Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Number 1 goal; what it might mean.

KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,556
From the MJ interview on this site:

"Mark: Our number one goal is to be able to deliver on large-scale, meaningful RvR battles. Everything else is secondary and subordinate to that goal. While a number of games have and will have RvR/PvP battles, we are aiming for something that nobody has been able to deliver on yet: a 1K player battle around a castle which maintains a playable FPS (30) on a decent, but not high-end, gamer rig."

I've seen comments in other threads talking about how people feel the graphics need to be or will be improved.

Also was a comment about this game providing an "in-depth" combat system beyond what is offered by most MMOs today.

If Mark sticks to his guns, then none of that may happen if doing so would inhibit meeting "the prime directive."

I was originally concerned about reports by some he was developing for low end PCs, (and I understand why it must be so) but I'm relieved to see him state decent "gaming rig" and not the lower end, generic PC market.

True, it limits the customer base, but I assume most people interested in this title are willing to put $500 to $1500 (depending if the build their own) to play it.

It's all about choices, and the primary goal plus hardware restrictions will limit the complexity of graphics and other features.

At least how I see things, perhaps others know of something miraculous that will prove me wrong.

;)

BTW, I have no need for any big improvements, in a video from 2017 I viewed on another thread (which some derided) the developer can be heard commenting on how the avatars "hips were not rolling correctly."

All I could think if was, who the f_ cares?

Well I realize some of you do, but totally a non issue for me enjoying the game.

;)

"See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

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






some-clueless-guypantarobcbullyConstantineMerusJamesGoblinYashaXtweedledumb99Gilcroix
«13

Comments

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,207
    I think the animations need work.. or they did when I last played which was a long time ago.  And they need to be synced with the skills so everything looks fluid.  

    but I certainly don't need hi-rez eye candy.
    JamesGoblinSinsai

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • some-clueless-guysome-clueless-guy Member UncommonPosts: 216
    I think that "meaningful" is also an important part of that statement that might be overlooked. I'm pretty sure that it means that players will not just run to a castle to meet up and kill each other, but the whole economy is designed to make that big battle important, not just to have fun now but also to ripe the benefits of the victory later.
    The biggest enemy to performances IMHO will turn out to be the AIR system, it has a lot of potential for messing up the server-load.

    As for the animations I find them ugly. There is one thing about it though, other games with very fluid animations and flashy effects don't need the enemy player to read into them and react to them — imagine having to time your defensives based on the opponent's autoattack animation in WoW — so they can put fluidity overall. It is especially true when you see big skills cycle "on top" of AA animations. I'd like the characters to move a lot better than they do now, but not at the expenses of gameplay.
    JamesGoblintweedledumb99
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,556
    I think that "meaningful" is also an important part of that statement that might be overlooked. I'm pretty sure that it means that players will not just run to a castle to meet up and kill each other, but the whole economy is designed to make that big battle important, not just to have fun now but also to ripe the benefits of the victory later.
    The biggest enemy to performances IMHO will turn out to be the AIR system, it has a lot of potential for messing up the server-load.


    Regarding the concept of "meaningful PVP" I'm not seeing any in CU, at least as I define it.

    I only enjoyed the FFA Red servers back in DAOCs hayday as the endless and largely pointless keep taking on the blue servers held little appeal.

    When I went back to the free shard last year I had fun for 6 months...and then realized the RVR was as pointless as ever and walked away.

    I really only backed this as I thought it was a novel idea, and hoped that one day Mark might offer an alternate rules server a la Mordred.

    But until the base game launches it doesn't seem the time to bring that question up.


    tweedledumb99

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    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






  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,149
    Kyleran said:
    I think that "meaningful" is also an important part of that statement that might be overlooked. I'm pretty sure that it means that players will not just run to a castle to meet up and kill each other, but the whole economy is designed to make that big battle important, not just to have fun now but also to ripe the benefits of the victory later.
    The biggest enemy to performances IMHO will turn out to be the AIR system, it has a lot of potential for messing up the server-load.


    Regarding the concept of "meaningful PVP" I'm not seeing any in CU, at least as I define it.

    I only enjoyed the FFA Red servers back in DAOCs hayday as the endless and largely pointless keep taking on the blue servers held little appeal.

    When I went back to the free shard last year I had fun for 6 months...and then realized the RVR was as pointless as ever and walked away.

    I really only backed this as I thought it was a novel idea, and hoped that one day Mark might offer an alternate rules server a la Mordred.

    But until the base game launches it doesn't seem the time to bring that question up.


    What was the point of Mordred?
    JamesGoblintweedledumb99
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,628
    I don't pvp standing out in the wide open grass,what's the point?

    I pvp with tactics and map knowledge/movement and weapon choices,this game will offer NONE of that.So what is the point of this game,sticking a RVR tag onto doesn't change the combat ,it doesn't make you think any different.

    So the point is to just say,oh wow we have 1500 people pvp'ing?Yeah,sloppy unorganized,whack a mole all over the place,spam combat,visuals will be bad,most animations will be clipped out,by that i mean both character and particle/effects.

    So this is going to essence and that is IF you truly care or are right into pvp,the least best form of it,so again WHY would you want to play the poorest delivery system for pvp?

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 2,691
    Iselin said:
    Kyleran said:
    I think that "meaningful" is also an important part of that statement that might be overlooked. I'm pretty sure that it means that players will not just run to a castle to meet up and kill each other, but the whole economy is designed to make that big battle important, not just to have fun now but also to ripe the benefits of the victory later.
    The biggest enemy to performances IMHO will turn out to be the AIR system, it has a lot of potential for messing up the server-load.


    Regarding the concept of "meaningful PVP" I'm not seeing any in CU, at least as I define it.

    I only enjoyed the FFA Red servers back in DAOCs hayday as the endless and largely pointless keep taking on the blue servers held little appeal.

    When I went back to the free shard last year I had fun for 6 months...and then realized the RVR was as pointless as ever and walked away.

    I really only backed this as I thought it was a novel idea, and hoped that one day Mark might offer an alternate rules server a la Mordred.

    But until the base game launches it doesn't seem the time to bring that question up.


    What was the point of Mordred?
    Free for all PvP. 
    Constantine, The Console Poster

    • "One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
    • Song of the Week: Blackfield by Blackfield from Blackfield (2005)
    • Currently Playing: Devil May Cry 1
    • Favorite Drink: Bruichladdich Black Art 5th 1992
    • Gaming Timeline: Arcade, Commodore 64, Amiga 500, SEGA, IBM, PS, PC, PS2, More PCs, PS3, Giant PC, PS4, No More PCs, PS4 Pro.
  • LuidenLuiden Member UncommonPosts: 264
    Iselin said:
    Kyleran said:
    I think that "meaningful" is also an important part of that statement that might be overlooked. I'm pretty sure that it means that players will not just run to a castle to meet up and kill each other, but the whole economy is designed to make that big battle important, not just to have fun now but also to ripe the benefits of the victory later.
    The biggest enemy to performances IMHO will turn out to be the AIR system, it has a lot of potential for messing up the server-load.


    Regarding the concept of "meaningful PVP" I'm not seeing any in CU, at least as I define it.

    I only enjoyed the FFA Red servers back in DAOCs hayday as the endless and largely pointless keep taking on the blue servers held little appeal.

    When I went back to the free shard last year I had fun for 6 months...and then realized the RVR was as pointless as ever and walked away.

    I really only backed this as I thought it was a novel idea, and hoped that one day Mark might offer an alternate rules server a la Mordred.

    But until the base game launches it doesn't seem the time to bring that question up.


    What was the point of Mordred?
    The point of Mordred was to have a place where all the PvP a-holes could play leaving the regular servers open for players who wanted something more out of their game.  Worked beautifully.
     
    IselinJamesGoblintweedledumb99
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 2,691
    Luiden said:
    Iselin said:
    Kyleran said:
    I think that "meaningful" is also an important part of that statement that might be overlooked. I'm pretty sure that it means that players will not just run to a castle to meet up and kill each other, but the whole economy is designed to make that big battle important, not just to have fun now but also to ripe the benefits of the victory later.
    The biggest enemy to performances IMHO will turn out to be the AIR system, it has a lot of potential for messing up the server-load.


    Regarding the concept of "meaningful PVP" I'm not seeing any in CU, at least as I define it.

    I only enjoyed the FFA Red servers back in DAOCs hayday as the endless and largely pointless keep taking on the blue servers held little appeal.

    When I went back to the free shard last year I had fun for 6 months...and then realized the RVR was as pointless as ever and walked away.

    I really only backed this as I thought it was a novel idea, and hoped that one day Mark might offer an alternate rules server a la Mordred.

    But until the base game launches it doesn't seem the time to bring that question up.


    What was the point of Mordred?
    The point of Mordred was to have a place where all the PvP a-holes could play leaving the regular servers open for players who wanted something more out of their game.  Worked beautifully.
     
    Thanks. 
    Constantine, The Console Poster

    • "One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
    • Song of the Week: Blackfield by Blackfield from Blackfield (2005)
    • Currently Playing: Devil May Cry 1
    • Favorite Drink: Bruichladdich Black Art 5th 1992
    • Gaming Timeline: Arcade, Commodore 64, Amiga 500, SEGA, IBM, PS, PC, PS2, More PCs, PS3, Giant PC, PS4, No More PCs, PS4 Pro.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,149
    Iselin said:
    Kyleran said:
    I think that "meaningful" is also an important part of that statement that might be overlooked. I'm pretty sure that it means that players will not just run to a castle to meet up and kill each other, but the whole economy is designed to make that big battle important, not just to have fun now but also to ripe the benefits of the victory later.
    The biggest enemy to performances IMHO will turn out to be the AIR system, it has a lot of potential for messing up the server-load.


    Regarding the concept of "meaningful PVP" I'm not seeing any in CU, at least as I define it.

    I only enjoyed the FFA Red servers back in DAOCs hayday as the endless and largely pointless keep taking on the blue servers held little appeal.

    When I went back to the free shard last year I had fun for 6 months...and then realized the RVR was as pointless as ever and walked away.

    I really only backed this as I thought it was a novel idea, and hoped that one day Mark might offer an alternate rules server a la Mordred.

    But until the base game launches it doesn't seem the time to bring that question up.


    What was the point of Mordred?
    Free for all PvP. 
    I knew that. I played in Guinevere myself for years but I did roll a character in Mordred... and I thought it was a pointless gankfest.

    I just thought the cat's post was ironic saying that the core RVR game play of DAoC in the regular servers was pointless and then mentioning liking Mordred :)
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • kitaradkitarad Member EpicPosts: 5,270
    edited January 2018
    I did play DAoC and although I'm not a big fan of PvP I enjoyed RvR because they had a huge number of classes and the PvP was not in the PvE areas except Darkness Falls the dungeon but I digress what I meant to say is I never understood the point of just FFA killing even your own faction. No loyalty no nothing a huge gangfest which was Mordred that finally devoured its own playerbase .There were two servers Mordred and Andred I think it was. Andred died pretty quick but Mordred just was unable to attract new players it was quite horrible to start there as a new player.

    I can get behind the idea of Realm pride and fighting with people from your realm against other realms its more cooperative but Mordred never appealed to me in the least bit. DAoC had a fantastic array of classes with so many different skills and unique skills that the class and no other had. None of this mirror classes that WoW has. Good class design.
    IselinpantaroJamesGoblintweedledumb99

  • collektcollekt Member UncommonPosts: 326
    Kyleran said:
    I think that "meaningful" is also an important part of that statement that might be overlooked. I'm pretty sure that it means that players will not just run to a castle to meet up and kill each other, but the whole economy is designed to make that big battle important, not just to have fun now but also to ripe the benefits of the victory later.
    The biggest enemy to performances IMHO will turn out to be the AIR system, it has a lot of potential for messing up the server-load.


    Regarding the concept of "meaningful PVP" I'm not seeing any in CU, at least as I define it.

    I only enjoyed the FFA Red servers back in DAOCs hayday as the endless and largely pointless keep taking on the blue servers held little appeal.

    When I went back to the free shard last year I had fun for 6 months...and then realized the RVR was as pointless as ever and walked away.

    I really only backed this as I thought it was a novel idea, and hoped that one day Mark might offer an alternate rules server a la Mordred.

    But until the base game launches it doesn't seem the time to bring that question up.


    You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're definitely in the extreme minority here. DAoC is considered the best PvP MMO ever by a lot of people. You might be the first person I've ever heard list the RvR as the part of the game they disliked.
    JamesGoblintweedledumb99
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,149
    kitarad said:
    I did play DAoC and although I'm not a big fan of PvP I enjoyed RvR because they had a huge number of classes and the PvP was not in the PvE areas except Darkness Falls the dungeon but I digress what I meant to say is I never understood the point of just FFA killing even your own faction. No loyalty no nothing a huge gangfest which was Mordred that finally devoured its own playerbase .There were two servers Mordred and Andred I think it was. Andred died pretty quick but Mordred just was unable to attract new players it was quite horrible to start there as a new player.

    I can get behind the idea of Realm pride and fighting with people from your realm against other realms its more cooperative but Mordred never appealed to me in the least bit. DAoC had a fantastic array of classes with so many different skills and unique skills that the class and no other had. None of this mirror classes that WoW has. Good class design.
    A big part of the realm pride thing that DAoC had in spades, was that the "others" looked and acted alien with their unique races and classes. For me that was an integral part of the feel of the game. That and mixing in PVEing with just your own Realm.

    It sold the whole concept very well. Mordred just felt more "gamy" because it ignored borders and realms. Some people like to be immersed and others just like to blow shit up. Mordred was definitely for the second group.
    KyleranJamesGoblin
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 2,691
    Iselin said:
    Iselin said:
    Kyleran said:
    I think that "meaningful" is also an important part of that statement that might be overlooked. I'm pretty sure that it means that players will not just run to a castle to meet up and kill each other, but the whole economy is designed to make that big battle important, not just to have fun now but also to ripe the benefits of the victory later.
    The biggest enemy to performances IMHO will turn out to be the AIR system, it has a lot of potential for messing up the server-load.


    Regarding the concept of "meaningful PVP" I'm not seeing any in CU, at least as I define it.

    I only enjoyed the FFA Red servers back in DAOCs hayday as the endless and largely pointless keep taking on the blue servers held little appeal.

    When I went back to the free shard last year I had fun for 6 months...and then realized the RVR was as pointless as ever and walked away.

    I really only backed this as I thought it was a novel idea, and hoped that one day Mark might offer an alternate rules server a la Mordred.

    But until the base game launches it doesn't seem the time to bring that question up.


    What was the point of Mordred?
    Free for all PvP. 
    I knew that. I played in Guinevere myself for years but I did roll a character in Mordred... and I thought it was a pointless gankfest.

    I just thought the cat's post was ironic saying that the core RVR game play of DAoC in the regular servers was pointless and then mentioning liking Mordred :)
    What happened in Mordred, stayed in Mordred mate. Cat's might be getting old, but he knows that!

    I don't know why cat likes it but the reason I played was because you could visit all areas with your toon. And we were a large guild, when we started DAoC, we all wanted to play different races/classes. But we had to sacrifice that, because we wanted to play together. But then on Mordred, we could play whatever and still play together. Pretty much like EVE in that regard. And then there was the hardcore PvP. True some called us assholes, but the good part about playing on Mordred was whoever played there was in it for constant PvP. I remember having a much better time over there. 
    JamesGoblin
    Constantine, The Console Poster

    • "One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
    • Song of the Week: Blackfield by Blackfield from Blackfield (2005)
    • Currently Playing: Devil May Cry 1
    • Favorite Drink: Bruichladdich Black Art 5th 1992
    • Gaming Timeline: Arcade, Commodore 64, Amiga 500, SEGA, IBM, PS, PC, PS2, More PCs, PS3, Giant PC, PS4, No More PCs, PS4 Pro.
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,556
    edited January 2018
    As it's not the purpose of this thread, I'll keep it short, just to clarify why I enjoyed Mordred.

    1) As mentioned by @ConstantineMerus, Dred gave me the freedom to visit all realms, which I really enjoyed.  Additionally, when my guild of close friends joined, it was much easier for everyone to play the realm / class they preferred.

    2) As for what @Iselin said about realm pride vs gaminess, if you were a member of one of the larger guilds it was definitely a game of pride, but instead "your realm", it became your guild vs the server, which I felt was more personal.

    3) @collekt said I was the only person who did not like DAOC's RVR, a bit of hyperbole I think. It actually was fun when the game first came out, as players fought for keeps in order to get access to Darkness Falls.  When TOA launched the focus moved off of accessing DF, everyone wanted to do the raids in the new expansion, which ultimately killed the game off IMO, and definitely killed any interest I had in the blue servers RVR.






    JamesGoblinConstantineMerus

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    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






  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Kyleran said:


    3) @collekt said I was the only person who did not like DAOC's RVR, a bit of hyperbole I think. It actually was fun when the game first came out, as players fought for keeps in order to get access to Darkness Falls.  When TOA launched the focus moved off of accessing DF, everyone wanted to do the raids in the new expansion, which ultimately killed the game off IMO, and definitely killed any interest I had in the blue servers RVR.






    I think pretty much everyone agrees TOA killed the game.
    JamesGoblin

    image
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 21,674
    I think its a pie in the sky goal as I doubt that the game will have 1000 player battles all that often especially 3 or 6 months post launch when the population settles down.

    Aiming for goals that wont happen often especially longterm - I dont see much point in that
    YashaXmeddyck
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,757
    I am wondering what they plan to do about hack programs, or will this be another Aim Bot/Cheat Overlay clustershitfest.
    BruceYee
  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 2,415
    DMKano said:
    I think its a pie in the sky goal as I doubt that the game will have 1000 player battles all that often especially 3 or 6 months post launch when the population settles down.

    Aiming for goals that wont happen often especially longterm - I dont see much point in that
    My first thought when I read the 1K player battles comment was "how many times are we even going to see pvp on that scale?".  Even in a massive game like ESO there are only enough players to fill up one server regularly; maybe two in prime time. 

    I also hope that they are giving attention to small scale pvp, because while the big fights over keeps can be epic (like in War and ESO), being able to harass the enemy with a small organized group is one of the more enjoyable facets of games like this.
    ....
  • TamanousTamanous Member RarePosts: 2,997
    edited January 2018
    Unless you are in IT or Alpha (and barely that) NOBODY here has seen the game's current build using updated models, animations, terrain, lighting and affects in game yet.

    There hasn't been one press release yet of it ... not one.

    So talking about it at this point based on vids and screens from a year to years ago is meaningless. The fact I that have brought this up many times in the last few days in many threads only reflects on how little people actually fucking read here.

    We hear a lot about the team and how the game is developing but any in game details is still under NDA.
    JamesGoblintweedledumb99

    You stay sassy!

  • TamanousTamanous Member RarePosts: 2,997
    edited January 2018
    Ungood said:
    I am wondering what they plan to do about hack programs, or will this be another Aim Bot/Cheat Overlay clustershitfest.
    Most of that stuff won't work due to the physics in the game being controlled completely server side. Beyond that they tackle anything else as best they can like any developer does.

    Any client hack will make that player see things but any other player and the server won't so the cheater is just ruining his own game play.
    JamesGoblin

    You stay sassy!

  • TamanousTamanous Member RarePosts: 2,997
    edited January 2018
    YashaX said:
    DMKano said:
    I think its a pie in the sky goal as I doubt that the game will have 1000 player battles all that often especially 3 or 6 months post launch when the population settles down.

    Aiming for goals that wont happen often especially longterm - I dont see much point in that
    My first thought when I read the 1K player battles comment was "how many times are we even going to see pvp on that scale?".  Even in a massive game like ESO there are only enough players to fill up one server regularly; maybe two in prime time. 

    I also hope that they are giving attention to small scale pvp, because while the big fights over keeps can be epic (like in War and ESO), being able to harass the enemy with a small organized group is one of the more enjoyable facets of games like this.
    The game isn't based on heavy vertical scaling. New players can join sieges and be effective along side advanced characters. The game is being designed to support small scale battles, escort and caravan skirmishes, roaming small zerg groups, bounties, high value areas out in world to capture to benefit your realm and massive sieges against player built structures that can range from a small house through a city with castles. Defending your lands is also heavily rewarded and losses heavily penalized in order to avoid keep swapping style RvR.

    All of this is supported by advanced realm communication and varied group size mechanics. Players can create a Warband of 8 players or so that have guild like support mechanics and realm identification. Warbands can easily join into temporary Battlegroups to create armies large enough for massive engagements yet separate after to go do their own thing again. Orders are the guilds in the game. Orders can create and manage warbands but a player can only be in one Order or Warband. 

    The game is built heavily around realm pride. You only advance your character's growth by contributing to your realm's advancement ... not by grinding quests, enemies or mobs. This doesn't even have to include combat. So a solo player, a warband, an Order or a formed Battlegroup can decide to go do anything they want at the scale they are able to manage anywhere in the world and as long as it helps their realm become more powerful each player gains experience, perks and even bonus gear and wealth from their realm's King.

    An example is the scout and crafter class. A scout can head out and scout enemy lands and relay information back to their own realm. They may not even engage in combat (they are basically someone that can transform into an undead, ghost or wisp and haunt the enemy as a stealthy entity) yet gain advancement for their efforts. A crafter may never go near front lines (the can however support sieges) or enter combat yet they too can advance their character as long as their efforts help the realm.

    Why would a realm gather a 500 man army? Because victory over such an important area may gain your realm an entire land mass and massive perks to the realm and it's players. The vanquished also lose equally so and regaining such a loss will take a great deal of time. Because it's tri-realm, the 3rd faction can strategize how to exploit such a dramatic world map change ... or may even have helped defend or attack.
    Post edited by Tamanous on
    ConstantineMerusYashaXJamesGoblintweedledumb99

    You stay sassy!

  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 2,415
    Tamanous said:
    YashaX said:
    DMKano said:
    I think its a pie in the sky goal as I doubt that the game will have 1000 player battles all that often especially 3 or 6 months post launch when the population settles down.

    Aiming for goals that wont happen often especially longterm - I dont see much point in that
    My first thought when I read the 1K player battles comment was "how many times are we even going to see pvp on that scale?".  Even in a massive game like ESO there are only enough players to fill up one server regularly; maybe two in prime time. 

    I also hope that they are giving attention to small scale pvp, because while the big fights over keeps can be epic (like in War and ESO), being able to harass the enemy with a small organized group is one of the more enjoyable facets of games like this.
    The game isn't based on heavy vertical scaling. New players can join sieges and be effective along side advanced characters. The game is being designed to support small scale battles, escort and caravan skirmishes, roaming small zerg groups, bounties, high value areas out in world to capture to benefit your realm and massive sieges against player built structures that can range from a small house through a city with castles. Defending your lands is also heavily rewarded and losses heavily penalized in order to avoid keep swapping style RvR.

    All of this is supported by advanced realm communication and varied group size mechanics. Players can create a Warband of 8 players or so that have guild like support mechanics and realm identification. Warbands can easily join into temporary Battlegroups to create armies large enough for massive engagements yet separate after to go do their own thing again. Orders are the guilds in the game. Orders can create and manage warbands but a player can only be in one Order or Warband. 

    The game is built heavily around realm pride. You only advance your character's growth by contributing to your realm's advancement ... not by grinding quests, enemies or mobs. This doesn't even have to include combat. So a solo player, a warband, an Order or a formed Battlegroup can decide to go do anything they want at the scale they are able to manage anywhere in the world and as long as it helps their realm become more powerful each player gains experience, perks and even bonus gear and wealth from their realm's King.

    An example is the scout and crafter class. A scout can head out and scout enemy lands and relay information back to their own realm. They may not even engage in combat (they are basically someone that can transform into an undead, ghost or wisp and haunt the enemy as a stealthy entity) yet gain advancement for their efforts. A crafter may never go near front lines (the can however support sieges) or enter combat yet they too can advance their character as long as their efforts help the realm.

    Why would a realm gather a 500 man army? Because victory over such an important area may gain your realm an entire land mass and massive perks to the realm and it's players. The vanquished also lose equally so and regaining such a loss will take a great deal of time. Because it's tri-realm, the 3rd faction can strategize how to exploit such a dramatic world map change ... or may even have helped defend or attack.
    Sounds amazing, not often that someone describes almost point for point the type of game I would love to play!
    ConstantineMerusJamesGoblincameltosis
    ....
  • meddyckmeddyck Member UncommonPosts: 1,279
    edited January 2018
    So yeah all the references to massive fights in the interviews that came out for the new investment caught my eye too.

    It's possible what Mark means is just that supporting those fights technically (at good or at least playable frame rates etc) is the prime directive. He has also said on numerous occasions that the game should support all play styles including not just massive battles but group fights and soloing.

    Still until the game is much further along in development to where we can all see the combat and world mechanics in action it is kind of hard to envision how it will have fun 1000 player fights and yet also be fun to solo in. The combat pace and TTK needed for the former would seem to be way too slow for the latter. Mark's answer is that he'll accomplish it by "clever design". We'll see.
    JamesGoblintweedledumb99

    Camelot Unchained Backer
    DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 13,149
    Kyleran said:


    2) As for what @Iselin said about realm pride vs gaminess, if you were a member of one of the larger guilds it was definitely a game of pride, but instead "your realm", it became your guild vs the server, which I felt was more personal.

    But DAoC was not structured around GvG was it? At the time of its release there was already UO, AC and Lineage that provided that other type of PVP. I always just assumed that it was the difference of the segregated PVE and PVP that was the DAoC appeal instead of playing it as if it was like one of the others.

    I've never seen the point of trying to play a game in a way other than how it's designed. I see this all the time in quest-centric games with people complaining that the game penalizes you for skipping quests and just grinding. That just gives me the impression that those players are there somehow against their will :)

    And yes, if you ignore the core design and all the lore components that support it, the game becomes just a game instead of a self-consistent world in which you game. There's a difference.
    YashaXJamesGoblinKylerantweedledumb99
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • kapibanekapibane Member UncommonPosts: 1
    DMKano said:
    I think its a pie in the sky goal as I doubt that the game will have 1000 player battles all that often especially 3 or 6 months post launch when the population settles down.

    Aiming for goals that wont happen often especially longterm - I dont see much point in that
    So much exist in the world because other people wanted to prove people like you wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.