Why PvP will never be fixed as is 2014-2018 (DAoC all over again)

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

There is a very simple problem that has absolutely no solution as is......let me explain

What the issue is
The problem is this zone is literally their attempts to recreate the awesomeness of Dark Age of Camelot’s two environments.

Cyrodil = Frontier and Imperial City = Darkness Falls

DAoC has RvR in a Frontier with Keep attacks, Relic steal runs and Zergs

For those who have no idea what I’m referring to, Mythic was the developer of Dark Age I’d Camelot back in the late 1990’s early 2000 founded by Matt F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythic_Entertainment

Why it’s an issue
That game also had a never ending lag issue and they were never resolved. That game allowed somewhere around 350+ players per alliance/faction in the Frontier. It was seperate servers however we still had issues. Notice, regardless of what they change, lag exists or gets worse and eventually requires maintenance. Initially they had to do maintenance 2-3 times every week to keep things stable.

Once a week isn’t enough but it was called Elder Scrolls Offline as 3/7 days was maintenance.

Matt F and a number of others who were with that developer left and some came to this game while others went to make an unreleased Camelot Unchained.

http://camelotunchained.com/v3/

What we are playing for PvP is an old recreated version of that game with TES lore.

It’s why we have classes, skills that aren’t balanced well and a number of other direct comparisons.

A realistic solution:
The short of it is this......the only way to resolve the main complains I see on the forums and in the game is to remove Cyrodil and Imperial City.

Cyrodil can exist in smaller chunks
1. Break the zone up into multiple zones for the PvE content and have a background simulation of PvE campaign
2. Break the zone up into smaller versions of a new type of PvP battle ground. Each campaign should host all these smaller chunks as separate.
3. Imperial City would also follow the above for both PvP and PvE BUT access to Imperial City would have different rules depending upon your choices.

*Because some player want a mixed zone you can offer in the PvE chucks a PvE only and PvE+PvE version which would have the background simulation going

With all of this, there needs to be a different way to handle Faction selection.

I’d propose to remove factions from character creation entirely. Instead the faction would occur as a choice upon joining either the PvE Cyrodil and/or PvP+PvE Cyrodil.

It would reset when the campaign resets and require a new choice.
There would be absolutely no swapping factions and once a choice is made, it’s account wide for these two areas.

The rest of the world would not have a faction

I thinks it’s important that these chunks work like battle ground queues so that a set min per faction and max per faction applies and once a keep, scroll, or whatever the goal is, becomes completed, those players win, loose, draw and can join a new battle ground within the same campaign

This means the possibility of multiple battlegrounds within a campaign

This also means emperor and rewards to apply per battle ground as the campaign is there to assist with faction selection and faction resets.

Guilds should be neutral however players within the guild should be forced into a faction filter for guild chat if they are in a battle ground

Lastly this would allow the developers to look at PvP skill rebalance seperately from PvE

I’d argue that if the above occurs, it would make sense to have PvP only abilities and skills that toggle on a saved skill bar (2 of them)

Players may also be open to PvP gear but I’m getting ahead of myself. It’s time to remove the impossible and develop content for fun.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

Additional points of reference

https://youtu.be/0jFHdeqrLQY

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

https://youtu.be/5jegG4834Cg

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

https://youtu.be/Es29IRpSZM8

idk · January 2018

You do realize they Cyrodiil design was heavily based off of DAoC. Matt Firor was part of their team before joining Zos.

Granted the server design is more advanced but it also has a heavier load in every aspect.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

idk wrote: »

You do realize they Cyrodiil design was heavily based off of DAoC. Matt Firor was part of their team before joining Zos.

Granted the server design is more advanced but it also has a heavier load in every aspect.

@idk
Not sure if my OP is unclear but Cyrodil isn’t Cyrodil.....it’s actually the DAoC Frontier with TES landmarks and some terrain updates.

I’m kinda of older gamer, were you a DAoC customer prior to the release of Trials of Atlantis expansion?

Also were you playing this at launch?
The mercenaries, siege weapons, everything is a direct copy with graphical updates, added TES lore and landmarks

The server load isn’t heavier if we are comparing apples to apples.

Back then the tech provided seperate servers with max player caps.
Loading into a zone did the same on older modems and some high speeds connections but with much less files sizes and no voice chat.

So to now the campaigns aren’t the mega server....it’s a different server or at least that’s is what was suggested

idk · January 2018

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

idk wrote: »

You do realize they Cyrodiil design was heavily based off of DAoC. Matt Firor was part of their team before joining Zos.

Granted the server design is more advanced but it also has a heavier load in every aspect.

@idk
Not sure if my OP is unclear but Cyrodil isn’t Cyrodil.....it’s actually the DAoC Frontier with TES landmarks and some terrain updates.

I’m kinda of older gamer, were you a DAoC customer prior to the release of Trials of Atlantis expansion?

Also were you playing this at launch?
The mercenaries, siege weapons, everything is a direct copy with graphical updates, added TES lore and landmarks

ofc

I don't Cyrodiil will be scaled back at all which is essentially all your points are stating. It's. It realistic, basically.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

idk wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

idk wrote: »

You do realize they Cyrodiil design was heavily based off of DAoC. Matt Firor was part of their team before joining Zos.

Granted the server design is more advanced but it also has a heavier load in every aspect.

@idk
Not sure if my OP is unclear but Cyrodil isn’t Cyrodil.....it’s actually the DAoC Frontier with TES landmarks and some terrain updates.

I’m kinda of older gamer, were you a DAoC customer prior to the release of Trials of Atlantis expansion?

Also were you playing this at launch?
The mercenaries, siege weapons, everything is a direct copy with graphical updates, added TES lore and landmarks

ofc

Just saying it didn’t work back then, with new tech and hundreds of thousands of less players DAoC still doesn’t work without lag.

Anotherone773 · January 2018

Lag and long maintenance is probably due to lower end servers and overly complicated maintenance routines. It is possible to get a bunch of people in a small area with little to no lag. Its possible to have hundreds even thousands of players in a battle with little to no lag. A game that i still occasionally play accomplishes this by using a shard system and node reinforcement. rather than have a bunch of different servers/channels/instances.

Im not a fan of "pvp only" gear,buffs,abilities,etc. Ive been down that road and it was a horrible and annoying road. Wow is notorious for that style of pvp and honestly it sucks. Many developers actually do things backwards. They create dungeons and raids, then create abilities and gear you need to complete them, and toss some pvp in there for pvpers. Then pvp is all messed up because in this one raid you have to spam this one ability like 50 times so it has a 2 second cooldown but when its used in pvp its a WTFPWN button that lets you kill everyone. So they then try to fix these types of problems by creating pvp only stuff which to me is amateurish. Sort of like fixing it with duct tape.

Instead what they should do is balance the game for PVP, then create PVE content based on the abilities and gear you can acquire. Literally every game ive played that focuses first on pvp when it comes to abilities and gear and then on pve content has not had an issue in either pve or pvp content besides minor adjustments to the FOTM.

On the other hand every game ive played that focuses on PVE first, has such terrible pvp that they should just remove it so their is less for them to deal with and they can focus on making a better pve experience. And then their are games like Wow which is one of the worst MMOs ive ever played. Has zero balance for pve or pvp.

idk · January 2018

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

idk wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

idk wrote: »

You do realize they Cyrodiil design was heavily based off of DAoC. Matt Firor was part of their team before joining Zos.

Granted the server design is more advanced but it also has a heavier load in every aspect.

@idk
Not sure if my OP is unclear but Cyrodil isn’t Cyrodil.....it’s actually the DAoC Frontier with TES landmarks and some terrain updates.

I’m kinda of older gamer, were you a DAoC customer prior to the release of Trials of Atlantis expansion?

Also were you playing this at launch?
The mercenaries, siege weapons, everything is a direct copy with graphical updates, added TES lore and landmarks

ofc

Just saying it didn’t work back then, with new tech and hundreds of thousands of less players DAoC still doesn’t work without lag.

There many hundreds of thousands in a single campaign ans never has been. Even at launch the caps were lower than that.

Regardless, Cyrodiil isn't going to be scaled back as you suggest. Yes the lag is bad though much better than it was back in 2014. Yes it would be great if Zos could figure it out but essentially removing the large scale AvA and make something else isn't going to happen.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

Anotherone773 wrote: »

Lag and long maintenance is probably due to lower end servers and overly complicated maintenance routines. It is possible to get a bunch of people in a small area with little to no lag. Its possible to have hundreds even thousands of players in a battle with little to no lag. A game that i still occasionally play accomplishes this by using a shard system and node reinforcement. rather than have a bunch of different servers/channels/instances.

Im not a fan of "pvp only" gear,buffs,abilities,etc. Ive been down that road and it was a horrible and annoying road. Wow is notorious for that style of pvp and honestly it sucks. Many developers actually do things backwards. They create dungeons and raids, then create abilities and gear you need to complete them, and toss some pvp in there for pvpers. Then pvp is all messed up because in this one raid you have to spam this one ability like 50 times so it has a 2 second cooldown but when its used in pvp its a WTFPWN button that lets you kill everyone. So they then try to fix these types of problems by creating pvp only stuff which to me is amateurish. Sort of like fixing it with duct tape.

Instead what they should do is balance the game for PVP, then create PVE content based on the abilities and gear you can acquire. Literally every game ive played that focuses first on pvp when it comes to abilities and gear and then on pve content has not had an issue in either pve or pvp content besides minor adjustments to the FOTM.

On the other hand every game ive played that focuses on PVE first, has such terrible pvp that they should just remove it so their is less for them to deal with and they can focus on making a better pve experience. And then their are games like Wow which is one of the worst MMOs ive ever played. Has zero balance for pve or pvp.

@Anotherone773

Having been around since closed beta i would argue that their focus has been more on PvP all along in terms of balance skill changes. For content focus possibly PvP or PvE focus over the other depends on the timeframe it’s being discussed.

Now there is more PvE content but when we talk a focus, every balance change literally is as result of a PvP complaint, OP or exploit.

Not once have we seen a change due to players are having too much fun killing NPCs

I foresee the issue is that PvP players are hoping to have a game that is PvP. If they removed Cyrodil access until reaching level 50 it would help most players understand the layout of the game WAS Cyrodil as result of story related situations which brought the factions to an at war state of being.

The only solution in what you’ve wrote is and will always be to keep the two completely seperate.

Doctordarkspawn · January 2018

Well spoken.

They tried to make DAOC, but ended up making the same game but worse.

Thogard · January 2018

DAoC had minimal latency.

You’d get some FPS drops if you were zerging, but lag was rarely an issue.

It’s engine was streamlined for mass data transfer... basically designed to be an MMO.

ESO is not “optimized” for MMO levels of data transfer.

Also ESO is far more balanced than. DAoC ever was. The realms in DAoC had completely different classes. Bone dancers spent 3 years being OP...

Doctordarkspawn · January 2018

Thogard wrote: »

DAoC had minimal latency.

You’d get some FPS drops if you were zerging, but lag was rarely an issue.

It’s engine was streamlined for mass data transfer... basically designed to be an MMO.

ESO is not “optimized” for MMO levels of data transfer.

Also ESO is far more balanced than. DAoC ever was. The realms in DAoC had completely different classes. Bone dancers spent 3 years being OP...

Then why do people continue to complain about how inabalanced it is?

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

Thogard wrote: »

DAoC had minimal latency.

You’d get some FPS drops if you were zerging, but lag was rarely an issue.

It’s engine was streamlined for mass data transfer... basically designed to be an MMO.

ESO is not “optimized” for MMO levels of data transfer.

Also ESO is far more balanced than. DAoC ever was. The realms in DAoC had completely different classes. Bone dancers spent 3 years being OP...

I don’t recall this unbalanced situation you’re suggesting in DAoC.

The game by design required co-op so unless you decided to create a 1:1 situation outside of its design, the game required groups of usually 3+ players

badmojo · January 2018

I constantly hear about the horrible lag making Cyrodiil unplayable, and how it should be removed from ESO. Yet every time I try to join Vivec on PC/NA I get hit with a 50-150 queue and when I do fainally get in I have fun.

Ch4mpTW · January 2018

Damn. It’s like the end of 2017, and entering into 2018 more and more of the “ugly truths” about ESO are seeping out. @NewBlacksmurf these are the types of threads which the community needs more of. Quality thread right here. I rate it 10/10, and will be sharing it with a few of my buddies. Matter of a fact, hey take a look at this @Vaoh and @Rohamad_Ali . This thread drops some major jewels.

Thogard · January 2018

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

DAoC had minimal latency.

You’d get some FPS drops if you were zerging, but lag was rarely an issue.

It’s engine was streamlined for mass data transfer... basically designed to be an MMO.

ESO is not “optimized” for MMO levels of data transfer.

Also ESO is far more balanced than. DAoC ever was. The realms in DAoC had completely different classes. Bone dancers spent 3 years being OP...

I don’t recall this unbalanced situation you’re suggesting in DAoC.

The game by design required co-op so unless you decided to create a 1:1 situation outside of its design, the game required groups of usually 3+ players

I played on Mordred where class imbalances were more pronounced. Then played on classic cluster in 8v8 or 8vZerg setting.

In a Zerg, class balance is not an issue.

In smaller fights, the fact that the three realms did not have equal access to the same classes was certainly an issue.

Vaoh · January 2018

badmojo wrote: »

I constantly hear about the horrible lag making Cyrodiil unplayable, and how it should be removed from ESO. Yet every time I try to join Vivec on PC/NA I get hit with a 50-150 queue and when I do fainally get in I have fun.

Sure, because ESO has a pretty sizable PvE population atm. Sometimes those PvEers want to jump into Cyrodiil to make 100K AP for those free 50 transmute stones, or farm RotW to split on multiple chars, or even to level up their alliance skills lines for PvE. You can thank the fact that were playing a TES game for this population lol.

On PC, the population in Cyrodiil per campaign used to be set at 2000 players. There also used to be *a lot* more campaigns. Many were full and queues massive. Nowadays... well the population cap per campaign is something like 200-300 per alliance (including those in IC), and you can go ahead and talk to PC players to ask them how populated PvP still is

On console there used to be double the amount of campaigns, with 2-4 constantly pop-locked with massive queues and a few others nearly pop locked, with the rest of the campaigns having high populations in one faction only (buff/"PvE" servers). Nowadays there's just 4 campaigns: two sometimes pop-locked campaigns, and two others that are dead 24/7 (depending on server ofc)

These days if Vivec is laggy asf, you move to Shor and often find the same thing. All of the solo players have either quit PvP due to lag or joined zergs due to balancing decisions overtime that specifically favor Xv1. So basically all you find to fight are zergs.... which are also being fought by your alliance's zerg..... which means the only fight you can get involved in to earn any meaningful AP is almost always the biggest zerg fight you can find.

Maybe to you it's impressive to see a campaign pop-locked, but the problem here is that there used to be like 3-4 campaigns popolocked and also populated campaigns even late at night. The populations in each individual campaign were much larger in the past for PC in particular and the style of play allowed much more varied because not everyone funneled into the same mass zerg just to see action (which takes place within maybe like 20% of the land in Cyro).

technohic · January 2018

badmojo wrote: »

I constantly hear about the horrible lag making Cyrodiil unplayable, and how it should be removed from ESO. Yet every time I try to join Vivec on PC/NA I get hit with a 50-150 queue and when I do fainally get in I have fun.

Yep. And honestly I go to Shor now and have fun and have not had the issues with lag; but even in Vivec I’d rather have it as is than the OPs proposal.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

Thogard wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

DAoC had minimal latency.

You’d get some FPS drops if you were zerging, but lag was rarely an issue.

It’s engine was streamlined for mass data transfer... basically designed to be an MMO.

ESO is not “optimized” for MMO levels of data transfer.

Also ESO is far more balanced than. DAoC ever was. The realms in DAoC had completely different classes. Bone dancers spent 3 years being OP...

I don’t recall this unbalanced situation you’re suggesting in DAoC.

The game by design required co-op so unless you decided to create a 1:1 situation outside of its design, the game required groups of usually 3+ players

I played on Mordred where class imbalances were more pronounced. Then played on classic cluster in 8v8 or 8vZerg setting.

In a Zerg, class balance is not an issue.

In smaller fights, the fact that the three realms did not have equal access to the same classes was certainly an issue.

So again....regardless of the realm if you were part of those who wanted to have your own mini-game ....it would feel off because the game design in the frontier and darkness falls was by design not intended for that gameplay.

The game was balanced tho per realm if you took time to out together an adequate group usually of 12 or more in the Frontier areas. Our guild Spirit of Saint George ran with larger numbers for relic runs and keep attacks.

Those guards would wipe you if reinforced so....the game wasn’t supposed to be a PvP small group or solo situation but ppl did it and then complained. That’s not considered unbalanced, that’s playing the game outside of its design and complaining.

That’s also happening here and causing actual unbalanced results because the devs will change all skills as a result of ppl trying to have their own mini games.

Ragnarock41 · January 2018

This is very accurate.

Thogard · January 2018

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

DAoC had minimal latency.

You’d get some FPS drops if you were zerging, but lag was rarely an issue.

It’s engine was streamlined for mass data transfer... basically designed to be an MMO.

ESO is not “optimized” for MMO levels of data transfer.

Also ESO is far more balanced than. DAoC ever was. The realms in DAoC had completely different classes. Bone dancers spent 3 years being OP...

I don’t recall this unbalanced situation you’re suggesting in DAoC.

The game by design required co-op so unless you decided to create a 1:1 situation outside of its design, the game required groups of usually 3+ players

I played on Mordred where class imbalances were more pronounced. Then played on classic cluster in 8v8 or 8vZerg setting.

In a Zerg, class balance is not an issue.

In smaller fights, the fact that the three realms did not have equal access to the same classes was certainly an issue.

So again....regardless of the realm if you were part of those who wanted to have your own mini-game ....it would feel off because the game design in the frontier and darkness falls was by design not intended for that gameplay.

The game was balanced tho per realm if you took time to out together an adequate group usually of 12 or more in the Frontier areas. Our guild Spirit of Saint George ran with larger numbers for relic runs and keep attacks.

Those guards would wipe you if reinforced so....the game wasn’t supposed to be a PvP small group or solo situation but ppl did it and then complained. That’s not considered unbalanced, that’s playing the game outside of its design and complaining.

That’s also happening here and causing actual unbalanced results because the devs will change all skills as a result of ppl trying to have their own mini games.

When you refer to “unbalanced” what do you mean?

Do you mean some classes are stronger than others?
Do you mean some alliances are stronger than others?
Do you mean a small group was able to disproportionately defeat a larger group by using skill and teamwork?

DAoC was far more unbalanced in all three of those definitions, but especially the last one. The nature of Crowd Control and Interupts in DAoC made it possible for groups of 8 to kill groups of 80. I’ve done it before and so have many others.

ESO’s neutered CC system has nothing on DAoC’s minute long mezzes, 30 second roots, or the 9 second stuns. In ESO people complain about a 4 second snare.

But DAoC didn’t use LoS as much (terrain was much smoother) so I’ll give you that one.

Kode · January 2018

Bring it back to the drawing boards and recreate Cyrodiil.

ESO can't support large zerg battles and needs to focus on small scale, loose fights. Do what you do best, do it very well and people will appreciate it more.

The game is broken and new RvR games are coming, and are going to take the player base away because players are fed up with problems. With a game that is trying to build a castle on a swamp.

Focus on what you CAN do.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

Thogard wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

DAoC had minimal latency.

You’d get some FPS drops if you were zerging, but lag was rarely an issue.

It’s engine was streamlined for mass data transfer... basically designed to be an MMO.

ESO is not “optimized” for MMO levels of data transfer.

Also ESO is far more balanced than. DAoC ever was. The realms in DAoC had completely different classes. Bone dancers spent 3 years being OP...

I don’t recall this unbalanced situation you’re suggesting in DAoC.

The game by design required co-op so unless you decided to create a 1:1 situation outside of its design, the game required groups of usually 3+ players

I played on Mordred where class imbalances were more pronounced. Then played on classic cluster in 8v8 or 8vZerg setting.

In a Zerg, class balance is not an issue.

In smaller fights, the fact that the three realms did not have equal access to the same classes was certainly an issue.

So again....regardless of the realm if you were part of those who wanted to have your own mini-game ....it would feel off because the game design in the frontier and darkness falls was by design not intended for that gameplay.

The game was balanced tho per realm if you took time to out together an adequate group usually of 12 or more in the Frontier areas. Our guild Spirit of Saint George ran with larger numbers for relic runs and keep attacks.

Those guards would wipe you if reinforced so....the game wasn’t supposed to be a PvP small group or solo situation but ppl did it and then complained. That’s not considered unbalanced, that’s playing the game outside of its design and complaining.

That’s also happening here and causing actual unbalanced results because the devs will change all skills as a result of ppl trying to have their own mini games.

When you refer to “unbalanced” what do you mean?

Do you mean some classes are stronger than others?
Do you mean some alliances are stronger than others?
Do you mean a small group was able to disproportionately defeat a larger group by using skill and teamwork?

DAoC was far more unbalanced in all three of those definitions, but especially the last one. The nature of Crowd Control and Interupts in DAoC made it possible for groups of 8 to kill groups of 80. I’ve done it before and so have many others.

ESO’s neutered CC system has nothing on DAoC’s minute long mezzes, 30 second roots, or the 9 second stuns. In ESO people complain about a 4 second snare.

But DAoC didn’t use LoS as much (terrain was much smoother) so I’ll give you that one.

@Thogard

Dark Age of Camelot was designed for co-op not solo. So much so that for years it was almost impossible to kill. NPCs for some classes in a 1:1 ratio struggled with yellows.

Many fought greens for little exp.
however in a group of supporting roles Tank, Healer DPS and CC you could pull 4-5 orange and red mobs. (That is balanced)

In PvP most found alone could be one shot by some ranged classes based on spec as that was the intended advantage of those classes vs another. (That’s balanced)

In raids or dungeons if you set a mix of support, DPS and CC you could kill all reds non stop

In RvR in groups of 20-150 you could take any keep if you had the right siege, resources and skills assigned (that is balanced in the design)

The only thing that could be considered unbalanced is when people complained that one class couldn’t do what another did. Like when necro launched and could solo oranges non stop with a pet build. (That’s not unbalanced).

Here is what balanced is....depending on the developer intent of gameplay, roles and players are able to experience content and progress.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

Thogard wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

DAoC had minimal latency.

You’d get some FPS drops if you were zerging, but lag was rarely an issue.

It’s engine was streamlined for mass data transfer... basically designed to be an MMO.

ESO is not “optimized” for MMO levels of data transfer.

Also ESO is far more balanced than. DAoC ever was. The realms in DAoC had completely different classes. Bone dancers spent 3 years being OP...

I don’t recall this unbalanced situation you’re suggesting in DAoC.

The game by design required co-op so unless you decided to create a 1:1 situation outside of its design, the game required groups of usually 3+ players

I played on Mordred where class imbalances were more pronounced. Then played on classic cluster in 8v8 or 8vZerg setting.

In a Zerg, class balance is not an issue.

In smaller fights, the fact that the three realms did not have equal access to the same classes was certainly an issue.

So again....regardless of the realm if you were part of those who wanted to have your own mini-game ....it would feel off because the game design in the frontier and darkness falls was by design not intended for that gameplay.

The game was balanced tho per realm if you took time to out together an adequate group usually of 12 or more in the Frontier areas. Our guild Spirit of Saint George ran with larger numbers for relic runs and keep attacks.

Those guards would wipe you if reinforced so....the game wasn’t supposed to be a PvP small group or solo situation but ppl did it and then complained. That’s not considered unbalanced, that’s playing the game outside of its design and complaining.

That’s also happening here and causing actual unbalanced results because the devs will change all skills as a result of ppl trying to have their own mini games.

When you refer to “unbalanced” what do you mean?

Do you mean some classes are stronger than others?
Do you mean some alliances are stronger than others?
Do you mean a small group was able to disproportionately defeat a larger group by using skill and teamwork?

DAoC was far more unbalanced in all three of those definitions, but especially the last one. The nature of Crowd Control and Interupts in DAoC made it possible for groups of 8 to kill groups of 80. I’ve done it before and so have many others.

ESO’s neutered CC system has nothing on DAoC’s minute long mezzes, 30 second roots, or the 9 second stuns. In ESO people complain about a 4 second snare.

But DAoC didn’t use LoS as much (terrain was much smoother) so I’ll give you that one.

@Thogard

Dark Age of Camelot was designed for co-op not solo. So much so that for years it was almost impossible to kill. NPCs for some classes in a 1:1 ratio struggled with yellows.

Many fought greens for little exp.
however in a group of supporting roles Tank, Healer DPS and CC you could pull 4-5 orange and red mobs. (That is balanced)

In PvP most found alone could be one shot by some ranged classes based on spec as that was the intended advantage of those classes vs another. (That’s balanced)

In raids or dungeons if you set a mix of support, DPS and CC you could kill all reds non stop

In RvR in groups of 20-150 you could take any keep if you had the right siege, resources and skills assigned (that is balanced in the design)

The only thing that could be considered unbalanced is when people complained that one class couldn’t do what another did. Like when necro launched and could solo oranges non stop with a pet build. (That’s not unbalanced).

Here is what balanced is....depending on the developer intent of gameplay, roles and players are able to experience content and progress.

Edit:
In this game we often see unbalanced because by design it’s initially a solo game. The original game design was balanced and set soft and hard caps with penalties for trying to overpower stats.

It also required you to changed your skills and not rely on a “build” or a “rotation”

If offers co-op gameplay and has group only experiences. So what happens is players think to view class vs class

ak_pvp · January 2018

Insightful.

But those fixes aren't really great. ESO at one point didn't have lag. Its due to spaghetti code rooted into the game a long time ago affecting things it shouldn't.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

ak_pvp wrote: »

Insightful.

But those fixes aren't really great. ESO at one point didn't have lag. Its due to spaghetti code rooted into the game a long time ago affecting things it shouldn't.

I’m not aware of the time you’re mentioning.

Thogard · January 2018

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

DAoC had minimal latency.

You’d get some FPS drops if you were zerging, but lag was rarely an issue.

It’s engine was streamlined for mass data transfer... basically designed to be an MMO.

ESO is not “optimized” for MMO levels of data transfer.

Also ESO is far more balanced than. DAoC ever was. The realms in DAoC had completely different classes. Bone dancers spent 3 years being OP...

I don’t recall this unbalanced situation you’re suggesting in DAoC.

The game by design required co-op so unless you decided to create a 1:1 situation outside of its design, the game required groups of usually 3+ players

I played on Mordred where class imbalances were more pronounced. Then played on classic cluster in 8v8 or 8vZerg setting.

In a Zerg, class balance is not an issue.

In smaller fights, the fact that the three realms did not have equal access to the same classes was certainly an issue.

So again....regardless of the realm if you were part of those who wanted to have your own mini-game ....it would feel off because the game design in the frontier and darkness falls was by design not intended for that gameplay.

The game was balanced tho per realm if you took time to out together an adequate group usually of 12 or more in the Frontier areas. Our guild Spirit of Saint George ran with larger numbers for relic runs and keep attacks.

Those guards would wipe you if reinforced so....the game wasn’t supposed to be a PvP small group or solo situation but ppl did it and then complained. That’s not considered unbalanced, that’s playing the game outside of its design and complaining.

That’s also happening here and causing actual unbalanced results because the devs will change all skills as a result of ppl trying to have their own mini games.

When you refer to “unbalanced” what do you mean?

Do you mean some classes are stronger than others?
Do you mean some alliances are stronger than others?
Do you mean a small group was able to disproportionately defeat a larger group by using skill and teamwork?

DAoC was far more unbalanced in all three of those definitions, but especially the last one. The nature of Crowd Control and Interupts in DAoC made it possible for groups of 8 to kill groups of 80. I’ve done it before and so have many others.

ESO’s neutered CC system has nothing on DAoC’s minute long mezzes, 30 second roots, or the 9 second stuns. In ESO people complain about a 4 second snare.

But DAoC didn’t use LoS as much (terrain was much smoother) so I’ll give you that one.

@Thogard

Dark Age of Camelot was designed for co-op not solo. So much so that for years it was almost impossible to kill. NPCs for some classes in a 1:1 ratio struggled with yellows.

Many fought greens for little exp.
however in a group of supporting roles Tank, Healer DPS and CC you could pull 4-5 orange and red mobs. (That is balanced)

In PvP most found alone could be one shot by some ranged classes based on spec as that was the intended advantage of those classes vs another. (That’s balanced)

In raids or dungeons if you set a mix of support, DPS and CC you could kill all reds non stop

In RvR in groups of 20-150 you could take any keep if you had the right siege, resources and skills assigned (that is balanced in the design)

The only thing that could be considered unbalanced is when people complained that one class couldn’t do what another did. Like when necro launched and could solo oranges non stop with a pet build. (That’s not unbalanced).

Here is what balanced is....depending on the developer intent of gameplay, roles and players are able to experience content and progress.

What does that have to do with balance? I’m really confused by what you’re trying to say.

I get that in DAoC the classes were more co-dependent. I don’t get how that relates to balance. Everything you wrote is about how different the classes and realms were, which is the opposite of balance. Please help me understand you.

Minno · January 2018

Kode wrote: »

Bring it back to the drawing boards and recreate Cyrodiil.

ESO can't support large zerg battles and needs to focus on small scale, loose fights. Do what you do best, do it very well and people will appreciate it more.

The game is broken and new RvR games are coming, and are going to take the player base away because players are fed up with problems. With a game that is trying to build a castle on a swamp.

Focus on what you CAN do.

I'd agree, but I'm worried the game can only support 12 at a time essentially lag free.

But then against that's not terrible, but would be cool to have a locked 50v50v50 Battlfield style que at specific locations.

NewBlacksmurf · January 2018

Thogard wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

NewBlacksmurf wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

DAoC had minimal latency.

You’d get some FPS drops if you were zerging, but lag was rarely an issue.

It’s engine was streamlined for mass data transfer... basically designed to be an MMO.

ESO is not “optimized” for MMO levels of data transfer.

Also ESO is far more balanced than. DAoC ever was. The realms in DAoC had completely different classes. Bone dancers spent 3 years being OP...

I don’t recall this unbalanced situation you’re suggesting in DAoC.

The game by design required co-op so unless you decided to create a 1:1 situation outside of its design, the game required groups of usually 3+ players

I played on Mordred where class imbalances were more pronounced. Then played on classic cluster in 8v8 or 8vZerg setting.

In a Zerg, class balance is not an issue.

In smaller fights, the fact that the three realms did not have equal access to the same classes was certainly an issue.

So again....regardless of the realm if you were part of those who wanted to have your own mini-game ....it would feel off because the game design in the frontier and darkness falls was by design not intended for that gameplay.

The game was balanced tho per realm if you took time to out together an adequate group usually of 12 or more in the Frontier areas. Our guild Spirit of Saint George ran with larger numbers for relic runs and keep attacks.

Those guards would wipe you if reinforced so....the game wasn’t supposed to be a PvP small group or solo situation but ppl did it and then complained. That’s not considered unbalanced, that’s playing the game outside of its design and complaining.

That’s also happening here and causing actual unbalanced results because the devs will change all skills as a result of ppl trying to have their own mini games.

When you refer to “unbalanced” what do you mean?

Do you mean some classes are stronger than others?
Do you mean some alliances are stronger than others?
Do you mean a small group was able to disproportionately defeat a larger group by using skill and teamwork?

DAoC was far more unbalanced in all three of those definitions, but especially the last one. The nature of Crowd Control and Interupts in DAoC made it possible for groups of 8 to kill groups of 80. I’ve done it before and so have many others.

ESO’s neutered CC system has nothing on DAoC’s minute long mezzes, 30 second roots, or the 9 second stuns. In ESO people complain about a 4 second snare.

But DAoC didn’t use LoS as much (terrain was much smoother) so I’ll give you that one.

@Thogard

Dark Age of Camelot was designed for co-op not solo. So much so that for years it was almost impossible to kill. NPCs for some classes in a 1:1 ratio struggled with yellows.

Many fought greens for little exp.
however in a group of supporting roles Tank, Healer DPS and CC you could pull 4-5 orange and red mobs. (That is balanced)

In PvP most found alone could be one shot by some ranged classes based on spec as that was the intended advantage of those classes vs another. (That’s balanced)

In raids or dungeons if you set a mix of support, DPS and CC you could kill all reds non stop

In RvR in groups of 20-150 you could take any keep if you had the right siege, resources and skills assigned (that is balanced in the design)

The only thing that could be considered unbalanced is when people complained that one class couldn’t do what another did. Like when necro launched and could solo oranges non stop with a pet build. (That’s not unbalanced).

Here is what balanced is....depending on the developer intent of gameplay, roles and players are able to experience content and progress.

What does that have to do with balance? I’m really confused by what you’re trying to say.

I get that in DAoC the classes were more co-dependent. I don’t get how that relates to balance. Everything you wrote is about how different the classes and realms were, which is the opposite of balance. Please help me understand you.

@Thogard

In this game we often see unbalanced issues because by design it’s initially a solo game. The original game design was balanced and set soft and hard caps with penalties for trying to overpower stats. Often times it was to our benefit to assist others or support them whereas now it’s all faceroll content outside of veteran dungeons, trials and world bosses.

It also required you to changed your skills and not rely on a “build” or a “rotation”

Now all of that was removed so you’re initially in a solo start with co-op options and later offered group content and PvP. Because it’s unbalanced ppl complain about PUGS and such....not because of player choice but the faulty design changes that are out of logic.

The developers unbalanced the NPCs due to requiring stat builds that are above what once would’ve been overcharged penalties. (That’s unbalanced)

The developers then keep adjusting skills and effects to where some choices offer no risk or reward and result in fewer selections thus forcing a “build” (That’s unbalanced)

Also the developers have set up a routine to adjust or fine tune skills due to their impacts in PvP but ignoring the PvE results. This causes even lesser choices or variations and also effects classes largely (this is unbalanced)

When I use unbalanced I’m not referring to equal or the same. I’m referring to the choices players have within the developers intended game design. (This game is largely unbalanced in that reference)

I also agree that when others are suggesting one class isn’t the same as another. They mean to say why does class 1 have magic regen but class 2 doesn’t. Or why class 1,2 and 3 have executes but class 4 doesn’t and also lacks burst damage.

Or class 1 and 3 have damage shields to spam with burst damage but class 2 and 4 have either no burst and more shields which is pointless or more burst and weaker shields which can be pointless. (So while these aren’t the same by default it shouldn’t be concluded that they are unbalanced). Unless in addition to this, they don’t have other options that give them and advantage due to a difference.