Are you waiting for that next MMO that will actually pay attention to PvP and co.?

[Projawa]

1. Early reports by testers breaking Wildstar NDA are not positive.

2. Their publicity engine over the last 12-18 months has hyped the PVP elements of their game (full complement of arenas, warzones, world pvp at launch) but now their devs say it will be something they will only focus on at some point down the line and is not a launch priority.

 

I'll give Wildstar a try when it offers a free trial or goes f2p down the line. I expect it to be fun for a bit but not have much staying power.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Projawa

[branmakmuffin]

I'll give Wildstar a try when it offers a free trial or goes f2p down the line. I expect it to be fun for a bit but not have much staying power.

That about sums it up for me regarding any new MMO: it it doesn't launch F2P, I'll wait for it to go F2P. If it never does, I'll give it a pass. I'm not going to pay money to try a game I've never played.

[Projawa]

That about sums it up for me regarding any new MMO: it it doesn't launch F2P, I'll wait for it to go F2P. If it never does, I'll give it a pass. I'm not going to pay money to try a game I've never played.

 

Exactly

[Jeweledleah]

to answer original question? no. not even remotely

 

PvP always has been a niche. not becasue developers don't want to make anything for it, but rather - when they do? very few people (relatively speaking) partake.

 

contrary to pure pvpers believes you are not as big of an audience as you think you are. now. mind you, that doesn't mean you should get the game you want. but as long as developers are trying to create that next big thing that does everything? you unfortunately are going to be left in a dust. now. I do believe planetside is a pure pvp game. so there's that?

 

as far as wildstar is concerned. I really really would like to at least try it out. not for pvp aspect of it, but rather because I find it appealing based on commercials/videos that I've seen. unfortunately, at this point, I cannot afford to spend $60 on a game that I may or may not like AND that requires subscription. (I'm aware of the credd. I also don't have the sort of time/dedication it would take to be able to buy credd with in game money. I think its a fantastic idea, and have thought that since EVE, its just... still not for me, at least at this time) I do wish it to be wildly successful (ha!) and hoping that they will at least offer free trials.

 

P.S. the best, IMO pvp balancing that I've ever seen was of rock, paper, scissors variety. made it more important to think strategically and play as a team, since while there were always classes that you could crush, there are also classes that can crush you - a game that's NOT balanced for one on one. but... that's not what some pvpers want. they want to be able to go one on one against anyone or anything whenever. and IMO, that's kinda meh actually. it almost invites homogenization. but it definitely invites complaints of "balance!" but perfect one on one balance while keeping playstyles varied? is impossible. that's why it hasn't been done yet.

[Chimerako]

to answer original question? no. not even remotely

 

PvP always has been a niche. not becasue developers don't want to make anything for it, but rather - when they do? very few people (relatively speaking) partake.

 

contrary to pure pvpers believes you are not as big of an audience as you think you are. now. mind you, that doesn't mean you should get the game you want. but as long as developers are trying to create that next big thing that does everything? you unfortunately are going to be left in a dust. now. I do believe planetside is a pure pvp game. so there's that?

 

as far as wildstar is concerned. I really really would like to at least try it out. not for pvp aspect of it, but rather because I find it appealing based on commercials/videos that I've seen. unfortunately, at this point, I cannot afford to spend $60 on a game that I may or may not like AND that requires subscription. (I'm aware of the credd. I also don't have the sort of time/dedication it would take to be able to buy credd with in game money. I think its a fantastic idea, and have thought that since EVE, its just... still not for me, at least at this time) I do wish it to be wildly successful (ha!) and hoping that they will at least offer free trials.

 

P.S. the best, IMO pvp balancing that I've ever seen was of rock, paper, scissors variety. made it more important to think strategically and play as a team, since while there were always classes that you could crush, there are also classes that can crush you - a game that's NOT balanced for one on one. but... that's not what some pvpers want. they want to be able to go one on one against anyone or anything whenever. and IMO, that's kinda meh actually. it almost invites homogenization. but it definitely invites complaints of "balance!" but perfect one on one balance while keeping playstyles varied? is impossible. that's why it hasn't been done yet.

 

Wildstar is gear toward hard core players so not having $60 to spend would rule you out of that demographic anyway. Wildstar like star citizen are niche games altogether. I for one am happy about that...weed out the cry babies before it even launches.

[Hambunctious]

I'm waiting for that mmo where the world is closer to lifelike in that there's very little repeatable mission content, will have much less gratuitous killing, no static respawns, and completing missions by avoiding fights is equally as rewarding. An mmo where nearly everything is dynamically generated, and once someone completes a quest/mission it's done, there's some impact on the world, and no one will ever get the exact same mission again.

 

A game where dedicated crafters make the very best items, and combat isn't required for them to do their jobs.

 

I'd also like to see the end of the trinity. At the very least no healing during combat. Which has always boggled me in sci-fi games.

 

No names floating over players/npc's heads when in unsafe areas, except maybe those of friendlies. Even then the draw range is fairly short. No radar to track hostiles either.

 

Full on player housing in the open world.

 

A world built for flying mounts in the open world. No summoning vehicles just anywhere. You ride it to where you get off it, and it sits there, or you call a transport to pick it up/bring it to you. OUTDOORS.

 

Oh, and no auto-tracking ranged weapons.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Hambunctious

[Jeweledleah]

Wildstar is gear toward hard core players so not having $60 to spend would rule you out of that demographic anyway. Wildstar like star citizen are niche games altogether. I for one am happy about that...weed out the cry babies before it even launches.

 

heh... $60 price tag has nothing to do with how hardcore the playerbase they are aiming for. oh, how fast do we forget that when SWTOR came out, it cost exactly the same as Wildstar, including required subscription.

 

do please try again...

 

all games are niche in a way, they try to appeal to a certain type of audience, but if you are hoping that nebulous "hardcore" is that target? you'd be wrong. hell, even in their description of how "CREDD" works, its pretty clear that they are aiming for a variety of players, both the players who have money, but not time and players who have time but not money, and those in between who just want to enjoy the game at their own pace. and I have a feeling that "hardcore" is that player who will be buying "CREDD" for in game money.... CREDD purchased and sold by those damn dirty casuals who don't have all that "hardcore" time investment to put into a video game. (and please don't tell me that you mean quality of player when you say "hardcore" since those come from all walks of life and financial situations)

 

what they ARE appealing to is people who enjoy a certain aesthetic and sense of humor, people who don't just enjoy fighting, but also building.

 

I actually find that game very appealing. and my reluctance to spend $60 on yet another MMO + $15, when I already have several MMO's I'm playing, as well as variety of real life commitments - financial and otherwise, has more to do with simple lack of time to justify that purchase.

 

last but not least. these so called "hardcores" the ones that invest countless hours and extra money, are some of the biggest crybabies I've met.

[branmakmuffin]

Wildstar is gear toward hard core players so not having $60 to spend would rule you out of that demographic anyway. Wildstar like star citizen are niche games altogether. I for one am happy about that...weed out the cry babies before it even launches.

Weed out your so-called "cry babies" (i.e., casual players) and you have no player base.

[Projawa]

Wildstar is gear toward hard core players so not having $60 to spend would rule you out of that demographic anyway. Wildstar like star citizen are niche games altogether. I for one am happy about that...weed out the cry babies before it even launches.

 

Any game studio knows (or should know) by now that many of the "hard core" MMO players are also the most finicky and are more likely to jump ship on a whim. I'm sure Wildstar will cater more to so called hardcore players but there's no way it will cater ONLY to them. That would be a good way to sink their game.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Projawa

[Prototypemind]

I just can't see the value in subscribing purely for PvP content. I get my jollies on that front by playing Battlefield and things along those lines. I get my $60 worth, maybe check out some DLC, pick it up again from time to time, and that's about it. There's nothing that would keep me subbing to a PvP only title.

 

The cartoon graphics of Wildstar do nothing for me. That's an element that I think will actually polarize a lot of potential gamers in a way. We have a push for richer and richer graphics in the new BFs, CoDs, Halos, etc, vs what as another poster said looks like Ratchet & Clank, which he loves, but makes me not even want to take a second look. There's a reason that WoW is updating their graphics.

 

ESO looks like single-player dungeon stormer content. Part of the fun of these MMOs is seeing your character in action. First-person perspective + clunky weapon wielding do not equate to that part of the experience being delivered well.

 

I did just order a new rig for TOR, but at most all I will need is a new video card when I am able to be able to max everything out and keep a fluid framerate. Star Citizen looks like it may be a good progression of EVE, and I'm sure EVE will see additional updates, but needing a top-of-the-line rig to truly enjoy the game doesn't appeal to my sensibilities either. I'd rather drop another $400 on a PS4 for my other gaming needs, and stick with what I know works in that regard on what I have available. I do like the thought of trying these two titles out, but they aren't a priority.

 

Lastly, I think TOR does a great job of blending it all. A robust story, VOICE ACTING--which honestly has spoiled me for pretty much all other MMOs at this point--a good blend of other game modes including the new GSF which gives them something to build on, relatively good customization, especially for a two year old game. We get a blend of melee and ranged classes, with both tech skills and spell-casting styles led by the Force, and what are overall very fluid-looking attacks and animations.

 

This game isn't perfect, but it just offers so much more than you're really going to find anywhere else at this point, with a lore base that pulls people of all types in. We'll see what happens, but I don't think most will jump ship, though it does seem the PvP-focused players are very fickle in general and will never be pleased. My thoughts on it.

[TheSupaCoopa]

I just can't see the value in subscribing purely for PvP content. I get my jollies on that front by playing Battlefield and things along those lines. I get my $60 worth, maybe check out some DLC, pick it up again from time to time, and that's about it. There's nothing that would keep me subbing to a PvP only title.

 

The cartoon graphics of Wildstar do nothing for me. That's an element that I think will actually polarize a lot of potential gamers in a way. We have a push for richer and richer graphics in the new BFs, CoDs, Halos, etc, vs what as another poster said looks like Ratchet & Clank, which he loves, but makes me not even want to take a second look. There's a reason that WoW is updating their graphics.

 

ESO looks like single-player dungeon stormer content. Part of the fun of these MMOs is seeing your character in action. First-person perspective + clunky weapon wielding do not equate to that part of the experience being delivered well.

 

I did just order a new rig for TOR, but at most all I will need is a new video card when I am able to be able to max everything out and keep a fluid framerate. Star Citizen looks like it may be a good progression of EVE, and I'm sure EVE will see additional updates, but needing a top-of-the-line rig to truly enjoy the game doesn't appeal to my sensibilities either. I'd rather drop another $400 on a PS4 for my other gaming needs, and stick with what I know works in that regard on what I have available. I do like the thought of trying these two titles out, but they aren't a priority.

 

Lastly, I think TOR does a great job of blending it all. A robust story, VOICE ACTING--which honestly has spoiled me for pretty much all other MMOs at this point--a good blend of other game modes including the new GSF which gives them something to build on, relatively good customization, especially for a two year old game. We get a blend of melee and ranged classes, with both tech skills and spell-casting styles led by the Force, and what are overall very fluid-looking attacks and animations.

 

This game isn't perfect, but it just offers so much more than you're really going to find anywhere else at this point, with a lore base that pulls people of all types in. We'll see what happens, but I don't think most will jump ship, though it does seem the PvP-focused players are very fickle in general and will never be pleased. My thoughts on it.

 

Duran'del here:

 

You, sir, must have read my mind. This is exactly what I was thinking.

 

Except, you know, PS4. I'm more of an Xbox person myself, and I don't need a new account for my Xbox One. Its more expensive, but I'm more excited for the Exclusives coming put for it(Halo Xbox One and Titanfall.)

[Altheran]

I looked at WildStar, but I think it's not for me.

 

I don't like at all that the charcters can only hit in front of them. For me, direction and aiming must be independent. Automatic, half-automatic, manual, I don't care. But this is a basic for me.

 

The original concept with area of effects, dodging, was appealing, even if I believe that limiting battle action dumbs fighting, I was ready to give it a try because dodging make fights more complex on the other hand. I even liked the class concepts, and was excited by the stats mechanics (SWTOR's are too simplistic).

But this is a no, because of the lack of "realistic" targeting. It seems too un-natural.

 

Wildstar - looks like Japanese cartoons

 

More like now-a-days US/European cartoons than Japanese cartoons.

[Jeweledleah]

I looked at WildStar, but I think it's not for me.

 

I don't like at all that the charcters can only hit in front of them. For me, direction and aiming must be independent. Automatic, half-automatic, manual, I don't care. But this is a basic for me.

 

The original concept with area of effects, dodging, was appealing, even if I believe that limiting battle action dumbs fighting, I was ready to give it a try because dodging make fights more complex on the other hand. I even liked the class concepts, and was excited by the stats mechanics (SWTOR's are too simplistic).

But this is a no, because of the lack of "realistic" targeting. It seems too un-natural.

 

 

 

More like now-a-days US/European cartoons than Japanese cartoons.

actually - its a lot more natural and realistic to hit things in front of you, then have direction and aiming be independant of each other you know as human beings.

 

whether its something you are used to and/or enjoy is a whole other story. you are used to being able to control your camera independently from your targeting and that's fair. but targeting being in front of you only is not a new concept. its been used in several MMO's already (not to mention first person shooters) and believe it or not, you get used to it. plus it presents its own challenge of awareness of environment and preventing people from flanking you too much. (I used to think that limiting actions dumbs down fighting, but instead, it makes it more interesting in some ways, because you start changing your playstyle depending on situations and/or group composition)

 

just saying

[VanderII]

I'm waiting for:

STAR ClTIZEN;

The Repopulation;

Camelot Unchain

[Altheran]

actually - its a lot more natural and realistic to hit things in front of you, then have direction and aiming be independant of each other you know as human beings.

 

whether its something you are used to and/or enjoy is a whole other story. you are used to being able to control your camera independently from your targeting and that's fair. but targeting being in front of you only is not a new concept. its been used in several MMO's already (not to mention first person shooters) and believe it or not, you get used to it. plus it presents its own challenge of awareness of environment and preventing people from flanking you too much. (I used to think that limiting actions dumbs down fighting, but instead, it makes it more interesting in some ways, because you start changing your playstyle depending on situations and/or group composition)

 

just saying

I didn't go in the details of the reasons I find it "unrealistic", but for you, I'll do it.

 

I don't teach you anything if I say that we're not forced to face a object with our whole body to interact with it, right ?

 

That's why in a game like SWTOR, we only need to have the target in our 180 degrees in front of us, and the character will twist his torso so that arms face the target. We see that better with a shooting character, he'll face his opponent, without facing him properly. We do that all the time in our everyday life for trivial things like taking a coffee cup.

 

Now let's make this in practice in MMO combat : kitting. Everybody know (or should know) that we can kite efficiently while doing side steps away from the opponent, and shoot nearly at our tail. Only nearly because we impose ourselves an angle so that the opponent can't catch our blind spot too easily.

Now I admit that in real life we probably wouldn't be able to achieve these feats with such perfection and to such extent. We'd probably trip, and we may not have such a "elastic" vertebrae. But that's the concept.

 

Now let's take a look at WildStar for a second. There this concept is inexistant. In order to aim someone on your ten, you have to turn your whole body of 60 degrees. If only it would only resume at that, I would try and take the change.

But it has further implications : how will people kite ? For a class like an Esper, the classic way I described earlier may work somehow, since they can choose abilities with a high radius of effect.

But how about a Spellslinger ? All his abilities are narrow. Then how will they kite ?

Bunnies. They'll run and jump like bunnies. Or rather like ice skaters, "spinning on their toes" in the air so that they can shoot behind them.

 

For me, it's unrealistic at its most, and not fun to do, and even less to watch.

 

In addition, there are other gripes that went through my head, like the impossibility to develop maps in heights, as it would result either being useless, or make characters unable to hit each other in spite of their relative proximity.

 

If only they allowed a classic MMO targeting that would allows (some) telegraphs to be adjusted horizontally and vertically, that would be perfect for me. (I think that mouse targeting with sprints dodging, multiple abilities would make the game clunky to play... As clunky as Tera)

Note that I said "adjusted", meanings that without targeting, they'd still be front faced freeform attacks.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Altheran

[Jeweledleah]

Altheran. have you ever played combat games of any sort in real life? paintball or whatever? true, you may not have to turn your whole body, but you DO have to turn your head to aim properly - you have to look at what you are targeting to actually target it and you have to physically keep pointing your weapon at it - you cannot just select them and have your abilities, ammo, whatever hit them no matter what, you cannot just twist around half in half out and you most certainly cannot see behind you without psychically turning your head at least and losing field of vision in front of you.

 

you are saying that inability to view and target separately makes combat clunky? it actually doesn't, it may feel odd at first, but once you get used to it - it works just as smoothly as target lock combat we get in MMO's like SWTOR etc. I'm speaking from my experience of playing in Neverwinter - both pve and pvp. there are challenges to targeting that is tied to camera view, but it doesn't make kiting impossible, it just changes how you do it.

 

honestly, third person view combat is extremely unrealistic. its nice and smooth and in some ways extremely comforting and in some ways easier, becasue you don't lose your target unless you want to, but its not humanly possible - ergo, not realistic.

 

like I said, its a matter of preference. it took me a fair bit to get used to neverwinter combat and only becasue the game appealed to me visually. Tera I gave up on before even leaving starting area. but its not inherently bad for MMO combat. its just different

[JPryde]

The "action based" combat of TESO (and DCUO and similar) ruined TESO for me, cause I want the unrealism of tab targeting and just hitting an action.

 

The best thing in SWTOR that I ever noticed, was that there is absolutely no positive effect to bunny hopping and circling around your opponent like a madman (like seen in countless WoW-videos).

 

Having abilities only fire, when your opponent is within a small arch before you and forcing you to turn manually so that your opponent is in your target arch will cause ludicrous "dances" to happen, where both parties spend more time trying to get their opponent in front of themselves and stay in their back at the same time, than with actually hitting each other.

 

It is always promoted as "fast" and "action based" and "more realistic"... but in RL... be it paintball or real warfare, I just need to quickly turn my head left and right and I see if there is someone close to me or approaching from left or right. Also in RL, a bunny hopping madman would become exhausted and I could win a fight by actually waiting for them to tire and become vulnerable. And if an opponent is not totally sleepy in RL, it is next to impossible to get behind them, if you got their whole attention. Turning on the spot simply is faster than going around someone.

 

As an MMO will not be able to provide realistic combat, I rather choose, where I want the unrealism to happen... and with that I do greatly prefer the tab targeting unrealism over the unrealism of someone being able to circle around me for an hour without ever growing tired.

[Altheran]

Altheran. have you ever played combat games of any sort in real life? paintball or whatever? true, you may not have to turn your whole body, but you DO have to turn your head to aim properly - you have to look at what you are targeting to actually target it and you have to physically keep pointing your weapon at it - you cannot just select them and have your abilities, ammo, whatever hit them no matter what, you cannot just twist around half in half out and you most certainly cannot see behind you without psychically turning your head at least and losing field of vision in front of you.

 

you are saying that inability to view and target separately makes combat clunky? it actually doesn't, it may feel odd at first, but once you get used to it - it works just as smoothly as target lock combat we get in MMO's like SWTOR etc. I'm speaking from my experience of playing in Neverwinter - both pve and pvp. there are challenges to targeting that is tied to camera view, but it doesn't make kiting impossible, it just changes how you do it.

 

honestly, third person view combat is extremely unrealistic. its nice and smooth and in some ways extremely comforting and in some ways easier, becasue you don't lose your target unless you want to, but its not humanly possible - ergo, not realistic.

 

like I said, its a matter of preference. it took me a fair bit to get used to neverwinter combat and only becasue the game appealed to me visually. Tera I gave up on before even leaving starting area. but its not inherently bad for MMO combat. its just different

 

Years ago, I participated to a little battle with airsoft gun in th woods. While I was running, the opponent (we were doing 2vs1) shown suddenly on my left. I shot and did not stop because I was in.the open. My friend was mad of my shot, because I hit between eyebrows, and we didn't have any eye protection.

But who care about that ?

 

The thing is I didn't say that classic targeting is the most realistic way of fighting in the world, but I think that not allowing it makes even less that it already was. But as you say it's more a matter of feeling and preference than anything else.

 

But it's not like I'd like all of their telegraphs to have a soft targeting either... Preferably the thinner ones from the Spellslinger and the Esper, and ideally some who can only hit the closest target and/or instant ones. (With some exceptions like the Warrior's Arm cannon)

I would not expect the Engineer to be able shot elsewhere than in front of him with his big cannon.

Yeah, I am a bit focused on the Spellslinger, because Carbine describe him as a slippery class, with lot of "run and gun", but reality is that given the general mechanic, he can only run to defend himself. (Or do the jump shot I hate so much)

 

---

 

Since you brought the third person point of view thing, yes it's unrealistic when your camera is set very far from you, but I think that even if first person is supposed to be the most immersive, it's in it's own way worse than third person. Why ? Because videogames strips you from your senses and try to give you an ersatz of view and hearing. For example, I don't need to see to sense when someone stands behind me. In first-person games, anyone and anything can be behind me, I won't be aware of it. Third person games compensate the loss in a arguably lame way (even though there aren't many other ways), but on a personal point, I hate how first person games makes me feel handicapped.