I'm still wondering how WWII Online pulled off the size and scope of battles they achieved over 10 years ago with one monstrously huge, continuous game world. Granted the graphics were(and still are) dated. Still to see 50+ in your vent channel knowing there's probably at least 3 or 4 other friendly squads with 10 to 30 or more players in the same general area plus random lone wolves everywhere with around the same number of enemy players in the AO. And that's just one battle around ONE town. There could be another similar sized battle or multiple smaller battles raging elsewhere at the same time. That many players on land, at sea and in the air with frame rates still good enough to allow flight sim quality PVP air combat overhead, with every shot being tracked. How is that possible and why has no other game done what they've been doing for the last 14 years?
From his latest thread of course. We all know by now Nathan only talks through facts, so his estimate of hundreds in this following post should at least already has some data to back it up. http://www.tentonhammer.com/intervi...-nathan-richardson-megaservers-and-open-world
Ill believe it when i see it. The goal was Terminators on launch, the goal was open world, the goal was one world server, the goal was getting EA quite earlier (in whatever form at the time) etc. I wouldnt hold onto any goal at this point and flaunt it around, it backfired in the communities face before multiple times (myself included). Now that having more then 2 factions duking it out would be another goal that is no longer applicable its even less logical to tie oneself to the current goals. Thats an interview, while in the now closed thread, when people were using PS2 scale to get a better feel of what we will be getting we got the answers akin to a bicycle riding Horus not knowing the future. I might sound jaded, but i guess thats because i am indeed jaded. Just that i didnt have the energy to write how much i dislike this change as well.
Yep, From what I learnt from Nathan is that in the beginning they'll focus ONLY on two faction battles and they won't move further untill they get it right. Ofc they aim for 3,4 faction battles but it's too early now to throw any deadlines.
I would rather get 10 things implemented correctly than 100 things implemented incorrectly. If 3-Faction battles make the game stutter or less enjoyable, remove it. I'd rather see a game based on skill, determination, and cooperation of leaders rather than an endless battle decided by how many numbers each side has. Lag Farms aren't fun. They're an inverted pyramid of elitism from players that know how to exploit certain areas and weaponry against players who are trying to learn the game. Aiming for larger battles between more factions just accelerates the elitism of everyone wanting to be the hero, but nobody wanting to be the line soldier. It suffocates the newer player base in endless death. I actually enjoy where Nathan is heading with all this and commend his realist approach to the situation at hand. This isn't a game yet. It's a development project with an extremely engaging developer team that shares far more than others with their community. Support it, give feedback, and be positive in all response or just don't comment at all.
