Originally posted by shadow9d9

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Then just about every mmo on the planet is instanced with your terminology.

Only the cookie cutter garbage we get nowadays... Asheron's call, from 1999, had a full open world 100x the size of any of the current games, without any need for zoning to explore it.

Finally! Someone who gets it! Thanks, Shadow9d9!

For freakin sakes, is an MMO open world concept so hard to understand? DAoC, AC and yes even WoW were open. But then came a slew of MMO's that subdivided their zones with zone walls and portals. No more climbing a mountain to find a hidden pass into the next territory, etc.

Hell, I am playing Tera Online right now, as far as I can tell so far, it's also open world design; but Warhammer was decidedly not.

Originally posted by Axxar

They're still not instanced.

Let's try to keep this simple: if a player has to go through a portal to enter the next zone, it's instanced and NOT A OPEN world design.

Originally posted by ShakyMo

 

the world in warhammer isnt instanced at all, its a zoned world just like wow.  Only wow has 4 large zones and war has 16 medium sized zones.  they dont split it off into separate instances like AOC, TSW, swtor etc..

Actually, you can see the portals, the single points of entry into the next zone, very unlike in WoW where you can enter a zone by crossing from anywhere accessible.

WAR: what went wrong?

• The world wasn't open and heavily instanced.
• The Tier System split the game and the player base up even though bolstering was available and could have mitigated the need to do such a thing.
• Scenarios vied with RvR (presumably the core of the game) and further split the player population up.
• Constant flipping and laughable city seiges completely invalidated the value of victory and defeat in RvR.
• Engine performance in large battles like Forts and later systems that were put in place to counter such problems: caps.
• Only 2 player factions, didn't even make sense from a lore stand point. (Should have been 6 factions actually, or at the least, 3 opposing.)
• Public Quests didn't ruin the game, but they didn't add much either, PvE was very weak in WAR.

Originally posted by Niix_Ozek

Originally posted by Kuldebar

Originally posted by Rhoklaw

 I won't completely disagree with CD but I can say for certain that the current implementations of CD in MMO's is not positive in any way.

 

How wonderfully inconsistent of of you!

Not positive in any way? But you don't disagree with implementing CD in MMO's?

Most people who make a distinction between the use of  collision detection between players and the procliviries of particular game engines in which they are used; observe that all of CD's supposed problems are not actually caused by CD, but by the limitations of the game engine and hardware.

It's seems an obvious point, but one that gets utterly ignored.

Not being able to walk through an object isn't a bug, it's a feature.

Not being able to walk through an object because said object  hasn't been rendered properly so you can't tell it's there and CD treats it as real and blocks you: That is a bug and a flaw in the game engine.

 

 

Hey man, what's up? Still promoting false information about why CD going to actually be a good idea for CU?

Umm, that's the topic of this thread and I don't change my position or principles based on popularity contests. Even so, it appears far more prospective CU players support collision detection implementation, so I don't expect the topic will disappear anytime soon.

Originally posted by Rhoklaw

 I won't completely disagree with CD but I can say for certain that the current implementations of CD in MMO's is not positive in any way.

How wonderfully inconsistent of of you!

Not positive in any way? But you don't disagree with implementing CD in MMO's?

Most people who make a distinction between the use of  collision detection between players and the procliviries of particular game engines in which they are used; observe that all of CD's supposed problems are not actually caused by CD, but by the limitations of the game engine and hardware.

It's seems an obvious point, but one that gets utterly ignored.

Not being able to walk through an object isn't a bug, it's a feature.

Not being able to walk through an object because said object  hasn't been rendered properly so you can't tell it's there and CD treats it as real and blocks you: That is a bug and a flaw in the game engine.

There will be no PvE, doesn't mean there won't be NPC's or the occasional mob or other environmental creatures, but the game will not reward players for killing mobs by XP or loot.

The leveling system will be via RvR and Crafting and be based on a horizontal structure versus the very common vertical model found in nearly every MMO..

I think a goal in CU will be to have a variety of activities going on simultaneously unlike the typical battle grounds of  WoW or Rift, or even WvW in GW2.

The "raid size" activities will be Castle Sieges, and unlike other PvP games, these fortifications won't be getting flipped every 10-20 minutes, thank goodness!

But a whole slew of small to medium to large conflicts will be occurring on a near constant basis because each realm will have to consolidate its holdings by fortifying positions and securing resources while protecting the realm's production sites. And, while doing all that, will have to apply constant pressure on the enemy realms in order to keep the enemy from doing the same to them.

Striking a balance between defense and offense will be a major challenge.

Little skirmishes will happen constantly as the realms move to find their equilibrium. Decisions will have to be made of whether to use resources to build or repair new positions or destroy and pillage the materials from newly conquered holds. Over extending will cost a realm a lot if the enemy realms can outflank and attack the farflung holds.

Fortified positions ranging from small entrenched camps to Keeps, Towers and Castles as well as mines and bridges will be of tangible benefit to the realm that controls them.

The reason secure bases will be useful is quite simple: they will be the only places where you can be reasonably safe to craft and process resources in order to support the war machine for your realm.

Building siege weapons, resource processing, materials for repairing/constructing fortifications, building housing, making weapons and armor all require facilities in order to be possible -nearly all of which can be destroyed or captured by the enemy realms.

And, not everything will be centered on fighting over structures and resources, roving forces will collide in open battle as they move about their business. Small groups or solo players will spy on the enemy in order to set the ground work for assaults and major forays.

Attacking the enemy where they are most vulnerable will be the key, because fortifications will be a challenge to capture and even more bitterly lost. The material and time investments to upgrade and construct such holdings will buy a reasonable degree of security for players and guilds.

So, in short, I think there will be a lot going on, big and small scale.

Originally posted by Odaman

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have no idea what caused the performance issues in war. CD alone, no I seriously doubt it, but saying it had nothing to do with it is bullshit.

No more than the steel plating in the Titanic's hull was responsible for it sinking.

As for myself, I'd point out the iceberg as being the cause.

Originally posted by Odaman

Originally posted by Malevil
Ppl saying that collision detection is required will be first to come to forums and QQ about server performance. It was great in WAR when servers worked, unplayble when there were too much ppl. Did server performance moved that much that CD will be no issue for them ? I honestly have no idea, but its feature that can easy kill the game when it will not work.

Considering how much lower their budget will be for this game as opposed to warhammer... I seriously doubt it. 

Collision detection exists in every game. It determines how game objects will intersect with each other.

Implementing it on players is a filter setting of an existing system in any game engine. It's also highly modular and can be turned off or on rather easiliy.

Originally posted by Malevil
Ppl saying that collision detection is required will be first to come to forums and QQ about server performance. It was great in WAR when servers worked, unplayble when there were too much ppl. Did server performance moved that much that CD will be no issue for them ? I honestly have no idea, but its feature that can easy kill the game when it will not work.

WAR's server performance fails weren't due to having collsion detection even though people want to conflate the two things.

Not having enemy player renders so you can see them but still being blocked by them is very annoying, but CD isn't to blame for that problem.

Originally posted by Niix_Ozek

It is an interesting few examples you put forward, none of which are however proven to be accurate.

I have played games without CD where everything you have described has happened, weird eh?

For example based on the MMO that has driven the creation of this game ( yes daoc sorry nerds i know its not daoc2 ) I have witnessed many keeps be defended by smaller forces, what allowed it? They were able to aoe them down which wouldn't have been possible with CD.

I think being able to rush the lord room or court yard created much more chaotic / random fight battles, which in the end after winning OR LOSING it had that epic feel to it!

I don't think you played daoc so this is futile as you won't understand anything i'm saying, but go play it and you will have to come up with other excuses as per why CD is more "tactical" lol ... Not everything plays out in a game as you see it in your mind.

As for "This is why Mark Jacobs doesn't want fast travel in the game."  I think you're refering to having to basically /release and revive a far distance away right?

Because he has stated he likes Speed based classes so I hope you're not refering to that. Just clerifying.

 

Never said it couldn't happen without CD only that it happens far more rarely and involves more button mashing and the foregone conclusion (with very few exceptions) is that the bigger group always wins.

The exceptions prove the rule.

Smaller forces can defend a Keep rather well because Keeps are force multipliers, as I mentioned.

CD enhances this further by allowing the same situation but using players as walls instead of just the in-game structures.

This means you can have serious contentious and dynamic conflicts nearly everywhere in the game and not just in a Keep or Castle. In open areas a larger force will have the advantage because they can surround the smaller, in a Keep or chokepoint, smaller groups will have a big boost becuase the larger group has no real space to apply their greater power.

Steam rolling gets boring rather quickly for all parties involved. I played DAoC for two years before ToA, I know very well how the was, CD would have added far more depth. The best fights are made around the last stands and the turning of the tide against an opposing force. You could do all that in DAoC but you had to use LOS tricks in order to make it happen.

(Fast travel isn't speed class related, it's instant portaling, etc.)

Originally posted by Niix_Ozek

Originally posted by Kuldebar

Originally posted by Plastic-Metal

I was right.. this post is going to hit over 20 pages of completely pointless discussion that has turned into a flamewar!

+1 to me

No plus one for you! That was entirely too predictable!

I would still play CU if it doesn't have CD, but I do think that if it is trying to attract long term hardcore RvR players, it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops.

Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small.

How would you ever have any evidence to say CD will solve this: "it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops."  ???

I don't even know what you are refering to by "Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small."

Are you saying no CD doesn't have smart tactics large or small?

If you want something more than just button mashing and the predominance of large groups of players steamrolling smaller groups, you have to allow for some real and concrete factors to play out. Otherwise, all encounters will play out the same predictable way everytime.

One such factor is force multipliers such as fortified positions that can be relatively easy to defend against a larger force. Another factor is having chokepoints or bottleneck areas that can be held to slow or stop the movement of a larger enemy force.

Collision detection means that every player has a value just by holding their ground, they can't be ignored simply by walking through them. Objectives can actually be guarded in a more tangible manner and not just be about one group of button mashers fighting another group of button mashers.

If a keep is heavily defended, it would be very costly to try to capture it, this is how it should be. This is why Mark Jacobs doesn't want fast travel in the game.

You fight the enemy where they are their weakest and you should get rewarded for doing so.

But sometimes you will just have to deal a situation.

For example, take two players who are defending a narrow chokepoint. They will delay a larger group, the larger group will have to deal with the two defenders and not just pass through them.

Additionally, it is entirely conceivable that 10 defending players could effectively hold that narrow pass because the space would only allow a small number of the opposing force to actually engage the defenders.

But, consider that the narrow space also allows for the very effective use of AoE to counter balance things for both sides.

Without CD, just run through the two or ten defenders and truck on.

Originally posted by Plastic-Metal
[mod edit]

No plus one for you! That was entirely too predictable!

I would still play CU if it doesn't have CD, but I do think that if it is trying to attract long term hardcore RvR players, it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops.

Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small.

Originally posted by Niix_Ozek

Because being in those scenarios in real life is fun ... just like its fun in a game ... NOT

Games supposed to be fun, not just emulate real life... try again.

Don't you see? Smart tactics would be encouraged because being mired down in such an engagement would not always be a foregone conclusion.

Why attack one point?

Why not have several prongs of the attack thus splitting up the defenders and placing strain upon their efforts?

If you literally can't get to a location becuase of the crowd, maybe some thought should be put toward other objectives or flanking maneuvers, etc.

A whole new way of  thinking tactically emerges when some sense of gravity and, yes, reality, are given to a situation.

I consider the more considerations players have to choose from the better, it creates a less flat experience and diversifies all the branches of player's decision tree.

Originally posted by Tumblebutz

Originally posted by Odaman
And pretty much mandatory for any CD to work.... yet people scream CD is a must have it adds strategy, and then turn around and comdemn the mechanics that are used to balance it.

Oda, I agree.  I'm kinda on the fence about CD.  It needs to be done REALLY well if it's going to work.  That means:

-Account for impenetrable blockage of chokepoints.

-Account for getting trapped in the zerg.

-Account for the possible slide-show-lag-fest at sieges.

On the other hand, without CD the game will have to:

-Account for LoS exploits like "running through," jumping, spinning and lag-casting.

-Account for an inevitable "war of numbers" at sieges.

-Try desparately to balance the CC that will be used to address the first two problems.

 

In the end, it's really a tough call.

Here's my take on some of your points:

Account for impenetrable blockage of chokepoints.

If it's impenetrable, that means it is very well and actively defended, stop attacking the enemy at their strongest point or reassess and take the fight somewhere else.

Account for getting trapped in the zerg.

Outflanking, encircling and trapping the enemy by having overwhelming numbers is part of the reason you try to have a large force in play, the counter to this are chokepoints and fortified positions, in open fields; the large force will always have the advantage if they play to their advantage wisely.

Account for the possible slide-show-lag-fest at sieges.

That kind of applies to everything in the game, so it's a rather redundant stipulation in regards to collision detection.

It's really not a tough sell at all.

Originally posted by Laec
What about a endo based CD like Ultima Online? if you have the endo to do so you can 'push' them out of the way and walk through them. personally CD drives me nuts because when there is massive zergs in an area it just turns into a cluster and you are restricted so much it makes you want to cry or punch a baby. But I could live with the UO method of CD

What you refer to is collision detection, a method based on the "mud" filter most likely.

Congratulations, you like CD in games!

Also, large hordes of players should be clusterfucks, just like in real life when you have masses of people trying to occupy a small place.

Originally posted by Odaman

I noticed the poll for CD has CD winning here, but the poll of KB,Pulls, and leaps has more people not wanting them. It's funny because with CD you need those things.... it just goes to show people don't really think deeply about things and the consequences of a decision must be put in their face for them to even consider them. 

With CD comes forced movement abilities. Leaps tend to come as a counter for those forced movement abilities. With leaps you will probably steer away from hard interrupts (that daoc had). A nice little chain that takes away more strategy than CD creates. 

Hogwash!

Having collision detection between players does not force devs to add "pulling" or "knockback" abilities to the game. That's utter rubbish. Talk about thinking deeply, sheesh!

CD doesn't mean "forced" anything, it does mean you can't walk through things with impunity.

Originally posted by dynamicipftw
So pro-CD guys which MMOs with CD had great combat? Give us names.

Every game in existence has collision detection, yes, even Tetris.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Kulde
War uses stone for enemies, mud for friendlies, not water

Also modern mmos do use cd. Ps2 and tsw for a start. Ps2 seems most relevant to what can be done with modern tech as it is a rvr game, supports 2000 players per continent (6000 per server) and unlike cu also has to deal with real time combat and bullet tracing. Although one thing is noticeable with ps2, the game features little aoe, which helps with performance a lot.

I just caught that, I pulled the description from a gaming blogger, based on his own descriptions: WAR definitely used the MUD type for friendlies in combat, and "Water: for friendlies when out of combat.

"Stone" for enemies at all times.

But, I also recall that WAR chnaged how CD worked in the game at some point.