Originally posted by Caldrin

 

Most ASA companies only bet on what they know will sell..

as long as people are happy with big battlegrounds like GW2, they will provide just this artificial kind of pvp.

dont get me wrong. GW2s WvW is better than in most other theme-parks. but it could have been better.

PS: i am not talking about pvp-ffa. i talk about a fantasy EVE with a fully safe and large Empire, a player driven economy and tons of dynamic events and some EQ1 style epic-quests for PVE. and even larger wastelands with territorial pvp, terraforming & city-building and also some dynamic events for further entertainment.

---

Originally posted by Scot

In the effort to please every player, no one is happy, but that’s MMO gaming these days, ruled by audience demographic charts, not good ideas.

---

Market decides what ideas are good, not you.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

Thanks for responding guys, but i'm not refering to having tons of people on screen at the same time.

Using GW2 as an example again (remember, i'm not hating on it),  the land of Tyria, the pve side, is more than 10x the size of wvw.

The size of the landmass should really be the least of your concerns, as it is dependent entirely on the objectives and population density. Having a map the size of Jupiter doesn't do anyone any good if you have to travel for hours to hopefully find someone to fight. Likewise, the population has to fit the landmass size, as the lower the density is, the lower the chance of a combat encounter. Add to that, control points and objectives have to mean something, and a control point or objective a million miles from the faction home usually isn't worth it unless there is some truly contrived benefit being granted. 

Density of players on the map, number of objectives, impact of objectives and accessibility of strategic battle areas are all factors that should dictate the size of the map. Big for the sake of big is not only pointless, but can prove to negatively impact the PVP experience. One needs only to visit the open world PVP areas of low pop MMOs to see that in effect today.

That's very true, but that's why i say that map design factors alot into pvp. The problem i have with these medium sized areas is that you can reach the next keep/castle/control point in less than 3 minutes. And as uch as i wished i was joking, i'm not. There's no reason to put transport vehicles because of the proximity.

Large scale isn't just big battles with tons of people.

There was an article recently about a group attempting a world record of 1000 people in a single (ground type) battle.

(Space ala EVE is easier because the information about other players is less.)

If we all eventually get fiberoptic connections, huge battles should be no problem at all.

---

Originally posted by Naevius
There was an article recently about a group attempting a world record of 1000 people in a single (ground type) battle.

(Space ala EVE is easier because the information about other players is less.)

If we all eventually get fiberoptic connections, huge battles should be no problem at all.

---

Landscape is processed client side, it has no bearing on bandwidth.

What makes the difference is combat system tho.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Scot

In the effort to please every player, no one is happy, but that’s MMO gaming these days, ruled by audience demographic charts, not good ideas.

---

 

Market decides what ideas are good, not you.

People decide what game is good, not market.

Imagine this example:

A guy ask you and more 10000 guys what they like in a book and make a book based on that pool. You read the book and love it.

Now imagine a second situation, a guy make a book making the a similar poll but using only your opinion and 3 more guys opinions.

What book you think that you will love more? The second one of course.

In the first one you need to change stuff add/remove to please everyone, in the second book you just need to do this take into account 4 players.

In mmorpg as a example, many HATE pemadeath, this feature WOULD need to be removed to a game being made to everyone, and this feature, in the opinion of some, would improve alot the game, those guys (permadeath ones) would be player a crappier game because they are playing a game made to everyone.

If people love wow, the specific players that play it would prefer the stuff more specific at them.

Trying to please everyone is stupid. In theory developers would come and start to develop to the specific market without needing to remove add stuff to please the other unrelated market, and would get the time/money of those specific players they aimed to. The problem is there arent those, type of developers, or (a small amount of developers) do stuff like wurm online or they try to make a ultra rip-off copy of wow.

Originally posted by UsulDaNeriak

3. it is also a difference if you have 2000 red crosses on the radar of a scifi-game or 2000 unique player avatars jumping around. so you need restrictions for the graphics (automatic donwscaling of quality in such zones, all use a mask = no faces, all use simple uniforms, less effects, etc ...). also a good load-balancer and server-architecture helps.

i dont say large scaled pvp is not possible in a theme-park, but it is harder to implement. 

I guess a modern gamer rig could handle rendering a few hundred avatars at Half Life 1 quality. Which was not that bad IMHO. It was not as pretty as recent games but it had everything needed to support gameplay. If that is the result of your automatic donwscaling of quality, I'd consider it acceptable, especially if it is only in mass scenes.

But then again, I'm easy to please when it comes to graphics .