55 replies to this topic

[Tyrantscreed]

I see this has not been posted yet. So i'll throw it out there

http://massively.joy...rns-to-camelot/

http://citystateente...melotunchained/

Camelot Unchained. A pure RvR p2p game is in development.

So all those who were saying WAR didn't live up to your expectations, we need DAoC 2! Look no further! Hopefully this game works out as planned.

Quote

RvR-focused game where there is no PvE grinding, no gear grinding, no “instanced-based PvP/RvR” but with a entirely player-owned and crafted economy and where your choices matter, all set within a truly open and persistent world appeals to you...

- Mark Jacobs

Finally! Is all I have to say. I'm pretty darn excited and I would be definitely willing to pay monthly for this!

Kickstarter: http://www.kickstart...melot-unchained

Edited by Kamatsu, 05 April 2013 - 01:19 AM.
Adding kickstarter link

[Arngrim Einheri]

monthly fee? :/
if it was like 5€/month I wouldn't mind, but then I know this is only dreaming. Problem is that this type of games appeals to me very much. Anyways this game is just smoke atm.

[FoxBat]

Tyrantscreed, on 06 February 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Camelot Unchained. A pure RvR p2p game is in development.

Dead on Arrival I'm afraid.

PvE games can't even hold subs, how is this one supposed to stand a chance?

But it won't even get that far, because they need another kickstarter campaign to even get started.

Edited by FoxBat, 06 February 2013 - 10:10 PM.

[Lordkrall]

Indeed, the fact that they clearly don't have enough money to make the game in the first place should be a good warning to everyone.

And having a game based ONLY on RvR will NOT have enough playability for a monthly fee I would say.

[Bohya]

Monthly fees are dead. There are so many other options out there now that do not require them and people have come to realise that developers do not need such a high subscription cost to keep the game running.

[Daximus]

LOL...most of the things said here were said about a very small company starting out when they made DAoC. Seems most of the nay-sayers were wrong then, hope the same is true this time as well.

[Lordkrall]

Daximus, on 06 February 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

LOL...most of the things said here were said about a very small company starting out when they made DAoC. Seems most of the nay-sayers were wrong then, hope the same is true this time as well.

DAoC was released a long time ago. Long before MMOs got cool. It would never have survived had it been released now.

[FoxBat]

Daximus, on 06 February 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

LOL...most of the things said here were said about a very small company starting out when they made DAoC.

No, I don't think anyone was complaining about games having subs at that time, that was the norm. But these days its harder to find online sub games than not.

If his sub goals are modest (like the 30k he mentions) then maybe that makes sense. The question is how that will work for a $10 million budget.

Edited by FoxBat, 06 February 2013 - 10:34 PM.

[Doctor Overlord]

Interesting mix of both double-talk and comendable logic in that Massively interview, but then Mr. Jacobs is a lawyer lol

He goes on about how he doesn’t want people to think of this game as a successor to DAOC but it has the same factions (Human, Norse and Elf) and using a derivative name. They really couldn’t find another public domain IP out there?   (Not to mention that would be a refreshing change).

But on the other hand he makes perfect sense on his reason for focusing on RvR.  The expectations for PvE content is a huge cost. Concentrating on one thing and doing that well rather than trying to throw in everything and kitchen sink could very well be a successful formula for the future MMO market.

I was doubtful about his statements about returning to old-school ‘challenges’ since those often were simply tedious timesinks but a focused approach on real challenges might work.  Even if they did not appeal to a broad base of players, such a game could still be successful by deliberately going for a niche market like old-school MMOs attracted.   And that may be a place for the future of sub models rather than expecting a sub model game to get tens of millions of players.

And he also talks about not hyping anything until it is almost ready, following more of the ArenaNet model rather than the Paul Barnett baloney train. That is a good thing to hear from a dev.

Finally he admits what a mistake crafting in WAR was. THANK YOU for that Mr. Jacobs. I've been criticizing that system since I first tried it (Was it in the beta?  I don't even remember anymore).   In a genre renown for timesinks, WAR’s crafting system actually forced players to *watch*grass*grow*.   I kid you not, you had to sit there and wait while a little plant was growing and water it at the right time. It was one of the most absurd mechanics I have ever seen in any game and the irony that the in-game act was an aphorism for timesinks was just beyond belief.   They could have had a system where you watched paint dry and it would have fit perfectly into WAR’s crafting.

So my opinion overall has been raised about the potential for this game. I doubt it will be one that I personally will want to play but the genre could benefit if it succeeds because small specialized MMOs may be what is needed to bring a wider variety of decent games to the community.

Edited by Doctor Overlord, 07 February 2013 - 12:23 AM.

[Tyrantscreed]

Doctor Overlord, on 07 February 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

Finally he admits what a mistake crafting in WAR was. THANK YOU for that Mr. Jacobs. I've been criticizing that system since I first tried it (Was it in the beta?  I don't even remember anymore).   In a genre renown for timesinks, WAR’s crafting system actually forced players to *watch*grass*grow*.   I kid you not, you had to sit there and wait while a little plant was growing and water it at the right time. It was one of the most absurd mechanics I have ever seen in any game and the irony that the in-game act was an aphorism for timesinks was just beyond belief.   They could have had a system where you watched paint dry and it would have fit perfectly into WAR’s crafting.

The truth in this made me giggle. Ha.

We'll have to see how this goes though. We know the development will depend on the Kickstarter program, he wants to make this game for a very niche crowd.

[Edge]

FoxBat, on 06 February 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

Dead on Arrival I'm afraid.

PvE games can't even hold subs, how is this one supposed to stand a chance?

But it won't even get that far, because they need another kickstarter campaign to even get started.

Pretty baseless claim. No one's saying it will be popular because this isn't a game for casual carebears, but these games do have their niche target audience that sustain their development and keep it going. There are people that strictly play the RvR scene. It was never big, it's just that over the past 5 years more developers have tried to incorporate RvR elements alongside PvE elements. TES:O is going with 3 faction RvR as well but it isn't the foundation of the game, neither is WvW in GW2.

Edited by Khalija, 02 April 2013 - 07:55 PM.
removed direct insult

[FoxBat]

Edge, on 07 February 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

No one's saying it will be popular because this isn't a game for casual carebears, but these games do have their niche target audience that sustain their development and keep it going.

Over $10 million worth?

Even EVE is kept afloat by a fairly large high-sec base.

Edited by FoxBat, 07 February 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[Doctor Overlord]

Tyrantscreed, on 07 February 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

We'll have to see how this goes though. We know the development will depend on the Kickstarter program, he wants to make this game for a very niche crowd.

That makes me think the project has more of a chance than some of the past efforts at MMOs.

Immediately post-WoW all those old-school devs were hired with expectations were that they could make MMOs that matched WoW.   But none of them had any idea how to make broadly appealing games for the modern gaming market.   (Garriott got rich off the Ultima series but I remember those games and back then video gamers were the definition of a niche market - the only reason they did well was because there was no competition.   Modern video games have far higher standards).  

Now deliberately targeting a niche market could be the answer of how to be more successful in the post-WoW era. Rather than going for a WoW-vlone, I think the genre would end up much better off if many companies were able to offer a broad variety of games that appeal to specific tastes.

I think EVE stumbled over this lesson when they tried to make changes that they thought would make the game more broadly appealing but only managed to tick off their dedicated playerbase.   It will be interesting to see if Mr. Jacobs focused effort directed at a niche market works. It could be an example that other companies end up following.

Edited by Doctor Overlord, 07 February 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[Lordkrall]

I can base it on the game itself. I have tried DAoC and it would NOT have survived long if it was released today.

[Arngrim Einheri]

Lordkrall, on 07 February 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

I can base it on the game itself. I have tried DAoC and it would NOT have survived long if it was released today.

But then again, if it was released today, all the current MMORPGS that have used concepts of RvR based on DAoC wouldn't likely have that kind of RvR or RvR at all, and DAoC would offer something others don't, so it would create a niche. How big? well graphics would be a big issue. Some kind of time paradox would occur

[TGIFrisbie]

Doctor Overlord, on 07 February 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

Now deliberately targeting a niche market could be the answer of how to be more successful in the post-WoW era.

This is an excellent point many miss, especially those newer to the genre.  MMOs are begining, if not already, saturating the market.  It has been pointed out in other discussions the general MMO community of players is finite.  There are only so many gamers interested in the genre, and all these MMOs on the market are competing for the same limited, although large, pool of gamers.  Many break out with all their bluster and vigor as if they are the NEW BOSS MMO to DOMINATE the current market, and quickly get the air let out within 3-6 months from release.  A niche MMO or niche MMOs are probably the future.

[Lunacy Polish]

Lordkrall, on 07 February 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

I can base it on the game itself. I have tried DAoC and it would NOT have survived long if it was released today.

But that is not an argument.  You had to be there in its heyday pre WoW and realize most of it glaring flaws were common to all MMOs of the time.

The original Mario Brothers or Final Fantasy would never have survived today either to the sole reason these franchises built on their past to adapt to the present.

I for one am watching this with a cynical eye but the concept is fantastic.   RvR without BS PvE is the best idea ever.   I just am not sure they can execute.

[Doctor Overlord]

TGIFrisbie, on 07 February 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

This is an excellent point many miss, especially those newer to the genre.  MMOs are begining, if not already, saturating the market.  It has been pointed out in other discussions the general MMO community of players is finite.  There are only so many gamers interested in the genre, and all these MMOs on the market are competing for the same limited, although large, pool of gamers.  Many break out with all their bluster and vigor as if they are the NEW BOSS MMO to DOMINATE the current market, and quickly get the air let out within 3-6 months from release.  A niche MMO or niche MMOs are probably the future.

That was probably the downfall of many of the post-WoW attempts to develop MMOs.  Everyone saw the enormous growth of the market caused by WoW and assumed they could outdo Blizzard or at least jump in and add to that growth.

The market has been getting saturated by the post-WoW MMO design (fantasy genre, level progression, loot tables etc).   As much as enjoy GW2, and I’m having more fun with it than any MMO I’ve ever played, I think a good deal of its success could be from drawing away WoW players from the existing MMO market.   I'm not sure GW2 is generating many new MMO players.

But I would argue the overall MMO market still has room to grow. The games simply need to be smaller in scope.   Smaller games require less money and that means there is more acceptance of risk.   It’s always been single player games that have brought innovation to gaming, it would be cool if smaller MMOs could start to contribute in a similar way.

Devs could explore more specific markets like perma-death hardcores or RPers or whatever.   By limiting their scope, rather than trying to rake in the whole market, we could end up with more quality games and more choices for players.   Which sounds like a good thing, I think.

Edited by Doctor Overlord, 07 February 2013 - 09:23 PM.

[kidawk]

Well, if GW2 fails. I will have my eye on this.

[Impmon]

The thing DAOC had going for it was not only RVR but that Everquest was one of the only other MMO's at the time the majority of people played & people were getting bored of it.  People wanted something new & DAOC dev's did the right thing by providing what Everquest wouldn't.  I played both games for years and remember the furor over DAOC from EQ players who got into DAOC beta.

Few things in comparison.  

Everquest before any expansions... one of the best weapons you could get had 21 dmg 40 delay (speed)  DAOC came out with weapons that had higher dmg then speed.  People were blown away by this.  I remember this one guy posting from beta some swords that were like 42 dmg and 15 speed.  Shortly later EQ would do the same or give 2h weapons dmg bonuses.

Might not seem like much but when you're bored of one game and a competitor is released who provides everything you'd like to see.. well EQ lost alot of subscribers.  Around that time they also changed it so that you couldn't see how many people were on a server.

[Jakeman]

New dev blog

[Jakeman]

http://www.mmorpg.co...26/videoId/2942 new interview with Mark Jacobs

[Tyrantscreed]

From the Feb 13 blog post:

"P.S. For those who wish CU was a skill-based game, as that would really work well for this FP, we at CSE just think that for this MMORPG, a class-based game is the better choice."

Zzz

I just hope skill can trump class in a 1v1.

[Arngrim Einheri]

Tyrantscreed, on 15 February 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

From the Feb 13 blog post:

"P.S. For those who wish CU was a skill-based game, as that would really work well for this FP, we at CSE just think that for this MMORPG, a class-based game is the better choice."

Zzz

I just hope skill can trump class in a 1v1.

That killed all the interest I could have for the game. Goodbye CU.

[Speno]

Arngrim Einheri, on 15 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

That killed all the interest I could have for the game. Goodbye CU.

This WoW mentality makes me laugh. Daoc which was Mark Jacobs pride and joy was not a "skill based game" it was a class. What that meant is it was not like SWG where they give you a blank slate with a ton of skills and you choose how you want to go.

Their use to be a time in RvR where noone cared about class balance. Classes were stronger and weaker against other classes. For example my Ranger in DAOC would demolish casters from stealth, but if I got caught by a warrior type class that was it. This infinite need to balance every class vs every class breaks classes and games.

[Lunacy Polish]

Speno, on 15 February 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

This WoW mentality makes me laugh. Daoc which was Mark Jacobs pride and joy was not a "skill based game" it was a class. What that meant is it was not like SWG where they give you a blank slate with a ton of skills and you choose how you want to go.

Their use to be a time in RvR where noone cared about class balance. Classes were stronger and weaker against other classes. For example my Ranger in DAOC would demolish casters from stealth, but if I got caught by a warrior type class that was it. This infinite need to balance every class vs every class breaks classes and games.

In retrospect though, think about how silly that was.

In early DAoC casters killed tanks, tanks killed stealthers, and stealthers killed casters.  Supports killed nobody and were killed by everybody.

Now there were lots of exceptions.  I even managed to kill stealthers as a caster with creative use of AE.  But by and large whet could I really ultimately  do against invisible snipers who could one shot me from extended range?  I learned how to avoid them for the most part by being smarter but that is not as fun as having the chance to fight back or actually find them first.  The rock scissors paper mechanic ruled the day.

At the time I quit it was even worse.  A few broken classes ruled the day.

Honestly was there ever a point to Mercenaries and other classes which just never got any balance work done on them?

Even the realms were not balanced.  Hibernian tanks and stealthers were never as good as Alb or Mid counterparts.  Albs did not have crack buff or good AE Med for a long time.

No I would hope they have balance this time.  Else wait for the metagame to work itself out first or in my case pass on it.

[Tyrantscreed]

Speno, on 15 February 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

This WoW mentality makes me laugh. Daoc which was Mark Jacobs pride and joy was not a "skill based game" it was a class. What that meant is it was not like SWG where they give you a blank slate with a ton of skills and you choose how you want to go.

Their use to be a time in RvR where noone cared about class balance. Classes were stronger and weaker against other classes. For example my Ranger in DAOC would demolish casters from stealth, but if I got caught by a warrior type class that was it. This infinite need to balance every class vs every class breaks classes and games.

Hmm - then it's a cycle then. X class can beat Y class can beat Z class, can beat X class.

So I'm just wondering - why "don't" you want to make it skill based? Do you not take pride in killing someone else knowing that they have the same chance of winning? IMO, the thrill of a fight is escalated when you know that you can either win or lose, and not in your case, say "gg a warrior is near me".

I respect what Mark Jacobs is trying to do. Just don't tell me that I can't kill someone else, because of "class".

EDIT:

Last night near SM a invader warrior was lurking around, I went out, /salute and 1v1'd him. I won. Pure, skill based. Dodged his "oh shit" moves perfectly too. I prefer that kind of fights, as opposed to tucking tail and running away. (I'm a Ranger)

Edited by Tyrantscreed, 15 February 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[Speno]

Tyrantscreed, on 15 February 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

Hmm - then it's a cycle then. X class can beat Y class can beat Z class, can beat X class.

So I'm just wondering - why "don't" you want to make it skill based? Do you not take pride in killing someone else knowing that they have the same chance of winning? IMO, the thrill of a fight is escalated when you know that you can either win or lose, and not in your case, say "gg a warrior is near me".

I respect what Mark Jacobs is trying to do. Just don't tell me that I can't kill someone else, because of "class".

EDIT:

Last night near SM a invader warrior was lurking around, I went out, /salute and 1v1'd him. I won. Pure, skill based. Dodged his "oh shit" moves perfectly too. I prefer that kind of fights, as opposed to tucking tail and running away. (I'm a Ranger)

My main are also a ranger, and warriors are pretty easy for a good ranger. This is the type of class system mark jacobs is talking about. However he isnt going to make every class completely balanced.

Like I said before:

People are not taking what he is saying correctly. We have a class system right now in gw2 , not a skill based system., Skill Based systems are that of which their are NO CLASSES at all. What you do is you choose your skills,  I will take SWG as an example, as a toon you could max out your rifle skills, then something that isn't even closely related. Again we are playing a CLASS BASED SYSTEM where the skills come from the player, not a Skilled based system with skills stil coming from the player. We have warriors , guardians, thief's  ele's, rangers, Mesmers this is a class based game.

So I don't know why everyone is upset.

Edited by Speno, 15 February 2013 - 08:42 PM.

[Tyrantscreed]

Oh. Well now. This is awkward. LOL - As long as there is no prejudice of superior class, I'm fine with a "Class Based System"

[Arngrim Einheri]

Speno, on 15 February 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

This WoW mentality makes me laugh. Daoc which was Mark Jacobs pride and joy was not a "skill based game" it was a class. What that meant is it was not like SWG where they give you a blank slate with a ton of skills and you choose how you want to go.

Their use to be a time in RvR where noone cared about class balance. Classes were stronger and weaker against other classes. For example my Ranger in DAOC would demolish casters from stealth, but if I got caught by a warrior type class that was it. This infinite need to balance every class vs every class breaks classes and games.

Excuse me but is completely the other way around. Is anti-WoW mentality that's why I hate games that put skill on a 5th or 6th plane of existence. Class X wins class Y, class Y wins class Z, class Z wins class X... boooring.

Edited by Arngrim Einheri, 15 February 2013 - 10:16 PM.