PDA

View Full Version : Is PvP necessary?


xKingdomHeartsx
06-26-2011, 08:59 PM
I read up the FAQ on the game and it seems to me that PvP becames the bery fundamental part of the game to progress? Is it possible to focus completely on your economics and exploration as a path to progress, join other guilds and alliances and build an empire?

I guess I can let my future alliance do all the fighting :cool:

but one question remains, I understand that battles or sieges take place in a instanced map? So how can your guild or alliance come to your rescue? or is that not planned? do they just get their army to enter the instance map and fight it out? cos I'm horrid in rts department......:eek:

PS: can you join your castles with others? so you each of the guild controls sectors of the empire, but castles are located like near each other?

Nafles
06-27-2011, 01:12 AM
Well, sorry if I'm wrong, but... what's the point on playing an online multiplayer game, specially an MMO if there is no PVP?. Better go for single player then.

theinternetman
06-27-2011, 10:07 AM
I think the game should feature both a PvE mode focusing on cooperative play and economic simulation in addition to a PvP mode focusing on conquest and trading. Good games are all about taking an engine and making a variety of game modes. The amount and type of games you can play with a deck of cards is almost limitless for an analogy.

Take for example Warcraft 3 or Starcraft 2 or Dungeon Siege. All of these games were purpose built to allow players to come up with their own game modes tailored to their play style. As a result they still have pretty active communities (less so DS, but it still had players into 2009)

I would find it very fun to have both a PvE estate and a PvP estate.

Currently you only have to defend your castle if you are online and happen to be attacked by a player randomly. PvP is... optional. You can run around killing NPCs and trading for income if you like. Which to me is kinda boring. I'd rather be able to team up with some allies and PvP or PvE. So far we can team up with allies to go PVPing but I'm not sure about PVE at this point.

Well, sorry if I'm wrong, but... what's the point on playing an online multiplayer game, specially an MMO if there is no PVP?. Better go for single player then.

I'm not sure why many players on both sides of the PvP vs PvE fence think of things as so black and white. The most successful MMOs are PvE focused. Getting good at PvP in a game often requires a lot of commitment and time investment. Most people do not have that time.

Brotolemaeus
06-27-2011, 03:44 PM
While I think there should be a strong pvp element and focus, I would love to see NPC held fortresses that only a party of multiple individuals could defeat with their military. Cooperative PvE and a strong PvP make any game a success.

Khumash-Gor
06-27-2011, 04:45 PM
Every time I try to enter a pvp match, I end up sieging the same npc castle.

Wizaerd
06-27-2011, 05:27 PM
Well, sorry if I'm wrong, but... what's the point on playing an online multiplayer game, specially an MMO if there is no PVP?. Better go for single player then.

There are differences between the MP and SP elements of the game, whereas I think there's no real StrongHold building in the SP. It's a campaign map with a bunch of skirmishes.

Brotolemaeus
06-27-2011, 06:36 PM
Every time I try to enter a pvp match, I end up sieging the same npc castle.

I do believe that the PVP is currently de-activated and being worked on, can't wait to see it in action.

Gongora
06-27-2011, 06:59 PM
The point of interest in this game to me is the PvP, It is up-mostly necessary!

Lancezh
06-28-2011, 09:04 AM
Well, sorry if I'm wrong, but... what's the point on playing an online multiplayer game, specially an MMO if there is no PVP?. Better go for single player then.

I totally disagree, there is a bunch of players that actually would like to focus on economics but together with friends. Theres nothing better than to build something together that took alot of work and looks epic. Well thats at least what it is in my book and its not nearly as fun in single player.

You can do the burning if you want to though :P

Candyman
06-28-2011, 11:22 AM
I totally disagree, there is a bunch of players that actually would like to focus on economics but together with friends. Theres nothing better than to build something together that took alot of work and looks epic. Well thats at least what it is in my book and its not nearly as fun in single player.

You can do the burning if you want to though :P

I agree with this I love the act of building some thing and trying to stay out of the pvp and build up. The people that fight to much will most likely not last long if they were not on the game from the start, and once some group have the map under a crazy amount of troops I don't think it will ever be taken from them. I hope they reboot after some group has clear victory over every one. sorry about my gram right now I am doing this and a college paper in the back lol.

aiastelmon
06-29-2011, 10:03 PM
If the game focuses primarily (and only) on PvP as an endgame, I don't think it will be all that successful or long-lasting. Rather, I would love to see them focus on a cooperative-only mode where you can team up and conquer a map full of NPC's, some of which should be very tough. This would require them to have persistent maps, and the ability to enter an either "invite only" world, or an "open" world, and proceed to work with your allies to defeat the NPC's and dominate the map. Diffiiculty levels can be ramped up and down depending on the performance of the player alliance to keep things interesting, and rewards can be given like unit unlocks or custom looks.

I'm hoping the game is not entirely made up of skirmish PvP battles and kingdom building.

][freeman][
06-30-2011, 08:15 AM
PvP is necessary!

ralvin
07-01-2011, 09:09 AM
I think PvP is one of the superior feature that an MMORTS game SHOULD have. the pace is just different