Well, they were smart enough to hire an MMO expert in Matt Firor to lead the development. He created Dark Age of Camelot and other games before that. If anyone can deliver a fun combat experience then Firor should be able to do it.
Being in the beta has benefits for the MMO power player. You get to start working with game mechanics to find the best way to XP and PvP not to mention figure out how the game economy really works. That is why I'd consider paying to get into the beta. All those benefits to the player makes finding the bugs for the publisher a win-win.
I'd pay for early beta access. How much would I pay? Hard to say. I probably would go $10-25 for it.
I'll use third-person exclusively for situational awareness.
I'm a Dark Age of Camelot fan, so with Matt Firor as lead on the project, I'm going to play it. I hope it can be a combination of an immersive world with realm combat added to the experience. If ESO gets the combat portion right, then I think it can have a long life.
My biggest worry is how the economy is going to work. I haven't heard much about it, and if it goes f2p and they haven't balanced that system right, it could turn into a nightmare.
You might be right. That after launch there will be so many complaints that it gets redone sort of like Star Wars Galaxies.
I think this is far more like Matt Firor's Dark Age of Camelot than WoW. As such, with an end game realm vs realm combat, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to balance a game that was not class driven. While it may not satisfy people to say this, I think it is just easier to balance because if we let people pick the best abilities/talents...
I meant to include that when I hit post to explain that I get how traffic jams spoil the fun. I've been in those traffic jams and hated it too.
I'd like to see anyone in the area get credit for things like that. I hated Warhammer Online, but the public quest system was a great innovation. I'd expand that to include all quest goals, so, if you get within a certain range and someone opens that chest, you get credit for it.
Ugh. MMOs are massively multiplayer online games. I get the fact the single-player RPG fans want one experience, but the problem with most of these online games today is the ability to instance all the content and never truly experience a virtual world---a world full of people and possibilities. Oh, and the chance to cyber with elf chicks. ;)
Edit: I did agree that too many people clogging up the area makes the experience seem forced. There has to be a middle ground between ...
I'm glad that it isn't pleasing Elder Scroll fans. This isn't a single-player RPG. MMOs are different and really need to work as an MMO.
What should excite Elder Scroll fans is getting to experience some of their favorite settings with other people. However, almost all the complaints seems to be about how the game requires people. Well, MMOs are all about community.No man is an island unlike what we might expect from single person RPGs.
I prefer pay to play over lots of microtransactions that can, unless done right, distort gameplay.
Will it deliver an RvR experience that is good.? If it does, that niche market will continue to subscribe.
One thing that is important is population. If the population gets too small too quickly, then the avid RvR players won't play it for long.
I'm not sure P2P is done. If the game appeals to the right market, this can be a big hit.
It will be interesting because the maximizers will always get the best items. If player crafted items aren't highly desired, then it will create distortions in the economic model.
Most of the recent MMOs make crafting a task instead of profession. This seems related to MMOs becoming games instead of worlds like SWG and UO.
I am very interested in Camelot Unchained's promise of only player made items in its economy.
This seems to kill MMOs if not done correctly.
I believe this game has been essentially in development from the moment Matt Frior was hired in 2007.