Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:

GeckoOBac wrote:
*ahem* I have to say you are sadly misguided by your (probable) lack of knowledge in the field of MMOGs. There ARE (or were at the very least) MMOGs with competitive gameplay experience.

Bull.

Most of them were shunned for this reason, still it doesn't make them less real. Neocron was one of such games... Full pvp world except a few, very limited, places (where you traded and lived but nothing else), no factions (well almost, but in truth in the world outside you could basically kill whoever you wanted to without much problems) and quite decent balance between levels (though balance between classes was sometimes skewed).

What the feth is Neocron?

Well My turn to call Bull... You don't know Neocron and yet you claim that MY claim that there are or were mmogs with competitive gameplay experience is bullcrap...
Like I said, many of those games weren't famous because they didn't appeal the "I want it, now" crowd of kids that gave WoW its large subscriber base. Still, they did exist and boy, were they fun to play.

Planetside, being a true mmofps, is one of such games as well, but being a kind of FPS it's easier to build for strictly competitive gameplay.
WAR, while it has (or had, stopped playing some time ago) many shortcomings could be played completely forgetting the pve side of the game and going the full pvp route, both through battlegrounds and open pvp areas.

WAR was built exclusively with PvP in mind, PvE was an afterthought.
So of course you could play it "completely forgetting the pve side of the game".

Yeah so? It still doesn't make it any less competitive in my book. Unless you mean something different by "competitive".

Also organized gameplay is the staple of good clans/guilds. Don't blame the masses if they aren't capable of playing in an orderly manner... They are, after all, masses. Groups, even quite large, of people can work in coordination in such games. The mass pvp of DAoC and WAR is an example, clan wars in many games is another. "Empire" wide operations in planetside are very common and don't even need clans to work.

"Organized gameplay" isn't the "staple of good clans/guilds". They're the staple of good players. It's entirely possible to stomp "clan/guild" groups made up of crummy players.

So there goes the 'competitive' aspect right out the window there there.

I actually specified "good" clans/guilds. A clan/guild made up of crummy players is, by definition, not good.
Still, curbstomping incompetent players is not only "competition" (though perhaps not much of a challenge), but perhaps the best way to enforce natural selection in videogame population

So, yes, it can be done, as it has been done already. Will this be the case? I sincerely hope so. They seem to be going the WAR route which, if realized correctly, is good enough for me. Will they succeed? I have no freaking clue... Still, it's not impossible.

They're actually going no real particular "route" according to the interviews. They're seemingly trying to do both PvE and PvP as two separate entities, which might have a few overlaps in the form of missions or objectives.

Well the division into order and destruction seems to conform to the scheme of WAR. Most probably the final implementation will be different but what I meant is that if they're going to have the chance for full pvp character building and pvp as the end game (with perhaps the ability to do pvp throughout all the levels), then it's good enough for me (well, pending evaluation on the actual implementation).

[Edit: I realize the first period may sound offensive. It is not my intent.

I really don't care about that it "may sound offensive". The important thing to realize here, that they're wanting to accomplish with Dark Millenium is accessibility. They want the WoW population numbers. They want people to be able to play it on 5+ year old machines, without needing to spend a fortune to upgrade their PCs. They want people to be able to just hop in and 'be competitive'.

If they want to be able for people to just hop in and be competitive then it's actually probably good news for the game since the only kind of game that REALLY manages to do that is FPS games. Any similarity to that genre is good for me.

It's just that I have played so many different MMOGs that I can claim to have quite an experience in the "field"]

So you've got experience in wasting time? Congratulations, I'll have a medal shipped out to you tomorrow.

Well since computer science is my field of study and work... Shall we say it was time spent on research?

GeckoOBac wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

GeckoOBac wrote:
*ahem* I have to say you are sadly misguided by your (probable) lack of knowledge in the field of MMOGs. There ARE (or were at the very least) MMOGs with competitive gameplay experience.

Bull.

Most of them were shunned for this reason, still it doesn't make them less real. Neocron was one of such games... Full pvp world except a few, very limited, places (where you traded and lived but nothing else), no factions (well almost, but in truth in the world outside you could basically kill whoever you wanted to without much problems) and quite decent balance between levels (though balance between classes was sometimes skewed).

What the feth is Neocron?

Well My turn to call Bull... You don't know Neocron and yet you claim that MY claim that there are or were mmogs with competitive gameplay experience is bullcrap...
Like I said, many of those games weren't famous because they didn't appeal the "I want it, now" crowd of kids that gave WoW its large subscriber base. Still, they did exist and boy, were they fun to play.

It has nothing to do with "they didn't appeal to the 'I want it, now' crowd of kids that gave WoW its large subscriber base".

It has everything to do with it can't really be deemed a "MMOG" when the multiplayer experience is about on par with a single server from one of the Big Dogs. Could it have been fun? Sure. Could it have been competitive? Again: sure.
But it's easy to balance when your population is all of a few thousand people, or you have no classes or factions. Once you branch beyond that, things get difficult and competition level of play becomes a mythical idea.

By the by: WoW actually has a far higher population of people aged 20+ than it does children.

Planetside, being a true mmofps, is one of such games as well, but being a kind of FPS it's easier to build for strictly competitive gameplay.
WAR, while it has (or had, stopped playing some time ago) many shortcomings could be played completely forgetting the pve side of the game and going the full pvp route, both through battlegrounds and open pvp areas.

WAR was built exclusively with PvP in mind, PvE was an afterthought.
So of course you could play it "completely forgetting the pve side of the game".

Yeah so? It still doesn't make it any less competitive in my book. Unless you mean something different by "competitive".

Not trying to be a downer, but for the sake of the thread, could we sway back on topic? You guys both have your good points, but this isn't really the place to argue over which game had superior PvP and what not. This thread was meant to discuss what you want to see in the 40k MMO, not what was inferior in others.

Only if its free to play (which it won't be) so NO!

Would F2P really be better though? Most F2P MMOs are not really "Free to play" they usually involve a series of micro transactions
In which you pay real money to obtain weapons, equipment, and armor. Sure, you could play it, but the endgame content would probably be exclusive to people who purchased access to it. And since this game is going to be heavy on PvP, you would have a high chance of being stomped by the guy who has bought the best stuff.

Of course if you don't mind that, then I don't see a problem with you lobbying for free to play.

Formae wrote:Not trying to be a downer, but for the sake of the thread, could we sway back on topic? You guys both have your good points, but this isn't really the place to argue over which game had superior PvP and what not. This thread was meant to discuss what you want to see in the 40k MMO, not what was inferior in others.

And we're discussing "what we want in the game".
However, if you want to play mod...
This thread is entirely in the wrong section and is a duplicate, with a 6 page thread in the right section that has been going on for awhile.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/343208.page

Please try using the search function or at least looking in the proper section.

Kanluwen wrote:

Formae wrote:Not trying to be a downer, but for the sake of the thread, could we sway back on topic? You guys both have your good points, but this isn't really the place to argue over which game had superior PvP and what not. This thread was meant to discuss what you want to see in the 40k MMO, not what was inferior in others.

And we're discussing "what we want in the game".
However, if you want to play mod...
This thread is entirely in the wrong section and is a duplicate, with a 6 page thread in the right section that has been going on for awhile.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/343208.page

Please try using the search function or at least looking in the proper section.

In my eyes, I see you guys fighting over who has a higher knowledge of MMO's and the like. But if I am mistaken, then my apologies.

Formae wrote:
In my eyes, I see you guys fighting over who has a higher knowledge of MMO's and the like. But if I am mistaken, then my apologies.

You're mistaken, but it's easy to mistake.

It's less an "argument over who has a higher knowledge of MMO's" than "a discussion of mechanics we'd like to see implemented".

And really, at this junction we're too far out to reliably say exactly what kind of game we're getting aside from "it's online and lots and lots of people can play"

Kanluwen wrote:

Formae wrote:
In my eyes, I see you guys fighting over who has a higher knowledge of MMO's and the like. But if I am mistaken, then my apologies.

You're mistaken, but it's easy to mistake.

It's less an "argument over who has a higher knowledge of MMO's" than "a discussion of mechanics we'd like to see implemented".

And really, at this junction we're too far out to reliably say exactly what kind of game we're getting aside from "it's online and lots and lots of people can play"

Okay then, my bad. Sorry for the interruption.

Formae wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Formae wrote:
In my eyes, I see you guys fighting over who has a higher knowledge of MMO's and the like. But if I am mistaken, then my apologies.

You're mistaken, but it's easy to mistake.

It's less an "argument over who has a higher knowledge of MMO's" than "a discussion of mechanics we'd like to see implemented".

And really, at this junction we're too far out to reliably say exactly what kind of game we're getting aside from "it's online and lots and lots of people can play"

Okay then, my bad. Sorry for the interruption.

I think he and I got most of our discussion down pat.

But really, at this point, I think everyone's wishlisted everything they possibly could. We've got the free to play("because I don't want to pay for quality or reliable servers, I just want free!" ) crowd all the way to the "MMO Experts" discussing PvP differences.

I just want controllable drop pods. If the PvP is even as unbalanced as wow, I'll be fine. I tolerated that, I can do the same in this game. But anyways, 2013 is a ways away...

Well it's kinda what I was doing though it was made in response to kanluwen.

I'll cut the quotes because the posts are becoming too long...

massively multiplayer has always been a misnomer. The only game that can actually claim of being massively multiplayer is eve online. All the other games were balanced around perhaps at most a couple hundreds players (in the best cases) competing for a single objective. This doesn't mean they weren't, in some way, competitive.

I don't consider pve as "competitive" because you lack opposition. Pve encounters, even at high levels, are nothing more than rebuses. Once you've got the key, they are easily solved everafter. Pvp on the other hand changes every time. And yes, playing against incompetent people is still competition by any definition (even in sports, which are quite more fiscal than videogames are). Like I said it may not be challenging or fun, but that's another thing.

And, yes. I sound elitist because in some ways I am. Everybody has the right to have fun in a game... But a competitive game is, by its nature, hard on the losers. You can either try to get better or stop playing. It's hardly fun for you to keep losing and it's hardly fun for me (at least after a couple times) beating you to a pulp with no effort.
This kind of selection means, hopefully, that either you become a better player or some players better than you find their way to fight me. Either way, it's more fun for me.

Well you may not like pvp char building, nothing wrong with that. But that's the kind of game I like and I know I'm not the only one out there. I like pve as well, but pvp is my main interest in most (if not all) mmogs I've played, even the crappy browser games (some of which fall in the mmog definition by their nature). It's not that I enjoy ruining the other guy's day. It's just that it's more satisfying playing against an opponent who, by all rights, has the same set of powers that enable me to beat him and thus it's only my skills as a player that let me prevail.

There are some other points but not much in the way of discussion so I'll drop them. I'll just add that wow is not, in any way, a game that lets you hop in and be competitive, unless you count achievement hunts as competition. Both pvp and pve require you to level up to cap and gear up to standard. Hardly a synonim for "immediately".

So, back on topic.
What I desire for dark millenium?
Well, the WAR route like I said would be a good start. War was quite fun to play, even though it was hardly perfect. If they manage to achieve decent balance we can hope for the larger base of 40k aficionados to keep the game alive enough to reach maturity.

As for gameplay an fps/rpg crossover a la mass effect or neocron would be great, possibly leaning more on the fps side, so as to favour the balance in mass pvp.
I also hope it takes from fps for the implementation of vehicles.
While I'd hope for some kind of open are pvp, I realize it doesn't make ALL that sense in the scope of 40k, though the fact that they are staging the game in a bunch of isolated planets tells me it's exactly what they're going to do. Battlegrounds, on the other hand, sound quite good for 40k... I mean, the classic "dominion" style pvp map is basically 40k objective missions... Team deathmatch is killpoints... And so on.

Pve? I guess there should be some, but it hardly makes sense... A lonely marine, ork, or eldar going around slaying enemies that just happen to stand around there? It hardly makes sense in most other games but in 40k it'd be downright silly. And let's talk loot... That tyranid just dropped an ancient chapter relic? Say what? Pvp (or, well, even pve) tokens makes more sense. You slay enemies, you gain renown and are given powerful relics (or shiny bits or whatever it is your faction uses) as recognition for your deeds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
But really, at this point, I think everyone's wishlisted everything they possibly could. We've got the free to play("because I don't want to pay for quality or reliable servers, I just want free!" ) crowd all the way to the "MMO Experts" discussing PvP differences.

Heh, you cannot have a serious internet discussion (because videogames are SRS BSNS) withouth some epeen fencing It just feels wrong

I've grown up with my dad always having his crimson fist army around and started an Eldar army when I was younger. 40k has been in my whole life and since I use to play MMO's ( Ran out of time due to school and work) I cant wait for the MMO that's coming out for 40k, Pick it up day one, I just hope they don't mess it up to bad : /

Hopefully they take the time to do it right and workout multiple faction angles and not just have the players be one of the various Imperium of man armies only. STO had a woefully underdeveloped Klingon side of the house, but then that was Cryptic and those guys never miss an opportunity, to miss an opportunity....

Zakiriel wrote:Hopefully they take the time to do it right and workout multiple faction angles and not just have the players be one of the various Imperium of man armies only. STO had a woefully underdeveloped Klingon side of the house, but then that was Cryptic and those guys never miss an opportunity, to miss an opportunity....

Which is kinda sad... They developed the original CoH and it was quite good, but apparently they lost all the tricks when they left the patronage of ncsoft.

That said I think there is at least ONE thing we shouldn't worry much about: the artistic direciton. If Darksiders is any indication, the visuals of the game will be quite stunning.

Luke_Prowler wrote:I want to see a combat system more complicated than "I hit you then you hit me". Maybe something like Arkham Asylum.

Have you seen an up coming MMO named Tera? They use a different combat style like in action games, I'd quite like to see that in the 40k MMO