord of the rings is not a combat centric tale. You can count the number of major battles on one hand. Helm's deep, Minas tirith, Black gate, all the other battles were nothing more than skirmishes. That is in the books, Now the movies was a combat centric tale i will give you that. But this is not based off of the movies, wich peter jackson changed so much from the original books that if tolkien was alive today he would of throttled him.
If you are looking for what you call meenigful pvp, and i am taking that as FFA gankfest pvp. Look towards Warhammer, Age of conan and if it ever comes out Darkfall. Not every game has to be a pvp gankfest. At least one game can be a story driven PvE game for all of those who desire such a game.
Hahahahahaha. Theyre not combat centric?
bwhahahaah!!!!! My friend, LOTR is a war. Its a WAR. There are battles all the time. Yes, LOTR was also more intimate with characters, but then why are you making a game with combat at all? LOTR was the War of the Ring, and it doesnt matter if its based off the movies or the books, either way they have the battles in them and the "skirmishes" you talk about.
And dont put words in my mouth. When did I say that I wanted FFA PvP? Coincidentally, it is you who said that FFA PvP is "meaningful" not me. You want a story driven PvE game? Get WoW. LOTR is one of the bloodiest, exciting tales there is. The fate of Middle Earth hangs in the balance, and yet the game is being developed as a "story". Dont ruin a perfectly exciting game too. In my opinion, if you make a game PvE centric, its ruined, because theres nothing to do.
But go ahead and pay to play with bots. Its not coming out of my pocket.
I can imagine the scene now....
*tons of players are gathered in front of the Black Gate in LOTR, doing the story mode*
Guildmaster: "Okay guys, lets get this run going. Joe, get the mages ready. Jack, get the tanks all buffed up."
*Instance starts* 1st wave comes. *guild kills it* second wave *guild kills it* *guild kills boss*
Ooo, Glamdring *people roll*
Anyone want to do the instance over guys?
-----
...How meaningless. Such sadness.
-------------------------------------------
Steelarm, Doctor of MMO gaming, ethics, and ideas.
So says the greatest game designer in history. Oh wait you have never designed a game have you. You just another frustrated pvper who can't gank people in this game. The lord of the rings is not a combat centric tale. You can count the number of major battles on one hand. Helm's deep, Minas tirith, Black gate, all the other battles were nothing more than skirmishes. That is in the books, Now the movies was a combat centric tale i will give you that. But this is not based off of the movies, wich peter jackson changed so much from the original books that if tolkien was alive today he would of throttled him.
If you are looking for what you call meenigful pvp, and i am taking that as FFA gankfest pvp. Look towards Warhammer, Age of conan and if it ever comes out Darkfall. Not every game has to be a pvp gankfest. At least one game can be a story driven PvE game for all of those who desire such a game.
Hahahahahaha. Theyre not combat centric?
bwhahahaah!!!!! My friend, LOTR is a war. Its a WAR. There are battles all the time. Yes, LOTR was also more intimate with characters, but then why are you making a game with combat at all? LOTR was the War of the Ring, and it doesnt matter if its based off the movies or the books, either way they have the battles in them and the "skirmishes" you talk about.
And dont put words in my mouth. When did I say that I wanted FFA PvP? Coincidentally, it is you who said that FFA PvP is "meaningful" not me. You want a story driven PvE game? Get WoW. LOTR is one of the bloodiest, exciting tales there is. The fate of Middle Earth hangs in the balance, and yet the game is being developed as a "story". Dont ruin a perfectly exciting game too. In my opinion, if you make a game PvE centric, its ruined, because theres nothing to do.
But go ahead and pay to play with bots. Its not coming out of my pocket.
I can imagine the scene now....
*tons of players are gathered in front of the Black Gate in LOTR, doing the story mode*
Guildmaster: "Okay guys, lets get this run going. Joe, get the mages ready. Jack, get the tanks all buffed up."
*Instance starts* 1st wave comes. *guild kills it* second wave *guild kills it* *guild kills boss*
Ooo, Glamdring *people roll*
Anyone want to do the instance over guys?
-----
...How meaningless. Such sadness.
Have you even read the books. The war of the rings is a backdrop in the over 1000 pages written in all of the books to set the mode for the urgency of destroying the ring. In over 1000 pages there is very little fighting. Tolkien himself even said the books were not about war but about finding in oneselve to over comeing the impossible odds and winning. The books are about setting aside differances to stand against a common foe.
I have read the books more times than i can remember over the years and i have never gotten out of the books that it was a bloody war, The evil races are the antogonist put in there to give the protaganists a purpose. As the war of the ring fills the same role. To give the destruction of the ring a purpose. Otherwise there would be no reason to destroy the ring.
Monster play will be the form of pvp in this game. Now it is not everyones idea of pvp but it also fits many other peoples idea of a pvp they like to try. I am sorry that it does not suit you. This game is pve centric and that is how it is. I like pvp, it is exilihilarting and in the proper setting it can thrive. I see monster play as the solution to haveing pvp in LOTRO.
I owe you an apology, I just assumed you thought FFA pvp was meeningful from your post. My bad for doing that. Most people who use carebear in my exp are looking for that kind of pvp. I also apologize for the way i opened my last post, i just don't agree with your view of the books. I let a part of me i usually keep under control get the better of me.
Now, come back and you'll be allowed to speak when you've read the books, and have passed a reading comprehension course. As a matter of fact, I'll thrown in Tolkiens letters, that's a must read as well.
"The books are about war, flat out". Okaaay there buddy. Stop watching the movies, and pick up a book. There were NOT battles all of the time. The first one didn't happen until Weathertop, which lasted all of 2 pages. The next? Moria, which was less of a battle and more of a "let's get our ****s out of here!". Then there was Amon Hen. Helms deep was 9 pages. That's it in TTT. 9 pages out of over 400. In the movie, it's practically the entire thing.
Noob.
You make it worse by talking about the "War of the Ring", and the "Lord of the Rings", as if it was the same single book. :: shakes head :: Sigh. People who've seen a movie, can do internet searches, and now believe themselves to be Tolkien experts.
I have read the books. Just because maybe youre a Tolkien fanatic who read his "letters" doesnt make you an expert in the field.
First of all, I never said that "The books are about war, flat out" The books arent just about war, that would be impossible. Tolkien has to put in character interaction, development etc. It would be boring to read a book that was about killing 100% of the time. Youve put words in my mouth that I havent said. However, war was the main focus of LOTR. It would be impossible to say that it wasnt. It doesnt matter if you "count" the pages of how much Tolkien describes the battles, because it doesnt matter. If you look on the events of LOTR, most of it was war or pertained to it. War was the main focus of LOTR, and it doesnt matter whether or not he describes it in 9 pages or 10. In fact, alot of theorists say that LOTR and Middle Earth was a microchasm of WWII. Its not my fault the movie picked the most exciting parts of the book and put it together to appease the masses.
How about thinking before you post? I think that would be a good idea.
*sigh* I love it how people think theyre on higher ground and more intelligent because theyve read the books.
Nub.
-------------------------------------------
Steelarm, Doctor of MMO gaming, ethics, and ideas.
Now, come back and you'll be allowed to speak when you've read the books, and have passed a reading comprehension course. As a matter of fact, I'll thrown in Tolkiens letters, that's a must read as well.
"The books are about war, flat out". Okaaay there buddy. Stop watching the movies, and pick up a book. There were NOT battles all of the time. The first one didn't happen until Weathertop, which lasted all of 2 pages. The next? Moria, which was less of a battle and more of a "let's get our ****s out of here!". Then there was Amon Hen. Helms deep was 9 pages. That's it in TTT. 9 pages out of over 400. In the movie, it's practically the entire thing.
Noob.
You make it worse by talking about the "War of the Ring", and the "Lord of the Rings", as if it was the same single book. :: shakes head :: Sigh. People who've seen a movie, can do internet searches, and now believe themselves to be Tolkien experts.
I have read the books. Just because maybe youre a Tolkien fanatic who read his "letters" doesnt make you an expert in the field.
First of all, I never said that "The books are about war, flat out" The books arent just about war, that would be impossible. Tolkien has to put in character interaction, development etc. It would be boring to read a book that was about killing 100% of the time. Youve put words in my mouth that I havent said. However, war was the main focus of LOTR. It would be impossible to say that it wasnt. It doesnt matter if you "count" the pages of how much Tolkien describes the battles, because it doesnt matter. If you look on the events of LOTR, most of it was war or pertained to it. War was the main focus of LOTR, and it doesnt matter whether or not he describes it in 9 pages or 10. In fact, alot of theorists say that LOTR and Middle Earth was a microchasm of WWII. Its not my fault the movie picked the most exciting parts of the book and put it together to appease the masses.
How about thinking before you post? I think that would be a good idea.
*sigh* I love it how people think theyre on higher ground and more intelligent because theyve read the books.
Nub.
First of i was just asking if you read the books. From your post to me it didn't appear as you did. I was not putting words into your mouth you took it that way. I was pointing out what tolkien himself said about his writings and what the books were about. For the record tolkien flat out denied WWII haveing anything to do with his writings.
I do not think i am on a higher ground or more intelligent than anyone. I am just posting my opinions on the subject as are you. That does not make me or you any less valid in our opinions. You have your view and i have mine. There is alot more to the books as i see it than that of war. There is a bigger message that tolkien was trying to relate to his readers and i had already outlined that message as i see it.
Best thing to do is agree to disagree on this subject. It will get us no were bickering about it. I am thru with this post i have stated my opinion and i leave you to yours.
You might want to look at the authors of those posts you have there Grindalyx. Not once is your name mentioned. Steelarm's contention that words were put in his/her mouth was directed at Novu5(who by the way DID misquote him, if you look at the post), and had nothing to do with you at all. You might want to read through the post before you let yourself get offended by it.
As far as the PvP/warfare in the books argument goes, no, the story wasn't about warfare, but to deny that warfare existed as a major part of the story is silly. It is an account of the war of the ring, and while there aren't many major battles in the book(I would at the least put the Ent invasion of Isengard among your list of major battles), there was a LOT of conflict in the book, and the lore of Middle Earth is a fairly violent one, and not completely restricted to "Good vs. Evil". So to say that PvP has no basis for justification is just wrong(there is even justification for PvP in a purely good vs evil setup, aka Bill Ferny being in league with the dark forces).
For myself, I can live with a non PvP MMO, but it's not my first choice. I played everquest for years and never once was involved in a duel. But I also played the original lineage and remember the castle sieges(which were PvP for the most part) as some of the best parts of that game.
I think it would have been an exciting element to bring to a game based on Middle Earth though, and I think that the setup of Middle Earth lends itself to a rich PvP environment(I could imagine a game where you choose a player controlled race, goblin, dwarf, rohirrim, ect. and those races choose who to ally themselves with/go to war with/trade with...it could be a great setup for a MMO world I think).
As far as the people who say,"All PVPers are kids who want to be able to gank anyone they want", that's just not true at all. PvP adds an element of excitement and unpredictability to a game that npc's (no matter how good the AI) just can't add. When you see another player coming to engage you, there's just no way you can predict what that person is going to do, or what strategy they are going to use. With a computer generated foe that just can't be said. PvP can be a viable, exciting and enjoyable part of an MMO, not just a gankfest.
-------------------------------------------
Steelarm, Doctor of MMO gaming, ethics, and ideas.