PvP is as a matter of fact one of the top forms of content, look at any MMO and you will see it as a major element. If Cryptic is going to add PvP to Neverwinter then take the time to incorporate it adequately. There is a variety of ways to adequately add PvP, just don't throw in sanctioned areas and say "oh we provide PvP ." SWTOR Huttball comes to mind, there can be "games" for entertainment for the shady side of Neverwinter's society that one can just queue up for as there is a Dungeon Finder tool for the game. There are more than enough rival factions in the lore of FR 4e to do some sort of open zone PvP.
Why would Cryptic limit the scope of their audience, that is just plain stupid.
I'm not a PvPer at all but I do acknowledge that there is a very significant portion of gamers that PvP.
I never even mentioned fighter vs rogue. I'm talking caster vs non caster. And any cleric with a worthy willpower will have a fair enough spot skill to see the rogue. Command or hold person, pwn into oblivion. FR is infamous for casters being the power wielders.
Edit: And as for open world pvp, wasn't it already mentioned neverwinter was going to be a hub and all the adventures/dungeons instanced like DDO?
Would kinda make it hard to do open world pvp.
One name drizzt ranger, another name wulfgar, let me think how bout Bruenor Battle hammer or Catti Brie. I have seen these character destroy wizards, clerics etc etc.
lets not stop there how bout Artemis Entreri or Jarlaxle Baenre (level 17 fighter in 2e, 3 e was a rogue/fighter/dualist.
The point being in dnd the items a character wears and uses can trump any class.
Since it was a long post, and we're in agreement, I'll just say I support the Battlefield as Quirk wrote it, although I like the idea of Factions better than nation-states so it's more realistic and "easier" to "switch sides" in a roleplaying manner should you choose to do so. Still, /agree completely with the method mentioned.
I never even mentioned fighter vs rogue. I'm talking caster vs non caster. And any cleric with a worthy willpower will have a fair enough spot skill to see the rogue. Command or hold person, pwn into oblivion. FR is infamous for casters being the power wielders.
Edit: And as for open world pvp, wasn't it already mentioned neverwinter was going to be a hub and all the adventures/dungeons instanced like DDO?
Would kinda make it hard to do open world pvp.
Substitute "Chameleon's mask" for stealth which makes the wizard use Arcana over stealth for a check. Have a wizard spell that hurts especially when the target grants CA. Same with other classes. Maybe it's multiple images or what have you. Warlock has TONS of powers making it not seen or just by MOVING at times. Don't assume because you cast you are a squishie. It's all based on strategy. Edit: but yes, items held by PC's somehow would have to be checked if they make PvP unbalanced.
Since it was a long posy, and we're in agreement, I'll just say I support the Battlefield as Quirk wrote it, although I like the idea of Factions better than nation-states so it's more realistic and "easier" to "switch sides" in a roleplaying manner should you choose to do so. Still, /agree completely with the method mentioned.
Substitute "Chameleon's mask" for stealth which makes the wizard use Arcana over stealth for a check. Have a wizard spell that hurts especially when the target grants CA. Same with other classes. Maybe it's multiple images or what have you. Warlock has TONS of powers making it not seen or just by MOVING at times. Don't assume because you cast you are a squishie. It's all based on strategy. Edit: but yes, items held by PC's somehow would have to be checked if they make PvP unbalanced.
Wow now we are talking about way to F word each others and at the begining people were crying like baby's, no pvp no pvp. I told you, it takes PvPer a bit more times to get to the forums but at the end you shall see we are the majority. Alot of PvPer posted here and what we get from their post is that BGs s Word and arenas too. We need open world PvP servers.
Also that would make so the other 1/5 of the population ( those who like to slay Ai without any challenges ) to have their own PvE servers.
Wow now we are talking about way to F word each others and at the begining people were crying like baby's, no pvp no pvp. I told you, it takes PvPer a bit more times to get to the forums but at the end you shall see we are the majority. Alot of PvPer posted here and what we get from their post is that BGs s Word and arenas too. We need open world PvP servers.
Also that would make so the other 1/5 of the population ( those who like to slay Ai without any challenges ) to have their own PvE servers.
There will be no alternate ruleset servers.
The game will be Free to Pay
These are fundamental core design elements.
And PvPers are not the majority. If anything they are running neck and neck with PvEers. In fact, there is a significant number of players who like both PvP and PvE, so that actually puts those who exclusively like PvP in a minority.
YOU may not like it, but that is the reality of it.
Since it was a long posy, and we're in agreement, I'll just say I support the Battlefield as Quirk wrote it, although I like the idea of Factions better than nation-states so it's more realistic and "easier" to "switch sides" in a roleplaying manner should you choose to do so. Still, /agree completely with the method mentioned.
Actually, I was sort of using "nation-states" as a substitute for "factions"
To be honest, if they factionalize, I don't see them allowing us to switch sides.
There will be no alternate ruleset servers.
The game will be Free to Pay
These are fundamental core design elements.
And PvPers are not the majority. If anything they are running neck and neck with PvEers. In fact, there is a significant number of players who like both PvP and PvE, so that actually puts those who exclusively like PvP in a minority.
YOU may not like it, but that is the reality of it.
I like both :P Im just being funny . And you dont know if there wont be any pvp servers, unless you work at Atari ?
Wow now we are talking about way to F word each others and at the begining people were crying like baby's, no pvp no pvp. I told you, it takes PvPer a bit more times to get to the forums but at the end you shall see we are the majority. Alot of PvPer posted here and what we get from their post is that BGs s Word and arenas too. We need open world PvP servers.
Also that would make so the other 1/5 of the population ( those who like to slay Ai without any challenges ) to have their own PvE servers.
No, we sad no WORLD SERVER PvPs. I said in the thread later specifically I do support PvPs especially group and battlefield. Your posting when not backed up by fact (suich as where you got 1/5) seems like you're looking for an argument. I'm hoping that's a mis-interpretation.
There will be no alternate ruleset servers.
The game will be Free to Pay
These are fundamental core design elements.
And PvPers are not the majority. If anything they are running neck and neck with PvEers. In fact, there is a significant number of players who like both PvP and PvE, so that actually puts those who exclusively like PvP in a minority.
YOU may not like it, but that is the reality of it.
No, we sad no WORLD SERVER PvPs. I said in the thread later specifically I do support PvPs especially group and battlefield. Your posting when not backed up by fact (suich as where you got 1/5) seems like you're looking for an argument. I'm hoping that's a mis-interpretation.
Please read your posts a tad more carefully.
Same standards, where does this info come from?
You understood my point I was making up numbers. I have no freaking idea how many we are, i just know we aren't a minority. So instead of saying half and half PvE / PvP, i said 1/5 because from the begining some people say we are a minority, which i doubt is right.
I saw the answer from the Forum dude from Atari saying there will be only one server. Too bad for now i guess.
I'll still keep on suggesting "limited" open PvP or however you want to call it. Basically a couple of maps, with monsters to level on and everything, that has open PvP. The idea would be, those maps would have stronger than average monsters that yields significantly better exp, but comes with the risk of being PKed. Also, it goes without saying that these maps are made for players to be in groups of 3+. For those who would want to avoid any trouble, also have normal maps for them to go to.
I've seen this idea work quite well on some games and wouldn't mind seeing it here.
Most polls I have looked at where the PvP to PvE ratio is discussed, they tend to be evenly split, or very close to it. But most of those polls do not take into account the players who are into both. But when they do, and you add up the players that do both and those who only PvE, the result tends to be higher than those who PvP exclusively.
Substitute "Chameleon's mask" for stealth which makes the wizard use Arcana over stealth for a check. Have a wizard spell that hurts especially when the target grants CA. Same with other classes. Maybe it's multiple images or what have you. Warlock has TONS of powers making it not seen or just by MOVING at times. Don't assume because you cast you are a squishie. It's all based on strategy. Edit: but yes, items held by PC's somehow would have to be checked if they make PvP unbalanced.
You've missed what I'm saying entirely. Casters will own melee. Not the other way around. Unless the fight starts toe to toe or with the element of surprise the caster will win. And don't claim that surprise is a part of the tactics, because nobody can "set" an ambush for other pvp'ers unless your camping a quest.
Now I agree that forgotten realms in itself has SO much lore to set it up for some amazing pvp, and if a company was brave enough to make a FR pvp game, temples vs temples, cities vs cities etc, I think they would do quite well. But for actual DnD it'd be too hard to do it open world.
Team vs team arena's could work, than you're looking at group balance which dnd is all about. But one on one in open world, certain classes would be getting owned non stop.
As for the person making references to FR characters, that has nothing to do with the dnd ruleset. R.A Salvatore doesn't write his stories with a d20 beside him, going uh no.. drizzt failed his save... guess he's out of the stories....
You understood my point I was making up numbers. I have no freaking idea how many we are, i just know we aren't a minority. So instead of saying half and half PvE / PvP, i said 1/5 because from the begining some people say we are a minority, which i doubt is right.
I saw the answer from the Forum dude from Atari saying there will be only one server. Too bad for now i guess.
For an engineer you're mistaking a lot of facts. He's from Cryptic, the company independent from Atari since 2011.
You've missed what I'm saying entirely. Casters will own melee. Not the other way around. Unless the fight starts toe to toe or with the element of surprise the caster will win. And don't claim that surprise is a part of the tactics, because nobody can "set" an ambush for other pvp'ers unless your camping a quest.
Now I agree that forgotten realms in itself has SO much lore to set it up for some amazing pvp, and if a company was brave enough to make a FR pvp game, temples vs temples, cities vs cities etc, I think they would do quite well. But for actual DnD it'd be too hard to do it open world.
Team vs team arena's could work, than you're looking at group balance which dnd is all about. But one on one in open world, certain classes would be getting owned non stop.
As for the person making references to FR characters, that has nothing to do with the dnd ruleset. R.A Salvatore doesn't write his stories with a d20 beside him, going uh no.. drizzt failed his save... guess he's out of the stories....
Ah, I apologize on accidentily flipping the point. So how do NON casters fight "fair?" Fighters, rangers and a few other melees have certain powers that can allow them to "shift their speed" or take a "bonus move/attack" BEFORE their move and standard action. They also can have powers if an attempted attack is made an an immediate reaction allowing attacks before their attack on their "turn." SO the caster could have a big boom/condition on the melees, but might suffer 2-3 attacks for their one, from having the fighter go to and follow them in their square adjacent when they try and cast "ranged" attacks. Sure they have non op attack bursts/blasts, but not as powerful as to the unbalanced worries you bring up.
Again, it's possible when you know the strategy. I have seen fighters and thieves use these tactics against casters, so it can be done.
Ah, I apologize on accidentily flipping the point. So how do NON casters fight "fair?" Fighters, rangers and a few other melees have certain powers that can allow them to "shift their speed" or take a "bonus move/attack" BEFORE their move and standard action. They also can have powers if an attempted attack is made an an immediate reaction allowing attacks before their attack on their "turn." SO the caster could have a big boom/condition on the melees, but might suffer 2-3 attacks for their one, from having the fighter go to and follow them in their square adjacent when they try and cast "ranged" attacks. Sure they have non op attack bursts/blasts, but not as powerful as to the unbalanced worries you bring up.
Again, it's possible when you know the strategy. I have seen fighters and thieves use these tactics against casters, so it can be done.
It works in pnp as you described I agree completely. The problem with the translation to game is that there aren't movement squares, or turns, or movements. And as I'm lead to understand, daily powers for immediate attack aren't being presented as actually daily powers, you need to "fill" your daily power gauge, making a lot of those immediate interrupts obsolete in a surprise "a wizard just ran up behind you" type of way. Open world pvp with dnd rules just wouldn't work in my mind.
It would be cool to see some faction wars though. Temples vs temples, guilds vs guilds. As long as the queue process used an x amount of defenders, x amount of strikers, x amount of leaders, x amount of controllers etc type way to keep the sides balanced as a group vs group setting, instead of trying to balance class vs class.
It works in pnp as you described I agree completely. The problem with the translation to game is that there aren't movement squares, or turns, or movements. And as I'm lead to understand, daily powers for immediate attack aren't being presented as actually daily powers, you need to "fill" your daily power gauge, making a lot of those immediate interrupts obsolete in a surprise "a wizard just ran up behind you" type of way. Open world pvp with dnd rules just wouldn't work in my mind.
It would be cool to see some faction wars though. Temples vs temples, guilds vs guilds. As long as the queue process used an x amount of defenders, x amount of strikers, x amount of leaders, x amount of controllers etc type way to keep the sides balanced as a group vs group setting, instead of trying to balance class vs class.
Yes, the changes to make it work in MMO have to be checked for the pending PvP. However, I think proactive tweaks for PvP balance coupled with the "who will win" arguments will make it work well. The working of powers that allow you to "jump" or "blink" if a caster tries to "attack" could act as an "interrupt" if not stopping the spell, making the target no longer there or reduced in damage. "Following" the target could be as simple as being "locked" on the target moving when they move for a short time getting an "automatic" basic attack if the target tried to do anything ranged/area.
I love the ideas of open world gaming PVE or PVP in general.
My perfect system would be to have the whole world sandboxed (eve) (Skyrim) (fallout) with the safer zones around the city's towns and villages varying by size.
The wilds in between are just that wild and dangerous full of minor encounter areas, wandering monsters and those players who prey on others (Evil bandits).
The notoriety idea is grand but needs to be expanded beyond towns.
The local lord or lady's forces would patrol their lands searching out destroying dangers.
It would also include a bounty's system where other players can actively hunt down (evil bandits) for the local powers which increases their standing and opens up new missions in that area.
Once a party reach their adventure setting it then zones into the mission but at that point it is private to the group.
Death penalty's are just time related and as long as one of the party members is alive you can re spawn at that point.
A way to set rewards for PVP level related loot is not gear (you never lose your gear) if you take out lower level characters you get very small amounts of loot but take out higher level characters you get better rewards.
All loot is program generated.
Lastly and most importantly a fast travel method so people who want to can travel straight to their mission.
And never have to bother with the whole PVP issue.
Choice is good but resources and bang per buck rules.
I don't think there will be anything like that here, maybe Neverwinter city will be like champions city but as soon as you get into a dungeon etc it will zone you to the mission.
It should be done where the 10-14% of people who love PVP can play it as much as they want.
By accepting missions in the vein of deathtrap dungeon.
Played solo or in teams.
Where the players have to fight through a deadly maze with traps and monsters for an evil powers pleasure, while also watching out for their fellow players who are also after the prize.
A standings board should be included so the player base can keep tabs on progress this will take into account the dungeon level, kills for and against.
Traps dodges and puzzles solved.
As old bob'z once said " It'l shingle my swizzle and zatz a fact. Hic!"
Or to put it another way, I am sure it will be fun however its incorporated.
If you're looking for a p2p action-based MMORPG with multiple servers, one of which is an open world PK server, then why don't you just buy TERA? Just saying. Everyone knows DDO is mostly PvE, so I don't know why you're here.
As for PvP, I hope they add arenas with a max capacity of 16v16 or more like in Dragon Nest for people who likes to PvP time to time but not every single minute of everyday playing to actually want to join an open world PK server.
Atari, cryptic, perfect world, no pvp, unknown mmorpg, all the same to me.
Exactly why your arguments hold no merit. Your discussions are devoid of any facts and just appear to others as inflammatory opinions. Therefore, unless you can show what you say has anything behind it, show me why we shouldn't base what is posted as incorrect by default then?
If you're looking for a p2p action-based MMORPG with multiple servers, one of which is an open world PK server, then why don't you just buy TERA? Just saying. Everyone knows DDO is mostly PvE, so I don't know why you're here.
As for PvP, I hope they add arenas with a max capacity of 16v16 or more like in Dragon Nest for people who likes to PvP time to time but not every single minute of everyday playing to actually want to join an open world PK server.
Exactly. grummush, since the answer was given by Cryptic no less and you still ask for World Servers which will not happen, this may be an alternative to you. If you can accept ZONED PvP, then wait until 2013. But fighting for something that has already been decided "no" using arguments that aren't backed up, respectfully sounds like a bratty child screaming "But I WANT IT ANYWAY!"
If you're looking for a p2p action-based MMORPG with multiple servers, one of which is an open world PK server, then why don't you just buy TERA? Just saying. Everyone knows DDO is mostly PvE, so I don't know why you're here.
Because Tera isnt going to be that great. I have hopes for Planetside2, but it is going to be F2P as well.......
PvP is as a matter of fact one of the top forms of content, look at any MMO and you will see it as a major element. If Cryptic is going to add PvP to Neverwinter then take the time to incorporate it adequately. There is a variety of ways to adequately add PvP, just don't throw in sanctioned areas and say "oh we provide PvP ." SWTOR Huttball comes to mind, there can be "games" for entertainment for the shady side of Neverwinter's society that one can just queue up for as there is a Dungeon Finder tool for the game. There are more than enough rival factions in the lore of FR 4e to do some sort of open zone PvP.
Why would Cryptic limit the scope of their audience, that is just plain stupid.
I'm not a PvPer at all but I do acknowledge that there is a very significant portion of gamers that PvP.
some forms "friendly competition" are always nice to have
if you don't force all players to join the same faction out of a group of "rival factions", then not allowing pvp in that case can create some really awkward moments.
i don't personally like open pvp that much, but not even having the option to defend your allied faction's npcs is something i don't like to see much
it would also be fun if your bursts and blasts could hurt your own party, but i guess that won't happen (for obvious reasons )
for there to be open word PvP, aside from all the technological mumbo jumbo of course, you'd need to have some kinda "bad guy" faction or something to justify it, as of now open world pvp would consist of heroes trying to save Neverwinter by killing...um other heroes trying to save Neverwinter, kinda self defeating, though I do admit the mental image of fighter stabbing another hero in the back while the second is fighting a monster going "No /I/ want to rescue the orphans from the Ogre King!" *stab*stab*stab* is kinda funny.
Comments
Why would Cryptic limit the scope of their audience, that is just plain stupid.
I'm not a PvPer at all but I do acknowledge that there is a very significant portion of gamers that PvP.
One name drizzt ranger, another name wulfgar, let me think how bout Bruenor Battle hammer or Catti Brie. I have seen these character destroy wizards, clerics etc etc.
lets not stop there how bout Artemis Entreri or Jarlaxle Baenre (level 17 fighter in 2e, 3 e was a rogue/fighter/dualist.
The point being in dnd the items a character wears and uses can trump any class.
Substitute "Chameleon's mask" for stealth which makes the wizard use Arcana over stealth for a check. Have a wizard spell that hurts especially when the target grants CA. Same with other classes. Maybe it's multiple images or what have you. Warlock has TONS of powers making it not seen or just by MOVING at times. Don't assume because you cast you are a squishie. It's all based on strategy. Edit: but yes, items held by PC's somehow would have to be checked if they make PvP unbalanced.
Wow now we are talking about way to F word each others and at the begining people were crying like baby's, no pvp no pvp. I told you, it takes PvPer a bit more times to get to the forums but at the end you shall see we are the majority. Alot of PvPer posted here and what we get from their post is that BGs s Word and arenas too. We need open world PvP servers.
Also that would make so the other 1/5 of the population ( those who like to slay Ai without any challenges ) to have their own PvE servers.
There will be no alternate ruleset servers.
The game will be Free to Pay
These are fundamental core design elements.
And PvPers are not the majority. If anything they are running neck and neck with PvEers. In fact, there is a significant number of players who like both PvP and PvE, so that actually puts those who exclusively like PvP in a minority.
YOU may not like it, but that is the reality of it.
Actually, I was sort of using "nation-states" as a substitute for "factions"
To be honest, if they factionalize, I don't see them allowing us to switch sides.
I like both :P Im just being funny
No, we sad no WORLD SERVER PvPs. I said in the thread later specifically I do support PvPs especially group and battlefield. Your posting when not backed up by fact (suich as where you got 1/5) seems like you're looking for an argument. I'm hoping that's a mis-interpretation.
Please read your posts a tad more carefully.
Same standards, where does this info come from?
You understood my point
I saw the answer from the Forum dude from Atari saying there will be only one server. Too bad for now i guess.
I've seen this idea work quite well on some games and wouldn't mind seeing it here.
They have already SAID there will only be ONE server. Just like STO. Just like Champions.
It's the same MMO engine.
Common sense.
Most polls I have looked at where the PvP to PvE ratio is discussed, they tend to be evenly split, or very close to it. But most of those polls do not take into account the players who are into both. But when they do, and you add up the players that do both and those who only PvE, the result tends to be higher than those who PvP exclusively.
The overlap is the tie-breaker.
You've missed what I'm saying entirely. Casters will own melee. Not the other way around. Unless the fight starts toe to toe or with the element of surprise the caster will win. And don't claim that surprise is a part of the tactics, because nobody can "set" an ambush for other pvp'ers unless your camping a quest.
Now I agree that forgotten realms in itself has SO much lore to set it up for some amazing pvp, and if a company was brave enough to make a FR pvp game, temples vs temples, cities vs cities etc, I think they would do quite well. But for actual DnD it'd be too hard to do it open world.
Team vs team arena's could work, than you're looking at group balance which dnd is all about. But one on one in open world, certain classes would be getting owned non stop.
As for the person making references to FR characters, that has nothing to do with the dnd ruleset. R.A Salvatore doesn't write his stories with a d20 beside him, going uh no.. drizzt failed his save... guess he's out of the stories....
For an engineer you're mistaking a lot of facts. He's from Cryptic, the company independent from Atari since 2011.
Ah, I apologize on accidentily flipping the point. So how do NON casters fight "fair?" Fighters, rangers and a few other melees have certain powers that can allow them to "shift their speed" or take a "bonus move/attack" BEFORE their move and standard action. They also can have powers if an attempted attack is made an an immediate reaction allowing attacks before their attack on their "turn." SO the caster could have a big boom/condition on the melees, but might suffer 2-3 attacks for their one, from having the fighter go to and follow them in their square adjacent when they try and cast "ranged" attacks. Sure they have non op attack bursts/blasts, but not as powerful as to the unbalanced worries you bring up.
Again, it's possible when you know the strategy. I have seen fighters and thieves use these tactics against casters, so it can be done.
It works in pnp as you described I agree completely. The problem with the translation to game is that there aren't movement squares, or turns, or movements. And as I'm lead to understand, daily powers for immediate attack aren't being presented as actually daily powers, you need to "fill" your daily power gauge, making a lot of those immediate interrupts obsolete in a surprise "a wizard just ran up behind you" type of way. Open world pvp with dnd rules just wouldn't work in my mind.
It would be cool to see some faction wars though. Temples vs temples, guilds vs guilds. As long as the queue process used an x amount of defenders, x amount of strikers, x amount of leaders, x amount of controllers etc type way to keep the sides balanced as a group vs group setting, instead of trying to balance class vs class.
Yes, the changes to make it work in MMO have to be checked for the pending PvP. However, I think proactive tweaks for PvP balance coupled with the "who will win" arguments will make it work well. The working of powers that allow you to "jump" or "blink" if a caster tries to "attack" could act as an "interrupt" if not stopping the spell, making the target no longer there or reduced in damage. "Following" the target could be as simple as being "locked" on the target moving when they move for a short time getting an "automatic" basic attack if the target tried to do anything ranged/area.
Ohhhh, are you that person who swore ya hid your "winning" Powerball ticket in McDonalds?
My perfect system would be to have the whole world sandboxed (eve) (Skyrim) (fallout) with the safer zones around the city's towns and villages varying by size.
The wilds in between are just that wild and dangerous full of minor encounter areas, wandering monsters and those players who prey on others (Evil bandits).
The notoriety idea is grand but needs to be expanded beyond towns.
The local lord or lady's forces would patrol their lands searching out destroying dangers.
It would also include a bounty's system where other players can actively hunt down (evil bandits) for the local powers which increases their standing and opens up new missions in that area.
Once a party reach their adventure setting it then zones into the mission but at that point it is private to the group.
Death penalty's are just time related and as long as one of the party members is alive you can re spawn at that point.
A way to set rewards for PVP level related loot is not gear (you never lose your gear) if you take out lower level characters you get very small amounts of loot but take out higher level characters you get better rewards.
All loot is program generated.
Lastly and most importantly a fast travel method so people who want to can travel straight to their mission.
And never have to bother with the whole PVP issue.
Choice is good but resources and bang per buck rules.
I don't think there will be anything like that here, maybe Neverwinter city will be like champions city but as soon as you get into a dungeon etc it will zone you to the mission.
It should be done where the 10-14% of people who love PVP can play it as much as they want.
By accepting missions in the vein of deathtrap dungeon.
Played solo or in teams.
Where the players have to fight through a deadly maze with traps and monsters for an evil powers pleasure, while also watching out for their fellow players who are also after the prize.
A standings board should be included so the player base can keep tabs on progress this will take into account the dungeon level, kills for and against.
Traps dodges and puzzles solved.
As old bob'z once said " It'l shingle my swizzle and zatz a fact. Hic!"
Or to put it another way, I am sure it will be fun however its incorporated.
Atari, cryptic, perfect world, no pvp, unknown mmorpg, all the same to me.
Why did you feel the need to post here then ?
Sorry to say, but then you're stupid
If you're looking for a p2p action-based MMORPG with multiple servers, one of which is an open world PK server, then why don't you just buy TERA? Just saying. Everyone knows DDO is mostly PvE, so I don't know why you're here.
As for PvP, I hope they add arenas with a max capacity of 16v16 or more like in Dragon Nest for people who likes to PvP time to time but not every single minute of everyday playing to actually want to join an open world PK server.
Exactly why your arguments hold no merit. Your discussions are devoid of any facts and just appear to others as inflammatory opinions. Therefore, unless you can show what you say has anything behind it, show me why we shouldn't base what is posted as incorrect by default then?
See above.
Exactly. grummush, since the answer was given by Cryptic no less and you still ask for World Servers which will not happen, this may be an alternative to you. If you can accept ZONED PvP, then wait until 2013. But fighting for something that has already been decided "no" using arguments that aren't backed up, respectfully sounds like a bratty child screaming "But I WANT IT ANYWAY!"
Don't make me start calling you Veruka Salt.
Because Tera isnt going to be that great. I have hopes for Planetside2, but it is going to be F2P as well.......
if you don't force all players to join the same faction out of a group of "rival factions", then not allowing pvp in that case can create some really awkward moments.
i don't personally like open pvp that much, but not even having the option to defend your allied faction's npcs is something i don't like to see much
it would also be fun if your bursts and blasts could hurt your own party, but i guess that won't happen (for obvious reasons