I have to admit, after logging in over 4th of July I see the game has improved by quite a bit. Really impressed with the looks of new armors & weapons, animations are better, and general graphics look good with new shadow effects. I know I can't say much so I'll just say, I want to play this game. I wish we could see the end of the tunnel and get the game done, because I want to play it. But it's just not quite there yet.
Hopefully the hard parts are done or close to being done.
Thanks and you are correct. We are not there yet but if you look at how far we've come in terms of the graphical improvements, we are definitely a lot closer to the end of the tunnel than to its beginning.
In terms of gameplay, the ability system is starting to work the way we expected it would when we went into re-abilitation. Yeah, it has taken longer than we thought it would but fortunately we (Backers/CSE) can look at the game and see significant improvement every month. That pace will begin to get more visible as we continue to transition to more gameplay features rather than tech features over the next few months.
I know how hard it is to keep faith when we are late but the thing is, when I said we were building the core building blocks of our engine, I meant it. Now that they are coming online, the biggest challenges, tech-wise, are being checked off our list. That will make a heck of a difference over the rest of the development schedule. And unlike other MMOs, we will have the tech in place to support the battles that were part of our KS pitch. We could have gone the other route and it would have worked great in the short-term and screwed us big-time at the end. Fortunately, we went down the right path and as you saw, that approach is in the process of being validated.
Thanks again, especially for checking out the game again on the 4th. I can't wait till we can have a test with players, Bots and lots and lots of arrows/fireworks of all types. That should be amusing as heck.
After some tech hurdles with the new systems it seems they are back on track with heavy testing. Recent tests using full textures and VFX on more recent builds had successful 1500+ bots (emulating externally logged in player accounts) in close quarter full combat testing high rate casting fire spells. They even had over 2k bots at once point.
All of this at playable frame rates on a GTX 970.
Still lots of work yet to be done to meet their beta goals but looking good and progressing!
Actually, you are wrong about the network testing capabilities and barebone graphics, though you are right that we aren't there yet. Our network testing stressed the network traffic the way that 1.5K players/Bots who were running around, colliding with each other (handled by the server, not client) would have stressed the game when it goes LIVE. FYI, the Bots stressed the system more than 1.5K players who were just running around but not fighting. OTOH, as per above, we need those Bots firing off abilities to really stress the system of course. And in terms of the barebone graphics, they were running on the Autumn Biome forest which was being rendered behind them. We don't cheat on tests.
Mark
Am I?
Were the bots run from 1500 individual workstations outside of local network?
Yes, graphics is barebone, unless last game you have seen is 15 years ago :-p
Regardless, I still think all the graphics isn't in place yet and will take quite a lot of effort actually to balance performance/visual wise. I even think it is more difficult than all the back-end stuff.
It is nice change to see a game being developed "properly".
Actually, you are wrong about the network testing capabilities and barebone graphics, though you are right that we aren't there yet. Our network testing stressed the network traffic the way that 1.5K players/Bots who were running around, colliding with each other (handled by the server, not client) would have stressed the game when it goes LIVE. FYI, the Bots stressed the system more than 1.5K players who were just running around but not fighting. OTOH, as per above, we need those Bots firing off abilities to really stress the system of course. And in terms of the barebone graphics, they were running on the Autumn Biome forest which was being rendered behind them. We don't cheat on tests.
Mark
Were the bots run from 1500 individual workstations outside of local network?
That has already been answered ... more than once.
1) Bots are “headless clients” running on separate AWS instances. This means that on different instances (servers), we are running 1500 separate clients. They are headless, because in our case, they aren’t attached to real players at keyboards, monitors, etc.
2) Bots are almost indistinguishable to the server from players. They are started up from player characters we created just for that purpose. As such, they have full access to all the skills, abilities, etc. as players.
3) Because Bots = players, the server treats them the same way as players (except they don’t get to ask for refunds!) and as such, consume the same amount of network traffic as players. So when a Bot is firing off an ability, it has to send the same message to the servers that players do and in return, are sent the same amount of information from the server.
4) Bots, in general, consume a bit more network traffic than players since they don’t spend any time talked, go off for “botty-breaks”, etc., like normal players do. In some tests we actually had them chatting so they could test the chat system.
5) Bots are not “NPCs” because those things are usually controlled from the same server(s) instance(s) and are generally not networked like players. We will, of course, have NPCs too but no NPCs were harmed in the making of these screenshots!
So, in terms of whether are Bots are the same as players in terms of Internet/network traffic and also client stability (they can crash too), etc., the answer is 100% yes! [...]
So, in terms of whether are Bots are the same as players in terms of Internet/network traffic and also client stability (they can crash too), etc., the answer is 100% yes! [...]
And that was my point - it is not.
Bots are great testing tool and they can test servers very well but when it comes to network, it is very raw testing.
Sitting on local network means you test with best possible network conditions you can get and do not need to deal with things like latency when your client is thousands of kilometers away - thus limited network testing capabilities.
I am not trying to say it is a game changing difference or just be negative for the sake of being negative, just pointing out the journey from technology tests to polished game with real clients is very, very long. Imo, much longer than people realize.
Bots are great testing tool and they can test servers very well but when it comes to network, it is very raw testing.
Bots are a piece of software, hence the devs can make them as 'demanding' as they want and need, i.e. the bots can be programmed with an artificial delay (for testing ping) or more bandwidth-consuming than the average user client (which they currently are!).
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Even though I'm not one to financially back these projects I really hope Mark and the team pull through. So many people looking for a new home... if one passionate team can keep their focus on the game and the players.. just one. Make the game great and you will make all the money you need. Focus on making money and we all know where that leads.
So, in terms of whether are Bots are the same as players in terms of Internet/network traffic and also client stability (they can crash too), etc., the answer is 100% yes! [...]
And that was my point - it is not.
Bots are great testing tool and they can test servers very well but when it comes to network, it is very raw testing.
Sitting on local network means you test with best possible network conditions you can get and do not need to deal with things like latency when your client is thousands of kilometers away - thus limited network testing capabilities.
I am not trying to say it is a game changing difference or just be negative for the sake of being negative, just pointing out the journey from technology tests to polished game with real clients is very, very long. Imo, much longer than people realize.
Because you continue to post without doing a shred of research yourself (and 2 people rated your post as insightful lol), this is a snip from Mark posting about what bots are and how they are used here:
"1) Bots are “headless clients” running on separate AWS instances. This means that on different instances (servers), we are running 1500 separate clients. They are headless, because in our case, they aren’t attached to real players at keyboards, monitors, etc.
2) Bots are almost indistinguishable to the server from players. They are started up from player characters we created just for that purpose. As such, they have full access to all the skills, abilities, etc. as players.
3) Because Bots = players, the server treats them the same way as players (except they don’t get to ask for refunds!) and as such, consume the same amount of network traffic as players. So when a Bot is firing off an ability, it has to send the same message to the servers that players do and in return, are sent the same amount of information from the server.
4) Bots, in general, consume a bit more network traffic than players since they don’t spend any time talked, go off for “botty-breaks”, etc., like normal players do. In some tests we actually had them chatting so they could test the chat system.
5) Bots are not “NPCs” because those things are usually controlled from the same server(s) instance(s) and are generally not networked like players. We will, of course, have NPCs too but no NPCs were harmed in the making of these screenshots!
So, in terms of whether are Bots are the same as players in terms of Internet/network traffic and also client stability (they can crash too), etc., the answer is 100% yes! Otherwise, if they weren’t, we’d be, to put it mildly, lying and even though you and I disagree about some things, I hope by now you and our Backers know that I refuse to lie, I just rather deliver bad news. FYI, I wanted to have these kind of Bots for testing in WAR. Unfortunately, that was vetoed. Fortunately, this time my partner/co-founder Andrew couldn’t have been more in favor of it and was a strong proponent himself. And thanks to the other engineers at CSE and the considerable time spent getting them up and running, they are really incredibly useful for these types of tests, then, now and forever.
FYI, interesting historical note, the concept of using Bots for this kind of testing goes way, way back, even to the origin of the MUDs. One of the earliest members of Mythic Entertainment, and a fine gentleman who worked for me at AUSI (my first company, maker of the world’s third MUD, Aradath), Darrin Hyrup, had a similar system to stress test our MUDs. Very helpful then, incredibly helpful now. For example, In Beta, we’ll be using them every few weeks to beat on the current build to make sure that nothing bad has crept into the code networking-wise. No matter how good the programmers/designers/artists, occasionally things go into the game that looks fine but when systems are pressured, bad things can arise. The Bots aren’t a cure-all, but used properly they can cut down on the number of times things seem to work great when 40 people are playing during testing but go to complete crap when 4000 people are playing the same build when it goes LIVE."
I do not believe this will help you however. No matter what others say, you do not believe them even when they directly answer your questions. You continue to argue without knowing the fundamentals of the subject matter.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
This type of claim pops up every now and then. I'll believe it when it's live and with actual players.
You can watch the videos yourself, whether they are bots or actual players isn't all that significant difference.
It is very much believable, technically it was always possible, it is only a matter of what you will trade off for large scale pvp and whether there is a demand for such games - that is also a reason no such MMOs are being made.
This type of claim pops up every now and then. I'll believe it when it's live and with actual players.
You can watch the videos yourself, whether they are bots or actual players isn't all that significant difference.
It is very much believable, technically it was always possible, it is only a matter of what you will trade off for large scale pvp and whether there is a demand for such games - that is also a reason no such MMOs are being made.
I've got another question that concerns me: Will huge battles just be a wild zerg? Are the only significant attacks going to be AoE? How do you pick a target out of the masses and stick with it in combat?
I've got another question that concerns me: Will huge battles just be a wild zerg? Are the only significant attacks going to be AoE? How do you pick a target out of the masses and stick with it in combat?
exactly !!
Far more important than quantity of combatants is the quality of the combat.
If i just wanted to run up and AOE 30 players ,i could go play some cheap ass Diablo type ARPG and mindless spam until i die. I much prefer controlled,tactical,thinking combat,i detest going in wild and spamming. So yeah ,just like game play >graphics,i want quality over quantity.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Well, its been done to the degree that I liked it in ESO, but i HATED ESO's RVR/WVW reward system. I dont want to kill x players to get points so i can buy a caltrops skill that slows another player for 2s, then kill x players to buy x skill. then game the system so we can keep flipping emperor so all my buddies get it.
i liked daoc's skill system which was kill x players and get +1 to all skills and so forth exponentially. so i'm hoping CU is able to capture the same rewards system they had in daoc.
i think in regards to large scale battles, its been done ok before with ESO in its heyday good enough for my liking.
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
I liked the battle size in DAOC because it was still personal enough that you could pick an individual target and stick on it. But in the early days, at least, AOE CC and DPS was devastating. Too powerful. Hopefully, CU finds a balance.
I liked the battle size in DAOC because it was still personal enough that you could pick an individual target and stick on it. But in the early days, at least, AOE CC and DPS was devastating. Too powerful. Hopefully, CU finds a balance.
That's been my question as well. What will meaningful combat look like in a group of 500 people? Can I contribute to the battle in a manner that will have an impact that I can see?
It's great that mass combat won't be a freeze frame flash show. I've been in several of those and am ready for that to be tech history. But, I don't think simply removing performance problems instantly makes for quality battles. I'm curious how they're going to make those battles engaging.
Large battles work well in EVE, I think because of its military style design and the very specific roles the ships have.
Fleets are often very organized, with different comms for the scouts, battleships, capital and sub capitals, and repair and support groups.
Some groups fight at long range, others in close (tackle). Some can disrupt enemy guns while others augument your own.
So a fleet of 500 can have real meaning and be both a challenge and a thing of beauty when well coordinated.
I've even been in fleets where large portions spoke only Russian so translators were used to coordinate, fascinating fights those were.
But EVE is fought much like a naval battle is, with much slower movement and combat.
Not sure how well this can work in a game like CU where the action is much faster pace, there just isn't a lot of time to coordinate once the battle gets underway.
Not impossible of course, but will take some careful design to give real meaning to the battles.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I liked the battle size in DAOC because it was still personal enough that you could pick an individual target and stick on it. But in the early days, at least, AOE CC and DPS was devastating. Too powerful. Hopefully, CU finds a balance.
Another key point about large, well coordinated battles is as a "grunt " you pay little attention to how other parts of the fleet or company are doing.
If you are artillery, you focus on appropriate long range targets and try to avoid the focused fire when it inevitably comes your way.
Meanwhile the disruption fleets are entirely focused on locking down enemy fire while desparately trying to survive as long as possible as they normally are fragile and primary first in any fight.
Like any game, repairers (healers ) spend most of battle watching the shield and armor levels of primarily the watchlist they are assigned and provide secondary support when they can spare the attention.
Tackle is busy trying lock ships in place while defensive ships try to break enemy tackle.
Meanwhile scout will remain in adjacent systems watching for additional enemy support that might be incoming. (Something I rarely have seen in games like DAOC.)
Through all of this it mostly fleet and group commanders who pay attention to the big picture, frequently not even fighting much in order to stay focused.
If some of this sounds too focused and not fun you are correct, for many it is and why a large portion prefer to fight in small man fleets, much like in DAOC many believe the single 8 man vs 8 fight to be the epitome of combat.
There should be room for a wide range of fights, between 8 and 1000, depends if there are enough meaningful objectives to make splitting up worthwhile.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
In terms of gameplay, the ability system is starting to work the way we expected it would when we went into re-abilitation. Yeah, it has taken longer than we thought it would but fortunately we (Backers/CSE) can look at the game and see significant improvement every month. That pace will begin to get more visible as we continue to transition to more gameplay features rather than tech features over the next few months.
I know how hard it is to keep faith when we are late but the thing is, when I said we were building the core building blocks of our engine, I meant it. Now that they are coming online, the biggest challenges, tech-wise, are being checked off our list. That will make a heck of a difference over the rest of the development schedule. And unlike other MMOs, we will have the tech in place to support the battles that were part of our KS pitch. We could have gone the other route and it would have worked great in the short-term and screwed us big-time at the end. Fortunately, we went down the right path and as you saw, that approach is in the process of being validated.
Thanks again, especially for checking out the game again on the 4th. I can't wait till we can have a test with players, Bots and lots and lots of arrows/fireworks of all types. That should be amusing as heck.
Mark Jacobs
CEO, City State Entertainment
All of this at playable frame rates on a GTX 970.
Still lots of work yet to be done to meet their beta goals but looking good and progressing!
You stay sassy!
Were the bots run from 1500 individual workstations outside of local network?
Yes, graphics is barebone, unless last game you have seen is 15 years ago :-p
Regardless, I still think all the graphics isn't in place yet and will take quite a lot of effort actually to balance performance/visual wise. I even think it is more difficult than all the back-end stuff.
It is nice change to see a game being developed "properly".
You stay sassy!
Quoting Mark on MOP:
1) Bots are “headless clients” running on separate AWS instances. This means that on different instances (servers), we are running 1500 separate clients. They are headless, because in our case, they aren’t attached to real players at keyboards, monitors, etc.
2) Bots are almost indistinguishable to the server from players. They are started up from player characters we created just for that purpose. As such, they have full access to all the skills, abilities, etc. as players.
3) Because Bots = players, the server treats them the same way as players (except they don’t get to ask for refunds!)
and as such, consume the same amount of network traffic as players. So when a Bot is firing off an ability, it has to send the same message to the servers that players do and in return, are sent the same amount of information from the server.
4) Bots, in general, consume a bit more network traffic than players since they don’t spend any time talked, go off for “botty-breaks”, etc., like normal players do. In some tests we actually had them chatting so they could test the chat system.
5) Bots are not “NPCs” because those things are usually controlled from the same server(s) instance(s) and are generally not networked like players. We will, of course, have NPCs too but no NPCs were harmed in the making of these screenshots!
So, in terms of whether are Bots are the same as players in terms of Internet/network traffic and also client stability (they can crash too), etc., the answer is 100% yes! [...]
Bots are great testing tool and they can test servers very well but when it comes to network, it is very raw testing.
Sitting on local network means you test with best possible network conditions you can get and do not need to deal with things like latency when your client is thousands of kilometers away - thus limited network testing capabilities.
I am not trying to say it is a game changing difference or just be negative for the sake of being negative, just pointing out the journey from technology tests to polished game with real clients is very, very long. Imo, much longer than people realize.
Bots are a piece of software, hence the devs can make them as 'demanding' as they want and need, i.e. the bots can be programmed with an artificial delay (for testing ping) or more bandwidth-consuming than the average user client (which they currently are!).
Beta perhaps 1st half 2018, full launch early 2019 is my guesstimate.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
http://massivelyop.com/2017/07/29/camelot-unchaineds-big-bot-battle-boasts-benefits-for-beta-beseeching-backers/#comments
"1) Bots are “headless clients” running on separate AWS instances. This means that on different instances (servers), we are running 1500 separate clients. They are headless, because in our case, they aren’t attached to real players at keyboards, monitors, etc.
2) Bots are almost indistinguishable to the server from players. They are started up from player characters we created just for that purpose. As such, they have full access to all the skills, abilities, etc. as players.
3) Because Bots = players, the server treats them the same way as players (except they don’t get to ask for refunds!)
and as such, consume the same amount of network traffic as players. So when a Bot is firing off an ability, it has to send the same message to the servers that players do and in return, are sent the same amount of information from the server.
4) Bots, in general, consume a bit more network traffic than players since they don’t spend any time talked, go off for “botty-breaks”, etc., like normal players do. In some tests we actually had them chatting so they could test the chat system.
5) Bots are not “NPCs” because those things are usually controlled from the same server(s) instance(s) and are generally not networked like players. We will, of course, have NPCs too but no NPCs were harmed in the making of these screenshots!
So, in terms of whether are Bots are the same as players in terms of Internet/network traffic and also client stability (they can crash too), etc., the answer is 100% yes! Otherwise, if they weren’t, we’d be, to put it mildly, lying and even though you and I disagree about some things, I hope by now you and our Backers know that I refuse to lie, I just rather deliver bad news. FYI, I wanted to have these kind of Bots for testing in WAR. Unfortunately, that was vetoed. Fortunately, this time my partner/co-founder Andrew couldn’t have been more in favor of it and was a strong proponent himself. And thanks to the other engineers at CSE and the considerable time spent getting them up and running, they are really incredibly useful for these types of tests, then, now and forever.
FYI, interesting historical note, the concept of using Bots for this kind of testing goes way, way back, even to the origin of the MUDs. One of the earliest members of Mythic Entertainment, and a fine gentleman who worked for me at AUSI (my first company, maker of the world’s third MUD, Aradath), Darrin Hyrup, had a similar system to stress test our MUDs. Very helpful then, incredibly helpful now. For example, In Beta, we’ll be using them every few weeks to beat on the current build to make sure that nothing bad has crept into the code networking-wise. No matter how good the programmers/designers/artists, occasionally things go into the game that looks fine but when systems are pressured, bad things can arise. The Bots aren’t a cure-all, but used properly they can cut down on the number of times things seem to work great when 40 people are playing during testing but go to complete crap when 4000 people are playing the same build when it goes LIVE."
I do not believe this will help you however. No matter what others say, you do not believe them even when they directly answer your questions. You continue to argue without knowing the fundamentals of the subject matter.
You stay sassy!
Yet on mmorpg.com some people claim here to know better.
also i dont think any player who is intrested is this game mind the long development fases..
they aleady have a large player base waiting for this game, the DOAC fans.
DAOC Live (inactive): R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R6 Healer
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It is very much believable, technically it was always possible, it is only a matter of what you will trade off for large scale pvp and whether there is a demand for such games - that is also a reason no such MMOs are being made.
Joined - July 2004
Far more important than quantity of combatants is the quality of the combat.
If i just wanted to run up and AOE 30 players ,i could go play some cheap ass Diablo type ARPG and mindless spam until i die.
I much prefer controlled,tactical,thinking combat,i detest going in wild and spamming.
So yeah ,just like game play >graphics,i want quality over quantity.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I think there will be tons when the beta hits. I hope.
i liked daoc's skill system which was kill x players and get +1 to all skills and so forth exponentially. so i'm hoping CU is able to capture the same rewards system they had in daoc.
i think in regards to large scale battles, its been done ok before with ESO in its heyday good enough for my liking.
Fleets are often very organized, with different comms for the scouts, battleships, capital and sub capitals, and repair and support groups.
Some groups fight at long range, others in close (tackle). Some can disrupt enemy guns while others augument your own.
So a fleet of 500 can have real meaning and be both a challenge and a thing of beauty when well coordinated.
I've even been in fleets where large portions spoke only Russian so translators were used to coordinate, fascinating fights those were.
But EVE is fought much like a naval battle is, with much slower movement and combat.
Not sure how well this can work in a game like CU where the action is much faster pace, there just isn't a lot of time to coordinate once the battle gets underway.
Not impossible of course, but will take some careful design to give real meaning to the battles.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
If you are artillery, you focus on appropriate long range targets and try to avoid the focused fire when it inevitably comes your way.
Meanwhile the disruption fleets are entirely focused on locking down enemy fire while desparately trying to survive as long as possible as they normally are fragile and primary first in any fight.
Like any game, repairers (healers ) spend most of battle watching the shield and armor levels of primarily the watchlist they are assigned and provide secondary support when they can spare the attention.
Tackle is busy trying lock ships in place while defensive ships try to break enemy tackle.
Meanwhile scout will remain in adjacent systems watching for additional enemy support that might be incoming. (Something I rarely have seen in games like DAOC.)
Through all of this it mostly fleet and group commanders who pay attention to the big picture, frequently not even fighting much in order to stay focused.
If some of this sounds too focused and not fun you are correct, for many it is and why a large portion prefer to fight in small man fleets, much like in DAOC many believe the single 8 man vs 8 fight to be the epitome of combat.
There should be room for a wide range of fights, between 8 and 1000, depends if there are enough meaningful objectives to make splitting up worthwhile.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon