Then why you argue over technical terms like persistent world you know nothing about? What it changes? The game fits the terms being used. You don't like what Nathan is saying as you don't like the direction game turned. That's fine. What's not fine is using your own special understanding of technical terms he uses as an excuse to attack him.
How you run fortress maps right now? In defending B I have 30- fps. Right now we can`t even get 40vs40... And massive battles were promissed a long time ago. Hard for me to belive he knows what he is talking about
It is relevant. Because it has everything to do with extremely loaded servers due to over the norm player population. He knows exactly what servers can and what they can't do. He knows what kind of quality to expect with a certain number of players per server. You are thinking up excuses to mark him as incompetent when he actually knows what he is doing.
Reality check. How do you imagine a 3000vs3000 in EC? I mean you want battle of the bastards or something? I think 1vs2 is not fun. You want something like 1vs10 to happen to you? You want some 10 CSM in black armor trying to rape you at once?
That's the gist of the problem. You guys don't know what you are talking about. But you quick and eager to blame others and mark them incompetent based on rumors, false info and your personal dissatisfaction with development progress. Look up MMO FPS open world list on wikipedia. It states 5 games, 4 titles. 2 already dead lasting 3-4 years. 2 remaining are Planetside 1/2 and Firefall. Planetside uses trusted client model which results in 30% of players running with modified game files, head hitbox larger than body and other similar cheats. That developer can't do shit about as it's the weak point of trusted client. Even then, "persistent game world" is actually a cluster of linked servers each responsible for his own area, with players silently switched from one server to another while in game. To reduce server load. Firefall uses techniques from WoW to split world in instanced zones that you switch between in similar attempt to lower server load. Both require quite high spec computers in order to avoid or minimize lag issues when a lot of players gather. Still, PS2 pays a price in form of uncathcable cheaters to provide large scale battles, while Firefall lacks any real large scale conflicts. The only game that really achieved something impressive in that field is MAG, one of the dead titles that scored 256 players battles. It was console exclusive and I guess used some trusted client stuff as well (which was more safe on consoles back then) but still had performance issues and high maintenace costs. Point is, there is no game supporting more than 64 player battles on comfortable play level that is financially viable.
I talk to you about apples, you talk about oranges. High-load server stressing games. That's why 3000vs3000 in EVE matters as experience. Because we are talking about server-heavy technology to support 100vs100 battles in EC that almost noone did.
Horse apples that is. You are talking about things that are useless and basically impractical. They don't give anything to the game. I mean how exciting it must be to participate in 3000vs3000 EVE battles. Waiting for hours for a single action to complete etc.
You are the only one arguing over technical terms. In fact, you are going out of your way to argue the point. The game is simply a lobby shooter and me saying so isn't an attack on Nathan. It is what it is. This game has more in common with a battlefield game (again, a lobby shooter) so are you going to tell me that battlefield is also a persistent world? I don't know anyone that would agree with that.
