Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
adreu

New World, Old Problems

Recommended Posts

Interesting article on mmorpg concerning New World & its final backtracking before launch, after all those years of promoting a PVP centred mmo sandbox.  The article goes on to state other mmo's that have come up with solutions, instead of giving up.  In particular, Crowfall is mentioned positively as a solution.  Click here to read the article:  New World, Old Problems

 

 


1bL5DvO.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free for all, open pvp fantasy is a niche audience, history has proven that time and time again. The problem is the niche is so small (the niche themselves never seem to realize this) that they cant support any game and keep it income positive.

This isnt any different for Crowfall either. There arent enough "give me full loot no restrictions" players to keep this game running either. The only saving grace is that there will be other "more restricted rulesets" that may bring in people outside the hardcore pvp niche in numbers that can support the game as a whole.

If Crowfall were "The Dregs" only...it would be dead in the water before it even launched. History has proven this time and time again and the OP article only points that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowfall doesn't offer a solution, it offers a variation on the same model that will always struggle. The issue with New World that they adjusted for isn't being addressed in Crowfall.

Considering Amazon is also making a LOTR MMO, it is odd they decided to go more PVE with New World, but I didn't see the PVP focused model working either. There wasn't and probably won't be enough content to keep people coming back. Unless they dumped a ton of PVE content in that was missing before, even then I don't see the appeal.

I do believe that optional PVP is the best way to attract the masses, but there has to be content to support everyone. Half attempt at both is not going to work.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Toadwart said:

Free for all, open pvp fantasy is a niche audience, history has proven that time and time again. The problem is the niche is so small (the niche themselves never seem to realize this) that they cant support any game and keep it income positive.

This isnt any different for Crowfall either. There arent enough "give me full loot no restrictions" players to keep this game running either. The only saving grace is that there will be other "more restricted rulesets" that may bring in people outside the hardcore pvp niche in numbers that can support the game as a whole.

If Crowfall were "The Dregs" only...it would be dead in the water before it even launched. History has proven this time and time again and the OP article only points that out.

For mmorpg I must agree. I had thought CF was going to avoid that issue with no levels, PvE grinding, being able to jump right in to combat, but they have trended PvE for a while now, I fully expect 5.110 to have more PvE than PvP added. How that will play out I don't know, but as you said history....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me imo to get a good pvp game you need a good PvE that is designed with pvp in mind not an after thought.
You need a game that will attracted the PvE player since they are in fact the content for PvPs generaly. Darkfall failed in this regard to keep the PvE players in the game and it eventually died due to lack of population for pvp players to keep themself entertained.
You need to strike a balance between the two it a delicate balance aswell. one problem crowfall has atm imo is how the looting works for pvp. Its so heavily in favor of the pvp player risking basicly nothing compared to pve player risking there session time. but this is hard to balance since there you want some kind of player looting in these games however there no reason for somone out to PvP to carry anything at all worth a darn in there inventory.
Personaly i think they should make equipment drop aswell however the resource cost to make equipment is much lower along with it durability should help the crafter sell there wares aswell since people would need gear often but then you run into trouble of bank space because people will want spare equipment in there banks.

Edited by veeshan

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mystafyi said:

Leyou technologies is making it. 10 to 1, it will be P2W F2P. 

Already going to be F2P, wouldn't be surprised by P2W or excessive cash model.

My guess is John Smedley's team in San Diego is making it. Waiting for him to call it the new home for SWG fans like he did about H1Z1 :wacko: 

Irvine is doing New World and the cancelled Breakaway. Seattle is doing Crucible and Grand Tour game. San Diego doesn't seem to have anything linked to it yet and LOTR game is only other that I know they've mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, veeshan said:

For me imo to get a good pvp game you need a good PvE that is designed with pvp in mind not an after thought.
You need a game that will attracted the PvE player since they are in fact the content for PvPs generaly. Darkfall failed in this regard to keep the PvE players in the game and it eventually died due to lack of population for pvp players to keep themself entertained.
You need to strike a balance between the two it a delicate balance aswell. one problem crowfall has atm imo is how the looting works for pvp. Its so heavily in favor of the pvp player risking basicly nothing compared to pve player risking there session time. but this is hard to balance since there you want some kind of player looting in these games however there no reason for somone out to PvP to carry anything at all worth a darn in there inventory.
Personaly i think they should make equipment drop aswell however the resource cost to make equipment is much lower along with it durability should help the crafter sell there wares aswell since people would need gear often but then you run into trouble of bank space because people will want spare equipment in there banks.

I'm all for gear being looted and vessels decaying upon death. Due to the cost of everything though I don't see that happening. People are hardcore until you try to take away their precious goodies. There's little to no risk attacking someone doing PVE or just PVPing in general. Of course the "bring back up" concept works, but that's just not how gaming works for most. Ganking and going after targets that are at a disadvantage is how things go. Hopefully there are a lot of hot spots and POI to fight over and PVPing isn't going after the sheep most of the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, APE said:

I'm all for gear being looted and vessels decaying upon death. Due to the cost of everything though I don't see that happening. People are hardcore until you try to take away their precious goodies. There's little to no risk attacking someone doing PVE or just PVPing in general. Of course the "bring back up" concept works, but that's just not how gaming works for most. Ganking and going after targets that are at a disadvantage is how things go. Hopefully there are a lot of hot spots and POI to fight over and PVPing isn't going after the sheep most of the time.

 

I completly agree that but i have to add something. 

I think there should be a relationship between the points of interest which are made for the pvp so that the further the point of interest is from your main area as the temple of the factions, those points of interest should be weaker and also This could be represented in the form of resources carried by the caravans from their previous point of interest. Those caravans should transport resources from the faction. The faction orders balls of light, chaos balls of dark matter and balance balls of grass which would significantly increase the defenses of a small camp, tower, fort or castle (POI) in such a way that always the furthest points of interest would be the most complicated to defend. this system that I propose is similar to what can be seen in RVR in guild wars 2 would add several very important things for the game, surveillance tasks, ambush tasks, caravan escort tasks etc. These caravans could be linked with a previous maintenance of resources by the players giving more importance to the gatherer.
It is also important to say that for campaigns to have a healthy activity incorporate this type of thing because if it is a matter of entering at a certain time of day to attend a siege that is regulated by a schedule and the problem is that it does grow a great dissatisfaction for those players who can not attend this event at that time so my proposal is such that for example the siege castles that are currently are much slower and more expensive when building to defend and destroy to conquer it In this way you do not need so many schedules but effort for all the players in that faction or guild.
It should also be borne in mind that in order to disconnect from siege schedules, it must be borne in mind that siege weapons must be without unlimited ammunition and a bit more expensive for their creation even with a certain limited number of use with the possibility of repair.

I also suggest that within the points of interest of capture the players could complete different tasks to develop their forts and castles for example there could be a kind of recruiter who could recruit a maximum of 10 guards for example and would need to live the better that meal was much faster he could recruit guards to accompany these caravans or simply to patrol the roads between conquered adjacent points of interest. In short, make the conquered points come alive and that the group of players can do many more things than just build a wall around it for their defense.

All this should be accompanied by good population regulation measures as suggested a few weeks ago in this Link

 

Edited by EnsaimadaBlanca

                                                 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mystafyi said:

For mmorpg I must agree. I had thought CF was going to avoid that issue with no levels, PvE grinding, being able to jump right in to combat, but they have trended PvE for a while now, I fully expect 5.110 to have more PvE than PvP added. How that will play out I don't know, but as you said history....

This sort of perspective makes me wonder what people truly expected or wanted out of Crowfall.  It is being built as a PVP MMORPG, not an MMOPVPG.  Granted, many of us backed for some of their visions, but either due to inadequate management/talent or simple unfeasibility there have been compromises and changes.  Still, this game isn't trying to be high fantasy Planetside.  It is trying to be a PVP MMORPG.  It has far more and in depth systems to contend with than the more jump in and play design of Planetside and your sort of mind set really makes me wonder what people were really expecting to get.  This is a spiritual successor to Shadowbane and that game failed less for its niche and more for its technical failures and the problems that came with stagnant servers after one side or another "won".

We know they'll keep improving the PvE experience because they want these areas to become PvP hotspots, but 5.110 is going to be a major PvP features addition, and Crowfall of anyone seems like the most dedicated PVPer niche MMO on the horizon that has kept consistently to such a design goal.  New World gave up right away, CU is ignoring Ashes of Creation's mistakes (which was always meant to be a more even split of PvE to PvP, leaning PvP ala ArcheAge's original vision anyway so CU is especially confusing) and the one MMO that has always been pushing "PvP is our goal" from the start is Crowfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Deioth said:

This sort of perspective makes me wonder what people truly expected or wanted out of Crowfall

The short version of what I wanted is SWG meets EvE, with campaigns that end and maps that change rather than going on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very informative comment by Anthrage

 

Quote

Thank-you Tim for one of the few accurate and honest pieces on this debacle. Most, including may of your commenters, are basing their opinions on feelings and not facts, and that is simply not productive.

 

First of all, for those who say the game still has PvP...no, not really. You have opt-in PvP in open world, which is absurd in a territorial conquest MMO, and for sieges, the battles are restricted access, scheduled, limited to 50 people total per side (and good luck either ensuring you are or being one of those 50), and further limited to enemy factions. This means if an individual is competing for your resources, and they have opted out of PvP, you cannot kill them. Even if they HAVE opted in, you cannot loot them - so you are essentially given them a free ride home with the resources they harvested in your territory. If you want to remove said competitor from your region, you cannot even do THAT if they are in your faction. Anyone who considers the above to be anything but a token PvP system is simply not being honest.

 

Second, the idea what the Alpha state of the game as regards PvP or griefing is what would have happened in release. The ridiculousness of this should be obvious, but as it appears to be data AGS based this dramatic and drastic reversal on, clearly it was not. The excessive new player killing, and killing of the same players repeatedly, which AGS seems to indicate was the main data point behind their decision, was the result of specific circumstances in alpha, and ironically, these were of their own making...

 

They invited a large infamous gaming group to the game, and said group indicated very loudly and clearly that they intended to destroy every established guild in the game, dominate the server and indeed derail the alpha test. As a result, all of the major guilds held a meeting, many of which were enemies, and decided to adopt a strategy of slowing the invader's leveling and harvesting progress through a campaign of constant killing. This would give the community time to react, and hopefully take the wind out of their sails - and it did in fact work. It had the unintended consequence of causing a large amount of collateral damage, impacting non-invader new players, and this is a huge part of the flawed foundation AGS based their decision on.

 

In addition to the above, we're talking about data from an alpha where wipes were impending, the map was a fraction of it's release state size, there was no content aside from PvP to speak of, and new players were regularly being thrown into the world with no information on how to avoid most of the victimization at the hands of PvPs - again, due to the NDA, again, the fault of AGS - at a huge disadvantage in skill and understanding of the game, something that would not be the case at release. On top of everything else, no effort of any kind was made to segregate these new players from the veteran PvPers.

 

Lastly, as Tim points out, AGS COULD have made some kind of effort, as many games have done, to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, betraying every statement and bit of marketing about the game for years, and disappointing not only the hardcore PvP crowd, but those who enjoy freebuilding and crafting - two systems equally impacted by this change in direction. There is a whole spectrum of grief-avoiding systems in PvP games today, from EVE Online to Gloria Victis, which given the absence of the alpha-specific issues would absolutely have been viable. Instead, they betrayed everyone, including themselves, with this incarnation which offers little to nothing to PvPers and a hodgepodge of ideas and content to the PVE crowd, who absolutely will grow tired of the title much more quickly. AGS will be competing with itself in this respect with it's LotR game...at this point, New World is basically a glorified tech demo.

 

It's a sad and mind-numbing case of a large entity basing major decisions on data, without understanding the precursors of that data. Aside from New World and it's fate, it's honestly a frightening and depressing statement on the world in general, and a great example of how perfectly someone can ruin something no matter how elevated a position they are in. Terrible.

 

Edited by Vicid

12Oe7ot.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Vicid said:

Anthrage said: It's a sad and mind-numbing case of a large entity basing major decisions on data, without understanding the precursors of that data

Marketing 101, before polling random people for feedback about your niche product, make sure those people are actually part of your target group.

PvP MMOs are a niche market, which is why it's underserved (at least in part), which is what makes it a potential market; but you can't use feedback from WoW players & Minecrafters to steer your product and still serve that niche market.

Edited by VaMei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, APE said:

I'm all for gear being looted and vessels decaying upon death. Due to the cost of everything though I don't see that happening. People are hardcore until you try to take away their precious goodies. There's little to no risk attacking someone doing PVE or just PVPing in general. Of course the "bring back up" concept works, but that's just not how gaming works for most. Ganking and going after targets that are at a disadvantage is how things go. Hopefully there are a lot of hot spots and POI to fight over and PVPing isn't going after the sheep most of the time.

 

Thats why i said to reduce the cost of gear to compensate you could just make ingots take 3 ore instead of 9 for example and that would drop the costs on alot of things other thing can give 2 or more items back (Gems for jewellery for example) item back instead of one if you cant reduce the cost of it needing 1 resource for example. Either way i feel making gear easy some easy go is a solid way to help with economy and add risk for gankers also reduce the gear durability aswell.

Might be worth giving it try for a campaign (No imports, Gear dropped on death, reduce crafting costs quicker durability loss on gear as a rule set)

Edited by veeshan

Veeshan Midst of UXA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VaMei said:

you can't use feedback from WoW players & Minecrafters to steer your product and still serve that niche market.

The pvp niche market cant support a game of their own.

[1] There are not enough of them

[2] Their behavior patterns drive people away over time, leading an increase in number [1]

You will use feedback from WoW players and Minecrafters to steer your product or you will go out of business. Thats what the OP article is saying, history has shown this repeatedly.

Edited by Toadwart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

The pvp niche market cant support a game of their own.

[1] There are not enough of them

[2] There behavior patterns drive people away over time, leading an increase in number [1]

You will use feedback from WoW players and Minecrafters to steer your product or you will go out of business. Thats what the OP article is saying, history has shown this repeatedly.

Nonsense.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Toadwart said:

The pvp niche market cant support a game of their own.

[1] There are not enough of them

[2] There behavior patterns drive people away over time, leading an increase in number [1]

You will use feedback from WoW players and Minecrafters to steer your product or you will go out of business. Thats what the OP article is saying, history has shown this repeatedly.

EvE has been reported to be dying since it's 1st year in the market back in 2003, yet as of this writing there are 19,020 players online, and within the last 24 hours there were 27,036 concurrent players. Obviously there is a place in the MMO market for players that want a cutthroat game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2020 at 4:25 PM, APE said:

Crowfall doesn't offer a solution, it offers a variation on the same model that will always struggle. The issue with New World that they adjusted for isn't being addressed in Crowfall.

Considering Amazon is also making a LOTR MMO, it is odd they decided to go more PVE with New World, but I didn't see the PVP focused model working either. There wasn't and probably won't be enough content to keep people coming back. Unless they dumped a ton of PVE content in that was missing before, even then I don't see the appeal.

I do believe that optional PVP is the best way to attract the masses, but there has to be content to support everyone. Half attempt at both is not going to work.

Amazon literally owns half of the internet's servers.

If anyone can afford to run pvp and pve servers in tandem its them.

Generally that's all the pvp heads really ever want. One server. In most cases there are enough of them to justify at least one server. Especially in cases where the game already factors pvp damage modeling in to its design this isn't that expensive of a variant to include provided your game can actually support more than one server.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jah said:

Nonsense.

Hogwash is the appropriate CF themed retort.  


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...