DAoC style incentive to pvp please

Chiefwilliams

I think the number one reason DAoC's pvp was such a success was the very long advancement process that kept you going to improve your character, realm ranks in that game were acquired by pvp which you used points after reaching new ranks to put into stat increases, such as extra hp, higher crit rate, higher resistances etc and then after certain amount of ranks you would unlock special class abilities as well as other active abilities that would substantially set you apart from other players.

Reaching the highest realm rank was a huuuuuuge grind but it was worth it and made you want to keep playing to reach it, max level realm ranked players Ina group of 8 with coordination were capable of taking out groups of 16 or more lower realm ranked players due to sheer power. It broke up the zergs quite a bit because a group of 8 were able to accomplish as much if not more then a Zerg of fresh 50's so it was more beneficial to keep the group small, mainly because the more people that were in the area, more divided the points per player killed were spread out to everyone, a solo kill of someone higher ranked then you was worth about the same as 30 kills in a group of 20. So there were major benefits to keeping things small.

The pvp dungeon will help a lot though I hope, if it has a really great incentive to gain access to it then that would make pvp have at least some sort of goal.

Also, I don't know how much of a difference owning scrolls make, but in DAoC owning both your relics, plus the 4 relics from the other 2 factions would increase your realms magic damage and physical damage by 10% per relic held. Having all 6 gave you 30% damage increase for both physical and magical damage, both in pvp and pve for everyone of every level. It also increased the amount of exp players earned per relic by 10% as well.

When one side had all 6, yah they were tough, but that's what usually fostered a mutual agreement between the other 2 factions to stop fighting each other and jut try to bring down the leading faction.

I think if they brought something like this back into mmo's that try to recreate rvr style pvp it would greatly benefit the game and the genre

That's just my 2 cents. Whether you agree or not, it was a major reason for why that game is still regarded for being the best pvp mmo

Gisgo

You know whats the real difference?
Daoc didnt let you switch campaign (server) if your realm were slightly underpopulated.
On TESO the big guilds are avoiding each other looking for an empty server to easily dominate, and the AvA will never live to its true potential unless they stop this silly hide and seek game and start fighting each other.

Everything else can be tuned and adjusted but its trivial compared to the biggest problem: being able to switch campaign too easily.

Chiefwilliams

Well, yah I agree on that contributing to server pride, but for me personally, I was posting mostly on the incentive to even do pvp, I kinda feel like right now it's just for the sake of killing other players. I liked having something to shoot for in DAoC because your power and survivability went up substantially for higher ranks, but it was a really long grind which made it so majority of players werent at that tier of power. Took me like a year to get realm rank 7 and there was 12 ranks if I remember correctly

Izatar

I want to disabuse you of the idea that DaoC was a success. It peaked at 250,000 players. Compared to a backyard BBQ that is good, but compared to internet, that sucks. My Neverwinter Foundry missions had that many players! League of Legends has 32,000,000 players, so DaoC is only 1% of LoL! Freakin' Flappy Bird had 50,000,000 downloads, and it can be implemented from scratch in minutes.

Now, it should be easy to see that TESO took a lot more effort to build than those games. The lore-books alone took a lot of effort! But all that effort, and the effort put into other games like SWTOR is just wasted when the same ridiculous mistakes are made over and over.

Seriously, a 3 year old would identify the flaws in a game like these. Who plays a game that is 400 people vs 10 people most of the time? Imagine if the NFL had the Denver Bronco's vs the entire eastern division at once! Its a JOKE.

Mordenkaiser

Izatar wrote: »

I want to disabuse you of the idea that DaoC was a success. It peaked at 250,000 players. Compared to a backyard BBQ that is good, but compared to internet, that sucks. My Neverwinter Foundry missions had that many players! League of Legends has 32,000,000 players, so DaoC is only 1% of LoL! Freakin' Flappy Bird had 50,000,000 downloads, and it can be implemented from scratch in minutes.

Now, it should be easy to see that TESO took a lot more effort to build than those games. The lore-books alone took a lot of effort! But all that effort, and the effort put into other games like SWTOR is just wasted when the same ridiculous mistakes are made over and over.

Seriously, a 3 year old would identify the flaws in a game like these. Who plays a game that is 400 people vs 10 people most of the time? Imagine if the NFL had the Denver Bronco's vs the entire eastern division at once! Its a JOKE.

It should also be noted that DAOC was released in 2001, more then a decade ago. So 250,000 I think is realistically considered "successful" given that EQ aparently peaked at 450,000.

Cydone

With the amount of grinding in this game already, I wouldn't want to have to grind out "realm ranks" in order to compete in pvp. It's bad enough that you have to do pretty much ALL the other alliances quests already.

Kypho

this is TESO...

e.gamemarkb14_ESO

While this is TESO or ESO, or whatever you want to call it, some of their main backbone comes from DAOC talent. While I think ZOS had good intentions with Cyrodiil, I also believe they could do much much more and having something very similar to "realm ranks" from DAOC would be a good thing.

Some may say, "but I don't want to grind out levels!" - what are you doing already? We have to play AvA a lot to increase our "ranks" and to unlock the AvA skills already.

We have to "grind" in AvA to earn all those Alliance Points (AP) in order to buy the different veteran ranked gear (for those who want it).

We have to "grind" through 2 whole factions worth of VR content in which it really feels like a grind because players are not gaining levels like they did from 1-50. I can understand why it feels like a grind in many regards.

Giving something more, such as a "realm rank" system would be a much more rewarding system in my opinion and experience. I played DAOC for over 5 years and started when it first launched.

Sure they had their issues such as Trials of Atlantis, but besides that, the original setup was an incredible setup and obtaining that next realm rank felt like you actually achieved things while having those points to distribute into really cool skills.

I would love to see something very similar here.

Chiefwilliams

Unfortunately I think only the people who played DAoC will understand I guess. Also, 250,000 was a lot back then. Gaming in General wasn't really popular, especially mmo's.

xDonMega

They should of just made Vet Ranks only attainable through pvp instead of making you do every known quest in the game..

lao

Chiefwilliams wrote: »

I think the number one reason DAoC's pvp was such a success was the very long advancement process that kept you going to improve your character, realm ranks in that game were acquired by pvp which you used points after reaching new ranks to put into stat increases, such as extra hp, higher crit rate, higher resistances etc and then after certain amount of ranks you would unlock special class abilities as well as other active abilities that would substantially set you apart from other players.

Reaching the highest realm rank was a huuuuuuge grind but it was worth it and made you want to keep playing to reach it, max level realm ranked players Ina group of 8 with coordination were capable of taking out groups of 16 or more lower realm ranked players due to sheer power. It broke up the zergs quite a bit because a group of 8 were able to accomplish as much if not more then a Zerg of fresh 50's so it was more beneficial to keep the group small, mainly because the more people that were in the area, more divided the points per player killed were spread out to everyone, a solo kill of someone higher ranked then you was worth about the same as 30 kills in a group of 20. So there were major benefits to keeping things small.

The pvp dungeon will help a lot though I hope, if it has a really great incentive to gain access to it then that would make pvp have at least some sort of goal.

Also, I don't know how much of a difference owning scrolls make, but in DAoC owning both your relics, plus the 4 relics from the other 2 factions would increase your realms magic damage and physical damage by 10% per relic held. Having all 6 gave you 30% damage increase for both physical and magical damage, both in pvp and pve for everyone of every level. It also increased the amount of exp players earned per relic by 10% as well.

When one side had all 6, yah they were tough, but that's what usually fostered a mutual agreement between the other 2 factions to stop fighting each other and jut try to bring down the leading faction.

I think if they brought something like this back into mmo's that try to recreate rvr style pvp it would greatly benefit the game and the genre

That's just my 2 cents. Whether you agree or not, it was a major reason for why that game is still regarded for being the best pvp mmo

took about 4-6 months from rr1 to 11 in a good group. good groups would make 100-150k average during a night of rvr. 8.2 mill for rr11 so yea it would go pretty fast if u played every night. it also didnt feel like a grind at all.

good groups didnt win vs superior numbers by sheer power as u call it tho. it was because of massive skill differences and DAoC was a game that actually rewaded skill with its CC and interupt system. without those 8vs80 wouldnt have been possible. that ofc lead to the best groups also having the most abilitys but the beauty of the game was that u really didnt need more than rr5-6 to compete with even the rr11 groups if u know what u were doing as you could afford all the abilities u need at that point. after rr5-6 most of the classes just invested in passives that gave slight boosts but werent that big of a factor in 8v8 compared to the mandatory things u needed.

also there was only one special class ability that unlocked at rr5 and that was after toa. rr5 abilitys didnt exist in OF yet.

also u remember wrong about relics. owning all 6 relics would give u 20% bonus dmg (10% in a much later patch) ur own relic never gave u any benefit. also there never was an XP bonus for owning relics. that was due to owning keeps iirc.

but yeah i agree with the overall point of your post. mmos need much more incentive to pvp and that is archieved by actually making the combat fun aka playerskill based and actually reward players for beeing good.

lao

Izatar wrote: »

I want to disabuse you of the idea that DaoC was a success. It peaked at 250,000 players. Compared to a backyard BBQ that is good, but compared to internet, that sucks. My Neverwinter Foundry missions had that many players! League of Legends has 32,000,000 players, so DaoC is only 1% of LoL! Freakin' Flappy Bird had 50,000,000 downloads, and it can be implemented from scratch in minutes.

Now, it should be easy to see that TESO took a lot more effort to build than those games. The lore-books alone took a lot of effort! But all that effort, and the effort put into other games like SWTOR is just wasted when the same ridiculous mistakes are made over and over.

Seriously, a 3 year old would identify the flaws in a game like these. Who plays a game that is 400 people vs 10 people most of the time? Imagine if the NFL had the Denver Bronco's vs the entire eastern division at once! Its a JOKE.

most idiotic post of the century. DAoC had its peak during an era when mmos were still a niche market. aka all the WoW *** were still playing pokemon and only hardcore players were playing mmos. considering that the game was absolutely huge for its time. comparing it to trash like LoL and neverwinter is not only insulting, its borderline blasphemy to even name a gem like DAoC with trash like LoL and neverwinter in the same sentence.

lao

e.gamemarkb14_ESO wrote: »

While this is TESO or ESO, or whatever you want to call it, some of their main backbone comes from DAOC talent. While I think ZOS had good intentions with Cyrodiil, I also believe they could do much much more and having something very similar to "realm ranks" from DAOC would be a good thing.

Some may say, "but I don't want to grind out levels!" - what are you doing already? We have to play AvA a lot to increase our "ranks" and to unlock the AvA skills already.

We have to "grind" in AvA to earn all those Alliance Points (AP) in order to buy the different veteran ranked gear (for those who want it).

We have to "grind" through 2 whole factions worth of VR content in which it really feels like a grind because players are not gaining levels like they did from 1-50. I can understand why it feels like a grind in many regards.

Giving something more, such as a "realm rank" system would be a much more rewarding system in my opinion and experience. I played DAOC for over 5 years and started when it first launched.

Sure they had their issues such as Trials of Atlantis, but besides that, the original setup was an incredible setup and obtaining that next realm rank felt like you actually achieved things while having those points to distribute into really cool skills.

I would love to see something very similar here.

TOA made the game 100000000000000000 times better tbh.

Asava

ToA killed the game and after it was around for 6 months they started merging servers. Now quite a few years later it's painless since you can use your bounty points to by your ML's and Arti's. I rolled a skald, leveled him to 50 in 18 hrs played by questing/bg quests. Then got him to rr7 in a month. The game was a lot better than back during ToA's release. Then NNF came out and I unsubscribed.

lao

Asava wrote: »

ToA killed the game and after it was around for 6 months they started merging servers. Now quite a few years later it's painless since you can use your bounty points to by your ML's and Arti's. I rolled a skald, leveled him to 50 in 18 hrs played by questing/bg quests. Then got him to rr7 in a month. The game was a lot better than back during ToA's release. Then NNF came out and I unsubscribed.

TOA didnt kill the game, it raised it to the next level. all the awful players quitted cos they couldnt even handle the pve, let alone rvr which was ALOT harder after TOA.
what was left was almost exclusively competitive 8v8 groups and the best era in the history of mmos began.

Asava

I'm pretty sure that the server started to not hit pop caps after a 3 hr ML3 raid or the 5 hr bugged ML5 raids. I played a lot back then. On Percival ToA decimated the server ranks because there were the haves vs the have nots. Quite a few abilities were bugged or working not as intended. Remember the old reaver bombs and bane dumps? ToA drove the casuals away since they couldn't compete with the min/max hardcore players in RvR.

Niffo

lao wrote: »

Asava wrote: »

ToA killed the game and after it was around for 6 months they started merging servers. Now quite a few years later it's painless since you can use your bounty points to by your ML's and Arti's. I rolled a skald, leveled him to 50 in 18 hrs played by questing/bg quests. Then got him to rr7 in a month. The game was a lot better than back during ToA's release. Then NNF came out and I unsubscribed.

TOA didnt kill the game, it raised it to the next level. all the awful players quitted cos they couldnt even handle the pve, let alone rvr which was ALOT harder after TOA.
what was left was almost exclusively competitive 8v8 groups and the best era in the history of mmos began.

ToA absolutely did ruin the game, when you put a requirement that you have to pve to be able to pvp it destroys any enjoyment with the game. If ToA didn't ruin the game why did they make classic servers? That one expansion caused irreparable harm to the overall health of the game, and you could see it in the popualtions. The best time of DAoC RvR was before ToA released.

lao

Asava wrote: »

ToA drove the casuals away since they couldn't compete with the min/max hardcore players in RvR.

exactly and that was the best thing that ever happened. it seperated the good players from the trash and that made way for DAoC to become the best and most competitive pvp mmo of all times.

Asava

Ya, which killed it because you lost all that "casual" income that investors like to see which caused them to lose developers and content screeched to a halt.

lao

jobo11b16_ESO wrote: »

lao wrote: »

Asava wrote: »

ToA killed the game and after it was around for 6 months they started merging servers. Now quite a few years later it's painless since you can use your bounty points to by your ML's and Arti's. I rolled a skald, leveled him to 50 in 18 hrs played by questing/bg quests. Then got him to rr7 in a month. The game was a lot better than back during ToA's release. Then NNF came out and I unsubscribed.

TOA didnt kill the game, it raised it to the next level. all the awful players quitted cos they couldnt even handle the pve, let alone rvr which was ALOT harder after TOA.
what was left was almost exclusively competitive 8v8 groups and the best era in the history of mmos began.

ToA absolutely did ruin the game, when you put a requirement that you have to pve to be able to pvp it destroys any enjoyment with the game. If ToA didn't ruin the game why did they make classic servers? That one expansion caused irreparable harm to the overall health of the game, and you could see it in the popualtions. The best time of DAoC RvR was before ToA released.

only a bad player would say that rly. everyone who was good at the game absolutely loved toa cos it made the gap between good and bad palyers even bigger. like it should always be. it lead to the trash quitting the game which in return lead to an extremely competitive 8v8 scene that would respect code of honor and fair play and not add on each others fights.

they made pseudo classic servers yea. they died after a month when ppl realized how awful classic actually was. skill ceiling in classic is so low compared to toa that a mediocre group could actually compete with the best groups when the good group had everything down and the mediocre group had everything up. that should never happen and it got mostly fixed by toa.

lao

Asava wrote: »

Ya, which killed it because you lost all that "casual" income that investors like to see which caused them to lose developers and content screeched to a halt.

and 14 years after release the game is still going. it also got 4-5 more expansions after TOA. get ur facts right, son.

Niffo

lao wrote: »

only a bad player would say that rly. everyone who was good at the game absolutely loved toa cos it made the gap between good and bad palyers even bigger. like it should always be. it lead to the trash quitting the game which in return lead to an extremely competitive 8v8 scene that would respect code of honor and fair play and not add on each others fights.

they made pseudo classic servers yea. they died after a month when ppl realized how awful classic actually was. skill ceiling in classic is so low compared to toa that a mediocre group could actually compete with the best groups when the good group had everything down and the mediocre group had everything up. that should never happen and it got mostly fixed by toa.

The thing about subscription games is they require a certain population level to work, once you get below that the game suffers, company gets downsized, updates to the game slow down, more people leave.

lao

jobo11b16_ESO wrote: »

lao wrote: »

only a bad player would say that rly. everyone who was good at the game absolutely loved toa cos it made the gap between good and bad palyers even bigger. like it should always be. it lead to the trash quitting the game which in return lead to an extremely competitive 8v8 scene that would respect code of honor and fair play and not add on each others fights.

they made pseudo classic servers yea. they died after a month when ppl realized how awful classic actually was. skill ceiling in classic is so low compared to toa that a mediocre group could actually compete with the best groups when the good group had everything down and the mediocre group had everything up. that should never happen and it got mostly fixed by toa.

The thing about subscription games is they require a certain population level to work, once you get below that the game suffers, company gets downsized, updates to the game slow down, more people leave.

yet the game is still going on a subscription base after 14 years. how many modern mmos even survive 2 years before going f2p?

let me put it this way, eso wont even make it past year 1

Niffo

lao wrote: »

jobo11b16_ESO wrote: »

lao wrote: »

only a bad player would say that rly. everyone who was good at the game absolutely loved toa cos it made the gap between good and bad palyers even bigger. like it should always be. it lead to the trash quitting the game which in return lead to an extremely competitive 8v8 scene that would respect code of honor and fair play and not add on each others fights.

they made pseudo classic servers yea. they died after a month when ppl realized how awful classic actually was. skill ceiling in classic is so low compared to toa that a mediocre group could actually compete with the best groups when the good group had everything down and the mediocre group had everything up. that should never happen and it got mostly fixed by toa.

The thing about subscription games is they require a certain population level to work, once you get below that the game suffers, company gets downsized, updates to the game slow down, more people leave.

yet the game is still going on a subscription base after 14 years. how many modern mmos even survive 2 years before going f2p?

Its a shadow of what it was, Anarchy Online is still going too, limping along with a skeleton crew.

lao

jobo11b16_ESO wrote: »

lao wrote: »

jobo11b16_ESO wrote: »

lao wrote: »

only a bad player would say that rly. everyone who was good at the game absolutely loved toa cos it made the gap between good and bad palyers even bigger. like it should always be. it lead to the trash quitting the game which in return lead to an extremely competitive 8v8 scene that would respect code of honor and fair play and not add on each others fights.

they made pseudo classic servers yea. they died after a month when ppl realized how awful classic actually was. skill ceiling in classic is so low compared to toa that a mediocre group could actually compete with the best groups when the good group had everything down and the mediocre group had everything up. that should never happen and it got mostly fixed by toa.

The thing about subscription games is they require a certain population level to work, once you get below that the game suffers, company gets downsized, updates to the game slow down, more people leave.

yet the game is still going on a subscription base after 14 years. how many modern mmos even survive 2 years before going f2p?

Its a shadow of what it was, Anarchy Online is still going too, limping along with a skeleton crew.

theres still 8-10 8mans running agramon every single night and thats all that matters. theres even some zerging going on in NF areas for all the spastics that enjoy it.

JoseDelgadoCub17_ESO

lao wrote: »

jobo11b16_ESO wrote: »

lao wrote: »

only a bad player would say that rly. everyone who was good at the game absolutely loved toa cos it made the gap between good and bad palyers even bigger. like it should always be. it lead to the trash quitting the game which in return lead to an extremely competitive 8v8 scene that would respect code of honor and fair play and not add on each others fights.

they made pseudo classic servers yea. they died after a month when ppl realized how awful classic actually was. skill ceiling in classic is so low compared to toa that a mediocre group could actually compete with the best groups when the good group had everything down and the mediocre group had everything up. that should never happen and it got mostly fixed by toa.

The thing about subscription games is they require a certain population level to work, once you get below that the game suffers, company gets downsized, updates to the game slow down, more people leave.

yet the game is still going on a subscription base after 14 years. how many modern mmos even survive 2 years before going f2p?

let me put it this way, eso wont even make it past year 1

FFXIV still has a sub and it's on consoles

Chiefwilliams

Thread is getting derailed, never meant to talk solely about DAoC. Was just using it as an example. I just want some similar incentives it has for pvping is all. I really want this game to succeed, it's been since the days daoc was its most popular that I've truly enjoyed an mmo, which is why I want it to succeed. In the mean time I've been looking into darkfall unholy wars some, I just hope they hear requests and suggestions like this though, I truly feel like this game has a lot of potential

Harakh

Wiping 16 player with 8 should not be done because of higher gear or more skillpoint it should be done with skill. That something many developer dont understand.

In daoc to be honest the most player were zerging till they reach a high rank and then they made 8 man groups to farm mostly low rank player. I hope no game will take this as blueprint for there AvA/RvR/WvW.

Chiefwilliams

Well, another major contributing factor to it was simply just mechanics, mez was a cc that kept you from doing anything for up to like a minute and 30 seconds unless you got hit and could aoe mez entire zergs. Also damage interrupted casters. Since that will never be in this game I'm just trying to get the next achievable alternative.

Nijjion

Cydone wrote: »

With the amount of grinding in this game already, I wouldn't want to have to grind out "realm ranks" in order to compete in pvp. It's bad enough that you have to do pretty much ALL the other alliances quests already.

Grinding out Realm ranks in DAoC was one of the best carrots in PvP IMO. One of the reasons why DAoC is still alive today.

It's a way people can show off how good they are in the game instead of an achievement that's invisible to people they have a big bold name (realm titles) showing up for their enemies saying "This is my high realm rank".

ESO misses this in a way.

Dudis

Take into consideration that they've increased the ammount of realmpoints you get in daoc by what, at least 5-10 times? Also, people got a lof of realmpoints during events and bonus weekends.

My thane for example that ended up being my main when i moved to US servers in 2006 hit rr8 with about 18.000 kills. My shaman that i rolled much later hit rr7L8 with just over 2000.

rr13 ended up being the highest rank in the game and it took about 8 years i think for the first player to hit that then another couple of years for the next few players. Like someone mentioned though, coordinated groups of rr5-6 wasn't that far behind and could definitively win if they played well.


And for those that still claim ToA killed the game, have a look here...
DAoC is the blue line.