[MUD-Dev] Interesting DAoC Poll
dshepherd at mcl-birmingham.com
Thu Dec 13 10:05:16 New Zealand Daylight Time 2001
> The rules (lets call it the Deep Blue ruleset) I am refering to
> were posted here, I think a year or 2 ago, perhaps it's time for a
> repost. It adheres to the philosophy that pvp should be like a
> chess game. You should only lose if your opponent is better than
> you or you make a mistake. Things like giving the first person to
> act a huge advantage (a moderate one is ok), 1 shot kills, and
> putting in things like charm, invisibility and paralization
> without effective counters are considered wrong.
> I think follower's of the view on pvp that all players should be
> able to effectively participate regardless of skill would most
> likely have a different ruleset where those things are acceptable.
> However, upon checking the DaoC boards I see most players
> complaining loudly about the issues that Deep Blue warns against.
Mythic tried to use the phrase Realm vs Realm (RvR) to describe
their PvP ruleset. They emphasised that heading out into the
frontier on your own (unless you were specifically suited to that
e.g. rangers) usually meant a very quick death. They wanted groups
of characters to meet head-on and fight it out. The weaknesses of
one class was mitigated by the strengths of another class, all
within the same group. They never suggested that one-on-one PvP was
going to be that interesting or that much of a player challenge, or
in any way balanced.
Personally I would love to see more counters and more options during
combat, but as it is usually over in a few seconds there is not much
point until you slow combat down. It would be good to see healers
heal during combat. But I don't think that DAoC should be too much
like say, Achaea, where levels/equipment mean very little and proper
use of character skills (bought with hard cash) means everything in
PvP. It is too much of a twitch based system (slow twitch but still
twitchy), and certainly does have 1 shot kills (if the target
doesn't know to use or have a certain herb). Personally I prefer to
see player skill matter more than level, but I have a strong feeling
that most of Mythics customers don't want to see Counterstrike with
A little while back Mythic had to give away a tactic that no-one was
using to counter archers - there is a shield skill that can block
most arrows but it was being ignored. As soon as they mentioned
this all the shield wielders stopped complaining about how powerful
archers were, in fact they went very quiet. Actually I'm lying,
they started complaining about something else.
They do have too much PvE baggage though, and yes it should have all
been ironed out in beta. In fact they should have done the classes
and tested PvP before anything else. Then they wouldn't be worrying
so much about upsetting PvE balance when they make a tweak to change
a class's strength in PvP.
>> Taking over a keep in an enemy realm reduces the number of
>> defenders at the Relic keeps and capturing a Relic grants you
>> bonuses over other Realms. Sounds like a good start for
>> promoting RvR. They clearly have a long way to go with adding
>> more meaning to the frontier but they do recognise this.
> I half agree with this change. The half that disagrees is the one
> that realizes keeps are nifty, but pvp is about Players vs
> Players, there are no NPCs in that equation.
> DaoC lacks places where you can battle other players without a
> risk of an NPC wandering in. The only ones I can think of are the
> mile forts, currently the majority of pvp takes place near these.
I think they made this the case to reduce the number of archers
stealthing at the frontier gates waiting for curious low levels to
pop their heads out and get 1-shotted. Mythic wanted ownership of
the keeps to be the driving force, this hasn't happened so they have
responded by making it much more dangerous to venture too deeply
into enemy territory.
>>> To spend 20+ minutes traveling to the nearest bindpoint to the
>>> enemy frontier is another barrier to getting people involved.
>> If you could respawn right next to the area you are defending
>> then you probably would have impenetrable keeps.
> I would settle for putting a bindstone in the portal keep or at
> least next the the portal in your homeland.
This would be ok I feel, but I would not like to be attacking a keep
only to see the defender I killed two minutes ago run back onto the
battlefield at full health. I should only have to kill you once to
achieve my objective.
>> (FYI being hit breaks mez).
> One of the hibernian mez spells have been bugged since release,
> it's not broken when you get hit.
I thought you were referring to the general mez design and not a
>> DAoC has a long way to go and they are the first to admit that.
>> Mythic have taken a few small steps, perhaps as many as they
>> could afford to take in this niche? PvP market. I hope they do
>> well, not just for them, but also for those designers that build
>> on DAoC.
> Of the players I've talked to nearly 100% were interested in RvR,
> those who were not simply stayed in EQ. Many players consider
> levels 1-40 to be the annoying task you have to go through before
> you can join the "real game" of RvR. Every day dozens more
> players break level 40. The number of players active beyond 40
> seems to be remaining almost steady. The time to finish RvR was a
> few months ago when players had not yet started taking keeps, or
> better yet, during the BETA.
I'm with you here. You buy DAoC as it boasts of it's PvP aspect.
You level as quick as you can to 20 so that you can venture out into
the PvP areas, you get killed instantly and are told that it isn't
worth coming out here until you are 30. By 30, it's the 40+ who
still kill you instantly.
This has turned a lot of people off the idea off PvP, at least in
Camelot. Changing it to a more player skill based system would have
the same effect as certain guilds learn to use their skills more
effectively and start completely owning. With squad based combat
like DAoC, power should reside in numbers more than in level.
Mythic have chosen not to do this.
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev