I dont expect Warhammer Online to be a "WoW Killer" since its gonna be completely pvp oriented (other than WoW that kinda has both in it almost equally).
I also disagree that there cant be a PvP class balance with PvE content included in the game. For example, i've seen many holy paladins (healer spec) to beat up arena specialized warriors, simply because they can take more damage than their opponent.
Anyway, the reason why I think Blizzard's next MMO might be PvP based is not so much because of the competition with Warhammer (although that's definitely a big part of it), but because the whole massive raids/epic PvE encounters thing involving large groups of players has kind of been done with WoW and previous MMOs. A lot of players, including myself, are not really interested in this, and there's a growing niche market for something different. Blizzard seems to have noticed, as they have said this next MMO will be completely different from WoW.
you have some valid points in this, but way less people of the MMO market are asking for a pure PvP game. In fact, Guild Wars (and the next the same company will release) is a free game thats all around PvP. Age of Conan and Warhammer Online, the same thing. Their next gen MMO will be completely different than WoW. But that might affect looks and setting more than the actual MMO rules (so technically they said they werent planning a "World of Warcraft 2").
Notice that Diablo and Diablo 2 were both Singleplayer titles with a coop mode on Battle.net and some primitive PvP implemented. The Universe might provide a good setting for a Realm vs Realm game (Heaven vs Hell vs Sanctuary) but i dont think Blizzard would go that way. It would have way more potential as a PvE game instead with all the demons of the Burning Hells around.
Diablo II is essentially already like the PvP-based MMO I'm envisioning here. In fact, you could probably port it directly into a MMO world and be nearly finished.
the PvP in Diablo 2 is completely primitive. There are no group roles, since the game is supposed to be a single-player title, easily soloable. Every MMORPG has, had and will always have group roles. Cause whats the use of an MMO without the need to group with anyone?
For example, all the classes are damaged based, and all the PvE encounters and item aquistions are soloable.
why would anyone make an MMORPG that wont need grouping for anything?
When you said "a faster paced WoW (gameplay wise) with way darker and bloodier graphics", that's exactly what I'm thinking, except with a truly awesome, skill-based PvP aspect thrown in. It's just the details that would have to worked out after that.
when i said what i said about the "faster paced WoW (gameplay wise)" i mostly ment combat. A Diablo game wouldnt be Diablo if there werent dozens of enemies around. To that more area of effect abilities would be needed. And of course, faster kill rate, since the enemies would have to respawn. Note that Diablo was always PvE oriented. "You are the hero to defeat Mephisto, Diablo and Baal and save the world" and not "the hero to defeat the other heroes that try to defeat Mephisto, Diablo and Baal".
The best PvP game out right now is Guild Wars whether you like the game or not.... Their PvP setup is amazing... I really like the tournament style of fighting... and their are many variations of how you fight.... The 6 man teams are perfect and there are tons of different teams you can make. GW really made PvP the base of their game... and it shows, Also "guilds" or clans are huge and most of them have guild battles which is similar to PvP but you get NPC's and a base and it's 8 person teams. If you have never played GW you should at least check it out, I remember when I used to play it and having an organized team that can slaughter someone in an 1/8 of a second is awesome... timing and skill is everything in that game and I hope D3 incorporates some of this in their game. Hope everything I said made sense
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dream as if you'll live forever, and live as if you'll die today. "James Dean"
more sense than any of your previous posts
I do agree with what you said, even though i never tried Guild Wars (i hate PvP - only do some Arena with friends rarely in WoW)
And i dont believe theres going to be a Blizzard MMO made that way. Some of the elements (guild/group matchmaking, skill based pvp) could be implemented in Diablo 3 (note, i didnt say MMO, i dont mean MMO), especially if it keeps the "create game" thing Diablo 2 has. A completely PvP oriented game isnt what Blizzard usually does, though, and i doubt they ever will. They could definitely improve it, but i dont think its ever going to be the main thing to do in the game. People like me (we're the majority) that prefer PvE content, mf etc would easily get bored of a PvP game and it would ruin a perfect setting for epic PvE battles. (not sure i made sense on this one :P)
I think that PvP should be complex just as in guild wars and very simple just as in D2 and that the PvP aspect of the game should have nothing to do with the PvE aspect... just as in D2. If you try and mix the two it creates confusion. Also having both sides will please all gamers, PvP and PvE so that the game would make more sales. Hopefully this is what blizzard did and it's likely they did.
1. Many different styles of PvP just as GW
2. PvP should have nothing to do with PvE just as in D2
3. PvP and PvE should PWN!!!! since it will be made by Blizzard!
4. PvE should be focus of the game!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dream as if you'll live forever, and live as if you'll die today. "James Dean"
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
Primitive? Well i guess i prefer primitive pvp gamestyle then if it means one vs one.
primitive in a way thats maybe somehow balanced in one on one, but with certain gear if could take forever. Kills causes people to loose gold, sometimes xp aswell, no "duel" function, no real rewards for it etc. PvP should have more in it to make it interesting. And some people even with rewards wouldnt bother (such as myself).
Well actually diablo 2 is a mmorpg IMHO ('mmo' meaning massively multiplayer online) since there are lots of players on battlenet playing D2 and characters being saved on bn servers.
I dont see why people should be forced to get in a team to play pve. If thats what ppl are looking for, then why dont they just play wow. I like the way D2's pvm is. Being able to play solo is cool, and the more players there are, the more difficult the game gets and the more chance of getting nice items there is.
I'd rather have them improve that system.
typical MMOs (as in "Massively Multiplayer Online") are the games that have one world to which people "live" as they log on. Diablo and Diablo 2 isnt anything like that. Each game creates a different world. 5 Acts, thats it. Only 8 can join. Thats hardly "Massively". Its the exact same reason i dont think Guild Wars is a typical MMO. Since its mostly instanced too (and theres no real action in town).
About being "forced" to play in groups... if you dont want to, why play an MMORPG and not a single-player game? As the title says its about playing with people. And not just one or two. About lots of people. And to make it even better, cooperation, tactic and coordination is most important in that kind of games. Why not play WoW you say? WoW grows old. WoW looks more childish than a Diablo MMO would look. WoW has no Diablo boss in it And more i could just think of but theres no point to mention. MMO is MMO. What you describe isnt.
Its not possible to have the same game mechanics in a single-player title (such as Diablo 2) and an MMO game. Would be impossible to balance. There always is solo content in such games, and good loots that come that way. But the best require grouping and its just as it should be.
While that might be true for D2C, i think LOD is clearly pvp oriented.
so you're saying that in LoD you had to kill other people and not Baal?
You're totally right there, Doppel.
The PvP requires no skill. Buuuuut.... I still love it
I like your ideas about gambling for each others exp and stakes like items and stuff, but I would definitly want that optional
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."
I also disagree that there cant be a PvP class balance with PvE content included in the game. For example, i've seen many holy paladins (healer spec) to beat up arena specialized warriors, simply because they can take more damage than their opponent.
you have some valid points in this, but way less people of the MMO market are asking for a pure PvP game. In fact, Guild Wars (and the next the same company will release) is a free game thats all around PvP. Age of Conan and Warhammer Online, the same thing. Their next gen MMO will be completely different than WoW. But that might affect looks and setting more than the actual MMO rules (so technically they said they werent planning a "World of Warcraft 2").
Notice that Diablo and Diablo 2 were both Singleplayer titles with a coop mode on Battle.net and some primitive PvP implemented. The Universe might provide a good setting for a Realm vs Realm game (Heaven vs Hell vs Sanctuary) but i dont think Blizzard would go that way. It would have way more potential as a PvE game instead with all the demons of the Burning Hells around.
the PvP in Diablo 2 is completely primitive. There are no group roles, since the game is supposed to be a single-player title, easily soloable. Every MMORPG has, had and will always have group roles. Cause whats the use of an MMO without the need to group with anyone?
why would anyone make an MMORPG that wont need grouping for anything?
when i said what i said about the "faster paced WoW (gameplay wise)" i mostly ment combat. A Diablo game wouldnt be Diablo if there werent dozens of enemies around. To that more area of effect abilities would be needed. And of course, faster kill rate, since the enemies would have to respawn. Note that Diablo was always PvE oriented. "You are the hero to defeat Mephisto, Diablo and Baal and save the world" and not "the hero to defeat the other heroes that try to defeat Mephisto, Diablo and Baal".
I do agree with what you said, even though i never tried Guild Wars (i hate PvP - only do some Arena with friends rarely in WoW)
And i dont believe theres going to be a Blizzard MMO made that way. Some of the elements (guild/group matchmaking, skill based pvp) could be implemented in Diablo 3 (note, i didnt say MMO, i dont mean MMO), especially if it keeps the "create game" thing Diablo 2 has. A completely PvP oriented game isnt what Blizzard usually does, though, and i doubt they ever will. They could definitely improve it, but i dont think its ever going to be the main thing to do in the game. People like me (we're the majority) that prefer PvE content, mf etc would easily get bored of a PvP game and it would ruin a perfect setting for epic PvE battles. (not sure i made sense on this one :P)
1. Many different styles of PvP just as GW
2. PvP should have nothing to do with PvE just as in D2
3. PvP and PvE should PWN!!!! since it will be made by Blizzard!
4. PvE should be focus of the game!
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
primitive in a way thats maybe somehow balanced in one on one, but with certain gear if could take forever. Kills causes people to loose gold, sometimes xp aswell, no "duel" function, no real rewards for it etc. PvP should have more in it to make it interesting. And some people even with rewards wouldnt bother (such as myself).
typical MMOs (as in "Massively Multiplayer Online") are the games that have one world to which people "live" as they log on. Diablo and Diablo 2 isnt anything like that. Each game creates a different world. 5 Acts, thats it. Only 8 can join. Thats hardly "Massively". Its the exact same reason i dont think Guild Wars is a typical MMO. Since its mostly instanced too (and theres no real action in town).
About being "forced" to play in groups... if you dont want to, why play an MMORPG and not a single-player game? As the title says its about playing with people. And not just one or two. About lots of people. And to make it even better, cooperation, tactic and coordination is most important in that kind of games. Why not play WoW you say? WoW grows old. WoW looks more childish than a Diablo MMO would look. WoW has no Diablo boss in it And more i could just think of but theres no point to mention. MMO is MMO. What you describe isnt.
Its not possible to have the same game mechanics in a single-player title (such as Diablo 2) and an MMO game. Would be impossible to balance. There always is solo content in such games, and good loots that come that way. But the best require grouping and its just as it should be.
so you're saying that in LoD you had to kill other people and not Baal?
The PvP requires no skill. Buuuuut.... I still love it
I like your ideas about gambling for each others exp and stakes like items and stuff, but I would definitly want that optional
"Cards and flowers on your window, your friends all plead for you to stay,
sometimes beginnings aren't so simple, sometimes goodbye's the only way."