Curse

Thorivol Liadon · Dec 20, 2005, 10:51 PM // 22:51

Would it be possible and/or fun to create a large continent and then have this continent be persistent and shared by all players. Allowing teams to enter at a city controlled by their allies (same nationality?). Over time as various teams manage to win battles against both nuetral mobs and enemy teams, one alliance or another will gain some superiority. But as their holdings expanding, the amount of territory they must defend also increases making it easier for enemy teams to break through their lines.

I see this as a continuous battle along ever changing borders.

OK - lame? Impossible to manage?

What do you think?

Fred Kiwi · Dec 20, 2005, 11:21 PM // 23:21

Hmm, expanding on this, I think it would be very cool to have people choose a faction in the beggining pve of chapter 2. Then you could have intertwined pvpve battles and such. Also it would make alot of replayability

actionjack · Dec 20, 2005, 11:37 PM // 23:37

Yes... but there are always few problems with it...

One I seem before is where if one side is winning/dominating, no one would want to play as the other team, thus further last the winner.

Lampshade · Dec 21, 2005, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Some people don't want to play WoW again.

Guardian of the Light · Dec 21, 2005, 12:48 AM // 00:48

one word

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGg

There are lag issues so we better not.

yangster · Dec 21, 2005, 12:58 AM // 00:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by actionjack

Yes... but there are always few problems with it...

One I seem before is where if one side is winning/dominating, no one would want to play as the other team, thus further last the winner.

They can always reset it after a certain time, like every hour. It's not like there holding favor so it wouldn't matter if they resetted it.

Guardian of the Light · Dec 21, 2005, 01:11 AM // 01:11

Well its a nice idea but still LAG is an issue.

Quote:

Yes... but there are always few problems with it...

One I seem before is where if one side is winning/dominating, no one would want to play as the other team, thus further last the winner.

Well he's right after all in Iraq vs US which side would you pick

(if any).

necrozsi · Dec 21, 2005, 04:40 AM // 04:40

iraq of course

Lampshade · Dec 21, 2005, 05:14 AM // 05:14

Or it would be

lvl 20s camping the other factions spawn and killing all the low level players.

neoteo · Dec 21, 2005, 07:29 AM // 07:29

persistent worlds require huge amount of server work , means lots of money , means lots of lag ...

i would like to see a persistant city , with crafting and building stuff , where people actualy change the scenario , but no fight could go there , just scenario changes .. fight means lag , loot stealing etc etc

anyway , that place would have to have a limit number of visitors ( safe from lag ) and one distric only for all teritorys , maybe diferent local chat for each territory and one for all ( ultra spamed ) ...

a nice small persistent global peacefull place where people would spend huge amount of gold to build houses etc ... everyplace should be open to everyone , the only thing that would relate the person who got it to the construction would be a plate with the name or a flag ...

good idea for chapter 3

SALESMAN · Dec 21, 2005, 03:19 PM // 15:19

the reason its not been done is bcoz that's a full MMO and the stuff other games charge monthly fees for..

Thorivol Liadon · Dec 21, 2005, 08:49 PM // 20:49

We could simplify the process and eliminate lag, by making it a team matching concept like that used in Tombs.

Except provide multiple regions which can be accessed only if your nation controls the spawn point. So for each map, pair up enemy teams that control connected spawn points. So each region is its own little universe just like now. Except that we keep track of who wins.

Winning an area gives your faction control of the next spawn point, forcing the enemy back. This would give it a "persistent" feel, without paying the cost of making it persistent. If an enemy team does not spawn, assign a random Mob to defend it.

With multiple factions, lets say three, as one faction gains prominence over another it will extend their borders and make them vulnerable to the third faction. Which clearly would help create a balance.

Rather than allowing them to choose a faction, I would base it upon their international district. While some might say this favors the US which may have more players, I disagree. Having more players also means having more BAD players. Weak teams will form up to do battle and loose. Allowing numerically smaller factions to maintain a higher quality of team.

Thoughts?

TheOneAndOnlyX · Dec 21, 2005, 10:12 PM // 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guardian of the Light

one word

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGg

There are lag issues so we better not.

Maybe if your computer is actually a garbage can.....

Phades · Dec 21, 2005, 11:53 PM // 23:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guardian of the Light

one word

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGg

There are lag issues so we better not.

The 6v6 tombs battles did not cause lag. That is 36 active players with 12 npcs running around fighting/dying etc. It would be very possible to scale up the battles. The decision to scale up the battles would be a game balance issue. People have repeatedly speculated that a 100% offense setups would overpower any defense available. Personally, i disagree, due to the fact that physical offense can be mitigated ahead of time through several protective measures that cant all be removed via enchantment removal. The spike via spell damage would be harder to deal with, but it is also harder to manage a greater quantity of people in small spaces and time frames.

This would cause AOE to be a lot more valuable than it is now for pvp situations. The thing is, it would require everyone to bring defensive measures to help avoid damage individually. Currently the norm is specialization and people like this. Having a generalist makes the whole weaker, unless you are in a mass combat situation such as the one presented within this thread. Diversity in playstyles is a good thing.

Orbberius · Dec 21, 2005, 11:54 PM // 23:54

Your idea sounds very familiar! I've seen a game that has PvP very similar to that.

Here, let me dig up a link to the game's website: http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/

Thorivol Liadon · Dec 22, 2005, 06:11 PM // 18:11

lol - sorry for being so uninformed - I have not played WoW.

Just to clarify - I wasn't talking about scaling up the battles to have more teams. Create a reward for defeating an enemy team. The reward is that your faction gains control over another section in this "battle map". Sort of like winning HoH, only instead of one big thing to win, there are lots of smaller successes. The borders between factions will ebb and flow based on player interest and even time of day.

Hey if its not interesting that is OK - I just thought it might be a cool idea to add another PvP option.

Orbberius · Dec 22, 2005, 08:10 PM // 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thorivol Liadon

lol - sorry for being so uninformed - I have not played WoW.

Just to clarify - I wasn't talking about scaling up the battles to have more teams. Create a reward for defeating an enemy team. The reward is that your faction gains control over another section in this "battle map". Sort of like winning HoH, only instead of one big thing to win, there are lots of smaller successes. The borders between factions will ebb and flow based on player interest and even time of day.

Hey if its not interesting that is OK - I just thought it might be a cool idea to add another PvP option.

Oooooh you mean like a map of Risk. Well. That's actually a pretty nice idea. As long as it's still with groups of 8, and not retarded mass groupings like in WoW or other games.

Thorivol Liadon · Dec 23, 2005, 03:30 PM // 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orbberius

Oooooh you mean like a map of Risk. Well. That's actually a pretty nice idea. As long as it's still with groups of 8, and not retarded mass groupings like in WoW or other games.

That is exactly the idea. A map with lots of regions and allow teams of 8 to take turns fighting for their nation at a region of their choice (assuming their nation controls an access point (city) adjacent to that region.

If the enemy nation doesn't have a team lined up to defend that region, spawn a mob instead. If one nation controls the entire map, give them some sort of reward. Bonus faction or access to a new realm or something.

This could encourage guild alliances and teamwork on a larger scale as groups of teams would need to make simultaneous efforts to gain control the entire map.