AMKSED Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Did you guys see that play in the Superbowl where the Giants got to call all their sideline players to the field and destroy the Patriots defense? They're such a good team! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriam Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 And thats why any game with two sides is destined to fail in open world pvp. You need 3 sides to deal with population imbalance. How can you have 3 sides in star wars? I'd think that would be a pretty big problem, and I don't see BW making a change like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogarrr Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 lol all you wow kid just don't get what real pvp is. open world doesn't mean mindless zerg vs zerg. if you put defending pts in the world the smaller side will go to the defense pts and hold off vs larger zerg and win a lot of the time. If you don't want to zerg a small gp can do very well picking off zerg piece meal. learn to extend and hit and run. go to u tube and watch some DAoC vids and you'll see. The thing I love most about open world pvp is the fact you can try and take on more people than your gp and if you do it right you can win or take out 2 to 3 times your number before you die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snuff Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 How can you have 3 sides in star wars? I'd think that would be a pretty big problem, and I don't see BW making a change like that... hence the open world pvp in this game will never be that good. I'm not saying they can fix it (they can't) I'm just saying that it is destined to suck unless they figure out some way of balancing population which no game before them with 2 sides has figured out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jebi Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Meaningful open world pvp in a dynamic world? What would it be? Ask anyone who played AC. It was a constant battle over meaningful world objectives, including cities, leveling spots, islands etc... Losing had lasting consequences, as did winning, as did guild politics, as did player actions... etc etc... PVP was complex, not some precious little minigame grind for the simpletons. Also, the big one. Well designed PVP MMO's are based around PLAYER SKILL. In a well designed PVP MMO, a skilled played can take on multiple better geared, higher level players and win. A tight nit group of pvp'ers used to be able to take on a large group (zerg) or players and win. *shock* Too bad the skill ceiling in current MMO's is so low, but hey, they have to make it easy for the MMO noobs and carebears right? Also your complaint about premades vs pugs is stupid. If you don't like it then make a premade. I do, but what's the point. Smashing pugs is only fun for so long. But who needs challenging PVP right? lol Point stands. Are you retarded? WoW open world pvp (I know right, but there really was some in the beginning) died out because of instanced pvp. Instanced pvp came about because population balance was getting out of control. That is a fact. And I think it is the main reason for SWTOR to move away from open world pvp. WOW was never designed for world PVP, so stop sourcing it as a world PVP game. It was designed from the ground up for PVE, for noobs and for console kiddies. Sounds to me like someone has very limited PVP experience. Edited February 10, 2012 by Jebi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDiggler Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) this is not football, did you see the US invade IRAQ and say man we have to even things out, lets not use air strikes or predators this go, make sure you dont send to many in this attack... Edited February 10, 2012 by DirtyDiggler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDiggler Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Ask anyone who played AC. It was a constant battle over meaningful world objectives, including cities, leveling spots, islands etc... Losing had lasting consequences, as did winning, as did guild politics, ad did player actions... PVP was complex, not some precious little minigame grind. Also, the big one. Well deigned PVP MMO's are based around PLAYER SKILL. In a well designed PVP MMO, a skill played can take on multiple better geared, higher level players and win. A tight nit group of pvp'ers used to be able to take on a large group (zerg) or players and win. Too bad the skill ceiling in current MMO's is so low, but they have to make it easy for the MMO noobs and carebears right? I do, but what's the point. Smashing pugs is only fun for so long. Who needs challenging PVP right? lol Point stands. WOW was never designed for world PVP, so stop sourcing it as a world PVP game. It was designed from the ground up for PVE, for noobs and for console kiddies. Sounds to me like someone has very limited PVP experience. THIS GUY GETS IT.... todays MMOS are for children and are just a step up from super mario brothers Edited February 10, 2012 by DirtyDiggler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quesadilla Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I would enjoy Ilum a lot more if I were able to actually move when more than 16 people are near me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightAvalon Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 @ Moriam The fun part about open world pvp, at least in DAOC, was that small groups could kill several times their own numbers with group coordination and skill. As a group of 8 you could encounter another 8 and destroy them then instantly run into a zerg of 16 and destroy them. This type of feet is not possible in instanced pvp. Obviously this dream only works depending on how the game mechanics work. The other thing great about world pvp, when done in the way I ideally envison it is, it's actually about just killing people. It's not about capping some objective or having to play defense or something. And as for everyone that loves areas... sorry I'm not a big fan of running around a pillar for 5 minutes to avoid LOS. It's just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snuff Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Never played UO. Props to keeping your dreams alive of your "self-proclaimed glory days" of playing an MMO that barely anyone touched. Considering that was the first graphical MMORPG and the start of what you are playing today.... It was the WoW of its time and DOMINATED market share. Today there are more people playing then before but WoW does not occupy the same share of the market UO did. Hell UO was pretty much THE market back in that day. I did BETA for UO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDiggler Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I would enjoy Ilum a lot more if I were able to actually move when more than 16 people are near me. the problem is bioware designed the game so that there was never a time when 16 people would be in the same location..... just look at all the other maps. EA prolly gave us illum and bioware was prolly like ***... this is a single player game EA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snuff Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 the problem is bioware designed the game so that there was never a time when 16 people would be in the same location..... just look at all the other maps. EA prolly gave us illum and bioware was prolly like ***... this is a single player game EA! QFT Hero engine....... FAIL. I thought the whole point of going with low rez "artistic" graphics was to be able to handle the load but... It was just them going with a crappy engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMKSED Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Considering that was the first graphical MMORPG and the start of what you are playing today.... It was the WoW of its time and DOMINATED market share. Today there are more people playing then before but WoW does not occupy the same share of the market UO did. Hell UO was pretty much THE market back in that day. I did BETA for UO. MMOs weren't popular back then. Guarantee you it wouldn't have been as successful if it had hundreds of other MMOs to compete against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDiggler Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) When UO released a large portion of the population still didn't have high speed internet. Wow came at the time when everyone and their brother had internet.... and they switch back and forth from WOW to angry birds because their feeble minds can't handle but so much..... Edited February 10, 2012 by DirtyDiggler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RazorStrike-X Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 There will always be this argument with comparing open PvP ( or sandbox style games ) with theme park games ( like WoW , SW:TOR ..... ) and the fact is there is no real comparison , it's like apples and oranges . Open PvP means risk for reward and not knowing what could be around that corner , its about creating your own conflict and making your own path , where theme park games are more targeted toward the " everyone is a ****** " type game play , where gear is the goal and PvP is smaller scale and generally instanced.Is one better then the other? Well that's a matter of opinion, but I think if some developer out there took the best of both very different world and put them together we would have one pretty cool game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDiggler Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 QFT Hero engine....... FAIL. I thought the whole point of going with low rez "artistic" graphics was to be able to handle the load but... It was just them going with a crappy engine. they had to say money to afford the billion dollars worth of the same line of text spamed throughout a story that doesn't allow choice, and is really just a point A to B style single player game where you go cutscene to cutscene and nothing you do matters in the story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snuff Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 MMOs weren't popular back then. Guarantee you it wouldn't have been as successful if it had hundreds of other MMOs to compete against. not sure what that statment has to do with the price of rice in china Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujah Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 All I know is I have more fun in world PVP. I like WZ but it's not the same. Obviously world PVP is better with three factions but I'll still take 2 faction world PVP over instanced. That's just me. Earlier today I got into a huttball match and before I saw a thing it said Victory, even counted for my daily. So I did nothing and got commendations and cash...;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMKSED Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Anyone see that game where LeBron got destroyed, he's such a baddie. He couldn't win the game when he was the only person on the court vs the other team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDiggler Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 all I want is a fresh sandbox game..... when I first heard of TOR it was right at the dawn of SWG when EA shot the donkey on that game....I had hoped bioware was going to make something great, but what we got was a wow clone thats not really any better then anything else thats out there right now.... sad so sad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDiggler Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Anyone see that game where LeBron got destroyed, he's such a baddie. He couldn't win the game when he was the only person on the court vs the other team. you still don't get it and you never will..... And stop comparing a combat game to sports, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujah Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 all I want is a fresh sandbox game..... when I first heard of TOR it was right at the dawn of SWG when EA shot the donkey on that game....I had hoped bioware was going to make something great, but what we got was a wow clone thats not really any better then anything else thats out there right now.... sad so sad.... PVP wise I agree but i still love the story line aspect. Leveling was fun for once. It wasn't a means to an end as other games are to me, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMKSED Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) you still don't get it and you never will..... And stop comparing a combat game to sports, Oh I get it, I played SWG for many years and that game had some of the most unbalanced world PvP. I won some and I lost some. And it was stupid because the only time we won/lost was due to the fact who had more numbers. And that's not only factor, such as who has a better PC or internet speed to fight through the lag that comes with the #s. OWPvP is a bad system to measure who is good/bad. If anyone, OWPvP needs to be the minigame (while still not receiving less or more) than WZs. Edited February 10, 2012 by AMKSED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogarrr Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Oh I get it, I played SWG for many years and that game had some of the most unbalanced world PvP. I won some and I lost some. And it was stupid because the only time we won/lost was due to the fact who had more numbers. OWPvP is a bad system to measure who is good/bad. If anyone, OWPvP needs to be the minigame (while still not receiving less or more) than WZs. read some books about real wars , it may come as a shock to you, smaller armies beat larger ones ALL THE TIME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMKSED Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) read some books about real wars , it may come as a shock to you, smaller armies beat larger ones ALL THE TIME. And the people who lost against those smaller armies were complete morons who let themselves lose. And stop comparing a combat game to real life wars. Edited February 10, 2012 by AMKSED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts