Background Image

Persistence...just How Much Is Enough For You?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Kaldor-Draigo, Nov 25, 2013.

?

Do you want lasting changes that do not go away when you cycle back to the original map?

  1. Yes, I want e.g. SM: A Titan to destroy a Xenos base which will have to be rebuilt and expensive

    46 vote(s)
    86.8%
  2. No, I believe there should be a fair play ground each time we cycle to the same map

    7 vote(s)
    13.2%
  1. Massively Multiplayer Online Strategic Action Third Person Role Playing Game?:p
  2. Unglory Unglory Subordinate

    Forgot shooter so:
    Massively Multiplayer Online Strategic Action Third Person Shooter Role Playing Game.... lol
    MMOSATPSRPG has a nice ring to it.

    Each new Campaign should be a fresh start and have all players on an even footing, this is just for fairness.
    If the SM win and level say the Eldar starting area, it would be a handicap for the Eldar players the next Campign if their areas are already leveled and destroyed.

    But at the same time im on the fense, if i had to pick i would say no persistant changes but....
    A cool idea would be GENERAL changes. Example: Orks won this continent last time around, now the whole continent is more jungle theamed. Or the Eldar won, Winter theamed. This doesnt persistantly change the map based on battle, but still creates a player driver change via the winning faction.

    Another idea would be a public vote done by the winning faction as to what they could change. Example: SM win and have the option to vote for one of the the following:
    1. Fortress-Monstary created in the centre of the map, can be captured by anyone and netrual at start (represnts SM interests for protection/recrutiment)
    2. More mines are created throughout the map, creating the potential for more global resource potential (represents impreial economy/interests)
    3. More Manufactoriums are created thoughout the map, creating the potential for more vehicles/smaller cooldowns and small incress in global resource potential. (represents the interests of the Mechanicum and industrial drive)
    Keeps the interest of the community, keeps them involved and still creates smaller/ fairly easy to impliment changes, but can effect gameplay, missions, and Faction goals with each new play. The biggest threat ive noticed to any MMO is boredom and players playing the same content over and over again.

    Edit: when reading over i also thought to mention
    If each Campaign is 3 months, and the planet has 3 Continents on it that means 9 months before we return to the first map. If we play each map 3 times that means 27 months of gameplay, effecting three total changes per map that are driven by the winning Factions.
    Gives the Dev's 6 months to update/change maps and
    Gives the Dev's 27 months/ 2 yrs 3 months to create a new Planet (similar to what they have now to make the whole game)
    Should be lots of time/room for the Dev's to update?
    Ardenstrom, Karukus and Kaldor Draigo like this.
  3. Rabilon Karukuz Subordinate

    You expect too much.
    Only certain parts of the terrain would be possible to destroy.
    And Titans ? Sure I like them. But that opens options for Elar Titans , Ork titans , Chaos Titans and huge nids running rampant. Might as well make a giant robot game.

    This is probably the best option.
  4. Wanay Wanay Subordinate

  5. Unglory Unglory Subordinate

    Dear Crusader, Eternal Crusade is not a 3rd person shooter. Its a Massive Combat RPG with equal balance between Melee and Range depending of your Race and 40K class.
    Regards
    Miguel Caron
    Studio Head Behaviour Online

    Sorry to disagree Wanay, but this game in fundamentally a shooter with a major Melee compoent to it. For them to be "backing down from the shooter idea" is like me saying the next CoD game will be backing away from movement in their game. Its a findamental part and not something they can back away from lol. It is a shooter/melee game with RPG elements in it. I believe Miguel didnt mean the above comment to tell fans that its not a shooter, just that its not JUST a shooter.
  6. Unglory Unglory Subordinate

    Ha beat you, get out of here you slower, inferior, lesser, creature of... creature...ness. Crap, i think that one got away from me...

  7. If you look at the Gameplay Video, It's a Third Person shooter similar to Space Marine.

    It's a TPS at it's core with some RPG elements but nothing like the usual Themepark Tab Target MMO featuring 12 action bars.
  8. Kaldor Draigo Kaldor-Draigo Well-Known Member

    These are exactly the kind of changes I was talking about. Great idea btw. I think the proposed victory outcomes would not be difficult to implement for all races. Public voting sounds good, but I have a feeling they may want to limit it to e.g. a Faction's War Council to vote on.

    Regarding timescales for a campaign:

    3 months is an estimate, likely skewered to the the larger side. We could see campaigns ending a lot quicker than this.

    According to your logic, 7-9 months we would be back to the original campaign...which IMO is plenty of time to create a new continent.

    I am assuming that:
    There are lets say '3 Continents'
    1 Campaign = 1 Continent (I am assuming a Continent will comprise of several maps)

    The number of 'Maps' on these continents may change over time.
    Unglory likes this.
  9. Wanay Wanay Subordinate

    Yeah, i agree, its not just a shooter...what it will be like, who knows today. What we saw in the gameplay video recently was only a technical demonstrator, as was repeated several times by the developers, so how much was it different/similar to their vision of the final product?

    As for the persistence - the more the better for me. No resets, no arena-like short time stand-offs, even some arbitrary "campaign points" would be quite immersion breaking (like...wohoo, we orkz got 871 points this campaign, and you looser SM only 729, qq moar!!!11)
    Kaldor Draigo likes this.
  10. Ardenstrom Ardenstrom Active Member

    I really like the whole Global Multiplayer Campaign deal
    It's much more meaningful and better from the roleplay standpoint, than just bluntly taking and giving territories the way it's done in Planetside 2.

    As for permanent impact.. I think that terrain and strategic points should "reset" with every new campaign just where they were.
    But the surroundings should change, showing the impact previous battles had on the world.
    Destroyed fortresses should remain crumbling ruins but making it possible to repair them, investing resources and time into it. This is something warlords of the Council should decide. Just like in a strategy game: point and click "take this objective in the name of the Emperor! Rebuild the fortress here!" - *neeeeed moooore gold* "say what?!" *looks a the resources counter* "sh-t we gotta find us a mine. You! Grunts! Go over there and capture that mine!" =)

    You get the point

    And those destroyed buildings should be rebuilt gradually. Not just the countdown and -poof- it's magically built, but step by step, day by day, just like in any good strategy game

Share This Page