It can be upto 65 players...

http://endofnations.com/en/game/

http://endofnations.com/en/media/videos/

Originally posted by Professor78

It can be upto 65 players...

http://endofnations.com/en/game/

http://endofnations.com/en/media/videos/

lol the troll got versed.  +1

Originally posted by MMOExposed
I admit, I was pretty interested in what Trion Worlds were publishing with this game.

Honestly I was expecting a Sci Fi themed, Warcraft 3 kind of RTS gameplay, with massive multiplayer scale to 20vs20 players rather than 6 player in WC3.

Yeah, this game isn't even close, but the point is, the game doesn't feel like a MMORTS. Not even close to those browser MMORTS games. The gameplay is boring. Spawning units isn't fun IMO. The modes in alpha seem too small scale for my enjoyment. I hate small scale PvP. And 4v4 just doesn't cut it IMO for a MMORTS.

The game is close to release, and I doubt it will go through any major changes. But so far, the game is a 4/10 in my book sadly.

1. The game is not close to release

2. You are in alpha. 

It says it right there on the main info page:

"Wage sprawling 56-player battles in real locales, shoulder-to-shoulder with other Commanders."

Something got exposed alright :)

Originally posted by MMOExposed
I admit, I was pretty interested in what Trion Worlds were publishing with this game.

Honestly I was expecting a Sci Fi themed, Warcraft 3 kind of RTS gameplay, with massive multiplayer scale to 20vs20 players rather than 6 player in WC3.

Yeah, this game isn't even close, but the point is, the game doesn't feel like a MMORTS. Not even close to those browser MMORTS games. The gameplay is boring. Spawning units isn't fun IMO. The modes in alpha seem too small scale for my enjoyment. I hate small scale PvP. And 4v4 just doesn't cut it IMO for a MMORTS.

The game is close to release, and I doubt it will go through any major changes. But so far, the game is a 4/10 in my book sadly.

Dude, you are in an alpha stage. Your time is better spent actually reading up on whats coming up in the alpha forum, rather than coming here and complaining about it.

If not, dont bother testing at all. This isnt a free demo after all.

I think the op has a point. Im not sure where the MMO part of this game is yet. 56 players isnt massive, and there doesnt seem to be a reason for multiplayer or online yet, any different than something like starcraft had. It kind of sounds like a MOBA with a couple meta mechanics. Some things Id like to see are:

-persistent maps with resource control

-surprise attacks

-all units consumable (if you you field it and it dies, its gone, you must build or buy a new one with your resources)

Think EVE on the ground with armies instead of single ships.

Originally posted by mCalvert

I think the op has a point. Im not sure where the MMO part of this game is yet. 56 players isnt massive, and there doesnt seem to be a reason for multiplayer or online yet, any different than something like starcraft had. It kind of sounds like a MOBA with a couple meta mechanics. Some things Id like to see are:

 

-persistent maps with resource control

-surprise attacks

-all units consumable (if you you field it and it dies, its gone, you must build or buy a new one with your resources)

 

Think EVE on the ground with armies instead of single ships.

56 players is massive when each player can field up to 11 units and 1 hero unit at the same time. The mmo part isnt just in the meta game, but in the lvling up, money gain, research trees leading to new units, abilities and structurers, mod drops from matches, progression in unit mods, server chat and clan functions. Both your characters and meta game are persistent, you know, like an mmo.

-The map matches are not persistent but the holding or losing of them is, with the state applying a score for each season.

-You can have suprise attacks per match, with faster units, or ambush skills, as well as take on maps with pre-mades and have significant advantages.

-You may be able to re-load lost units, (unlike in SG) but at a cost, if you run out of resources you cannot get them back for the rest of the match, gaining, and spending resources on units, switching companies, using abilities and building structures is a major part of each match.

A total persistent sandbox RTS, with elements of browser stratagy mmos may seem like a great idea, but there are clearly technical problems, or it would have been done outside of the limited browser games by now. Trion may be basing this game on a previous game from over 10 yrs ago, but it hasn't been done anywhere else since, and provides some unique features for most players. I would recomend you give this game a serious try, and see if the level of tactics is enough for you.

Originally posted by zevni78

Originally posted by mCalvert

I think the op has a point. Im not sure where the MMO part of this game is yet. 56 players isnt massive, and there doesnt seem to be a reason for multiplayer or online yet, any different than something like starcraft had. It kind of sounds like a MOBA with a couple meta mechanics. Some things Id like to see are:

 

-persistent maps with resource control

-surprise attacks

-all units consumable (if you you field it and it dies, its gone, you must build or buy a new one with your resources)

 

Think EVE on the ground with armies instead of single ships.

56 players is massive when each player can field up to 11 units and 1 hero unit at the same time. The mmo part isnt just in the meta game, but in the lvling up, money gain, research trees leading to new units, abilities and structurers, mod drops from matches, progression in unit mods, server chat and clan functions. Both your characters and meta game are persistent, you know, like an mmo.

 

-The map matches are not persistent but the holding or losing of them is, with the state applying a score for each season.

 

-You can have suprise attacks per match, with faster units, or ambush skills, as well as take on maps with pre-mades and have significant advantages.

 

-You may be able to re-load lost units, (unlike in SG) but at a cost, if you run out of resources you cannot get them back for the rest of the match, gaining, and spending resources on units, switching companies, using abilities and building structures is a major part of each match.

 

A total persistent sandbox RTS, with elements of browser stratagy mmos may seem like a great idea, but there are clearly technical problems, or it would have been done outside of the limited browser games by now. Trion may be basing this game on a previous game from over 10 yrs ago, but it hasn't been done anywhere else since, and provides some unique features for most players. I would recomend you give this game a serious try, and see if the level of tactics is enough for you.

 

I agree. It would definetly be challenging, but major fun. What I mean by surprise attacks is, if youre fighting on some land and losing, you call in reinforcements from another player. So its not 2v2, its open pvp. I guess ill need to see more of the game to really see where their going. I dont want it to be another instanced game. I would love to see some sort of sandbox mmorts.

Originally posted by zevni78

A total persistent sandbox RTS, with elements of browser stratagy mmos may seem like a great idea, but there are clearly technical problems, or it would have been done outside of the limited browser games by now. Trion may be basing this game on a previous game from over 10 yrs ago, but it hasn't been done anywhere else since, and provides some unique features for most players. I would recomend you give this game a serious try, and see if the level of tactics is enough for you.

First off, I would object to calling the browser-based games "strategy" games.  There isn't any strategy to dumping money into a cash shop so you can accumulate resources faster than your enemies so you can roll over them n battles that aren't determined by anything other than who has paid the most real cash for in-game resources.  Again, that's not a strategy game, it's hardly even a game.

There are reasons that massively multiplayer strategy games haven't worked.  The main one is what I call the "warlord" problem - one player snowballs to the point that he is far more powerful than all the other players, and simply crushes everyone in his path.  Fun for one player, miserable for the other several hundred players in the game.  The other problem is the guy-who-lives-in-his-mother's-basement problem, which is more or less self-explanatory; that one guy who has way more time to spend on the game than you do (and trust me, there's always someone out there with more time than you) has a huge advantage, and turns it into a lousy game experience for everyone who has a job and/or a social life.

There are solutions to those problems, but game companies are only slowly figuring them out.  The most critical solution is to limit the size of each players' forces - inevitably unpopular, as you will get "why can't I control a huge army" complaints, but it's the only way to avoid the dominant player problem.  Likewise, the cap on size of forces also helps even the playing field between players who have a lot of time and those who have only limited time - if the only advantage that dumping more time into the game gives you is more flexibility in units and more abilities to use, rather than affecting the size of your forces, that helps even things out considerably.

I realize there will always be some players who like the "grow resources exponentially until you have a massive army that will let you roll over your enemies" model, but if the popularity of browser-based strategy games (or rather, the lack of popularity - I don't know anyone who plays one) is any indication, that's a losing approach.

"A total persistent sandbox RTS, with elements of browser stratagy mmos may seem like a great idea, but there are clearly technical problems, or it would have been done outside of the limited browser games by now. Trion may be basing this game on a previous game from over 10 yrs ago, but it hasn't been done anywhere else since, and provides some unique features for most players. I would recomend you give this game a serious try, and see if the level of tactics is enough for you."

Honestly there is another game that has peristent worlds with hundreds of players(well use to, now it's dwindled down to small numbers). It's called Artifact and use to play that as a kid, so it has been done in the past and is possible. I like EoN but I as well was actually expecting large persistant worlds since I came from Artifact and never played SG.

Originally posted by MaGicBush

"A total persistent sandbox RTS, with elements of browser stratagy mmos may seem like a great idea, but there are clearly technical problems, or it would have been done outside of the limited browser games by now. Trion may be basing this game on a previous game from over 10 yrs ago, but it hasn't been done anywhere else since, and provides some unique features for most players. I would recomend you give this game a serious try, and see if the level of tactics is enough for you."

 

Honestly there is another game that has peristent worlds with hundreds of players(well use to, now it's dwindled down to small numbers). It's called Artifact and use to play that as a kid, so it has been done in the past and is possible. I like EoN but I as well was actually expecting large persistant worlds since I came from Artifact and never played SG.

Originally posted by zevni78

Originally posted by MaGicBush

"A total persistent sandbox RTS, with elements of browser stratagy mmos may seem like a great idea, but there are clearly technical problems, or it would have been done outside of the limited browser games by now. Trion may be basing this game on a previous game from over 10 yrs ago, but it hasn't been done anywhere else since, and provides some unique features for most players. I would recomend you give this game a serious try, and see if the level of tactics is enough for you."

 

Honestly there is another game that has peristent worlds with hundreds of players(well use to, now it's dwindled down to small numbers). It's called Artifact and use to play that as a kid, so it has been done in the past and is possible. I like EoN but I as well was actually expecting large persistant worlds since I came from Artifact and never played SG.

Understandable, never played Artifact, not sure if this applies but I prefer that EON is like SG, not just coz I liked SG, but persistent bases can be a real time drainer, and I prefer to play on my own terms.

 

I never played SG but this game is fun even though it's not what I expected. I will be playing at launch and glad it exists. I can see both points of view.

I too was pumped for this initially.

I figured it would be a game where i could make my little base, set up defenses and an economy, make friends and allies with those around me, and then take out attack squads and go f-up someone elses base...you know like persistant territory wars with an RTS combat and economy, only with RPG leveling of my commander who would dictate what kind of units i could make ro which ones worked better ect...even have leveling units or whatever.

Sounds like more of a LOL meets C&C4 (the worst incarnation of C&C).

Seems shallow.

Man i hated C&C4, think i played it for 5 days total.  I miss the complext defenses, setting up a secret side base for quick attacks, controlling resources...

Oh well, im sure some will really love it for what it is.