"Battleground" PvP to me seems like a really, really, bad idea....

OP +1, definitely agree with you.


The thing is, even in the smallest topics like this one, there is always an annoying guy who will start to repeat the same things over and over, and try to dictate your tastes. Please stop, if I don't like this kind of PvP, I just don't like it. It doesn't make me like it when you say "it's not uo bruh, it's ultima successor ". Actually these arguments just make me want to murder my cat, totally pointless, close minded against any kind of development. If you will present arguments full of fallacies or like "it's successor " please just don't write. There is no contribution and it makes people grow hatred against the community and the game.

 

I don't have a problem with them. They're the funnest part of most of those games.

That said, it would be much better it there were a persistent effect for winning or losing. e.g. winning the "capture the mine" battleground nets your "side" access to the mine for 2 hrs, after which the other side is welcome to take it back. So something big, like a castle might get held for a week or two and smaller things could flip all the time. So it's more like DAoC than a WoW battleground.

 

DAoC has extensive realm vs realm action including Relic Raids, Castle Sieges, Darkness Falls dungeon flipping, etc. From game release I played on Merlin/Midgard for years. It was magical for it's time and, like UO, set a precedent for how some things should be done. As of yet there's no mention by Portalarium as to what gains or losses, if any, will be possible in Guild vs Guild warfare.

 

I going to go a blunt route to highlite a perspective here so bare with me.

This is an instanced game, get over it.

Now, once that is accepted, how would you like PvP to be most effective. To answer that question you should probably understand why they chose to use an instance model. Because if you can't see the reason for it then there are some more things you are going to need to get over.

Here is your hint: story driven game and each hex can be patched seperately to allow for a dynamic on going story.

Sandbox is the absence of story.

 

Whats the point of a massive overland map if only about 200 of the 16000+ hex's have anything happening in them.
A world to explore as a sandbox allows you gather all sorts of items as you travel to were you want to go, not have to wait for 2 loading screens to enter the exact 1 meta instance every time you need a certain thing for crafting. You still have to travel across the same overland map to were you want to go but can't actually see or do anything on the journey.

 

Potential.

All hexes can be more than they are or less depending on the the state of the content. The overland map is a method to deliver players to that content.

 

Potential for thousands of loading screens leading to the same little instanced boxes, you still have to travel over the overland map hoping one of the hex's doesn't open an encounter and drags you in when in an open world you could see the danger and skirt around it.
The overland map is just a pointless time consuming instance opener, you may as well go to the edge of town and have a box open and you type in the X coordinates and you go straight in.

 

This is the design they chose for the model they wish to deliver. It has been the foundation of the entire project. They are aware of the down sides and choose the up sides to be of more value.

I am sure you remember this from the kickstarter hangouts/chats

 

I remember everything from the Kickstarter ( I pledged for what was promised on kickstarter not any hangouts)
And I know most of what was part of kickstarter as been sent through the sausage grinder and is now pulp, yet the overland map is still here just (even this needed to be resurrected from the Paper fiasco).

 

The more core principle something is the less likely it will change. Instancing and dual scale map is probably the biggest core principle there is.

 

The worst 2 kept the rest ditched.

 

Depends on what you expect from the game

 

I agree. PVP with a some meaningful game world purpose beyond simply looting one person. Is looting the PVP end game and whole purpose to player combat, or something else?

 

What do you see the point of guild warfare being in terms of meaningfulness in game? Does it have some medieval like implication in the game world, where a town is fighting a town and there is some meaning to that. Or is it guild vs. guild really just open world team vs. team and that's about all.

 

This game will not be zone only PvP. The PvP only battle ground is meant to encourage those who do not participate in full time PvP to actually try it out.


There is still the blessing of the oracle, that grants any player full time open world PvP. Players will be able to fight one another even inside non-pvp flagged towns. Those players flagged for PvP will be able to PvP everywhere. The zones are just locations where PvP is mandatory for all players.

 

I don't think that is what battle ground PvP is for, that's an intended side effect.

The contested hex concept is meant to give life to the on going strife. The bad guy doesn't sit in some dungeon waiting to be raided it has a plan and will see it through if the players do not do something about it.

 

if its number of people PVPing, you really dont have to worry, we will be there and it is not such a small number as some have stated! If you flag PVP you will be able to PVP other people that PVP anywhere. Basically the thing your talking about here is strictly for the PVE that want to try it out, they go to an area it says "PVP" area, as for us PVP, we are already in that all the time, anywhere. So really its not even an argument. Unless i misread your OP?

 

The idea of an open seamless world isn't new. We've already played them and we already know that they are good. UO for example was a great game and the fact that it had/has an open seamless world is awesome. Open > instanced, period. It's not like there won't be means to travel more quickly than walking. In UO you could just recall, or gate, but events of all types spilled out into the open world on a regular basis. Chasing, roleplaying adventures, fights spanning across the map through the forest, through mountains, on boats, in towns, etc...

Now this is going to be an instanced game and we understand that, but lets not debate about open worlds as if they are a new debatable idea. Ask any UO player if they think that UO would have been better if it were instanced and they'd give you a stern typing.

I'm also aware that this is not UO, but it's also not WoW, or Everquest, or whatever other horrible instanced game that you guys have played

 

Not true. This all depends on what the developers value most.

Click here and more specifically Click here

 

It was definitely true for UO and I doubt that you'd find anyone that disagrees with me. I'd wager that any player playing in an open seamless world (Darkfall) would agree with me.