I'm going to wait until I've played it with this system before I comment either way, because it's something that I haven't seen before. I'm not gonna lie either though: I'm super excited that this game is pulling to be so unique.
the other thing to be consideed when it comes to this either its avoiding ghost capping or otherwise, is the 24/7 nature of the EC sever, if an average MMO player has ~3 hours they can commit to a game during weekdays and we assume a peak usage time of between 1700-2100 (thats 5pm - 9pm) so there will be a couple of times every 24 hours where player populations are at their minimal, usually on an instanced server system this means they all get grouped together and a population decline is barely noticable, on EC's server system though it may be rather different
Interesting to see what a single global server would do to counter that Tarl. Not that I'm expecting every international time bracket to be equally hectic but it will have an effect on peak times much like it does on Steam usage.
lol, demographics gives us the averages, for example ... yes it will be, I'm actually looking forward to it considering I and other "oceania" players will probably be in the least populated gaming window lol the point I was trying to shine a light on with this was that with a mimimal population online at at least twice a day, the chances of "stealing" objectives that would otherwise be highly defended during peak population becomes possible, while we want large objectives to be major conflicts we cant entirely rule out allowing smaller unit sizes being able to accomplish things during the low population times
Hey, if you want to ask about anything in here don't forget Community Q&A thread #12 is taking Question submissions atm. Posting this message to a few interesting threads. Edit: Fixed my sig, thanks @BikerTroll-io
I have mixed feelings about this. I like it and dislike it. I'm excited to try it out yet hesitant for this approach. It's something I can't truly say I am on board with without getting my hands on it. But I'll try to summarize my thoughts. Take a seat folks, rant story time. "But I'm already seated." Okay overachiever go get yourself a cookie. So I can understand the reasoning. Have the standard troops, who I assume would make up a bulk of major forces, push for that objective while allowing specialists to do their thing. Such as assault classes want to stay mobile they don't want to be in a position where enemies can predict where they are which an objective would be. With this also I don't expect players to just throw themselves into combat (well Assaults still will but that's their thing). They'll, well, tactically advance to push and gain ground and to stay alive to PTFO. While other classes do what their classes do best and allow the tacticals to push forward. Assaults flank battle lines, get attention and intercept any other assaults. heavy weapons fire so many rounds at targets it would make Terminator grin. Supports keep everyone in the fight and make enemies rage at their team for not targeting the supports first. "Tools to actually capture things" does that mean it will be part of tactical load out? Though of the classes, Tactical, Assault, Havoc, Apothecary. Which would likely carry equipment to achieve an objective such as hacking a console or planting demo charges (granted this can be assault but I couldn't think of another example). To be dependent on 1 class for ultimate victory seems questionable. Even nonsensical. But in a capture scenario if a group manages to get to an objective, if there's not at least 1 tactical that successful push suddenly becomes very close to a failure. Sure the group has the ground but what if it's extended ground? Then they're cut off and basically in a desperate last stand hoping teammates, tacticals specifically, fight their way back to them and secure a path for PTFOing. Reliance on tacticals in that scenario doesn't seem appealing. But given what I said before that bulk of forces are likely to be made up of tacticals add onto that the reliance on them for PTFOing, that would be more true. Also true that enemies need to focus fire the tacs and supports to stop advances. Even if enemies get through if they're not tacticals you won't lose anything. Also true that players amy feel pressured to play a tactical. Could wind up being a "MORE DOTS TACS! WE NEED MORE TACS!" situation everywhere. Maybe Tacs just cap better than other classes? Possibly a chance for asymmetric play between factions. What would fill a tactical role for Eldar? Dire Avengers I assume but can be Fire Dragon if things need to go boom. For orks? Sluggas and shootas. With Eldar having so many specialist classes reliance on the dire avenger class would possibly force players like me who have no intention of playing DA to play them. Which would result in me not putting points in my DA because no interest or being forced to do so to feel effective, which takes away effectiveness from other desired class progressions. With more choices (6 basic classes vs 4 in LSM) the classes that don't impact objectives would be smaller in number. Of course I could be wrong. But that's my thinking now. Which feels like I'm over thinking and just throwing too many darts at a board I can't see. Could just be tacticals are the only ones that capture domination style flags (stand around in area to claim ground). But then would other classes not be able to contest the cap? It would just continue to cap if tacticals were in it but no Dire Avengers?
I like what yo usaid but da first part.... If i am sitting down get a cookie?.. then im not sitting So do i still get the cookie? Und when i get back to sitting down do i need to reget another cookie... Its a Cookie Paradox.
